the red card rule discussion

[Football Factory]

Feel much the same as BM and Gigantor, I don't trust the umps to police it and I think players could take advantage of it also.

[Holz]

Total overreaction to a few incidents. If it ain't broke...

it is broken I hit you, you cant come back on the field its not 3 on the bench to 4. thats a major advantage especially if other injuries occur. Lets say you have 2 injured players like GWS did this week. Taking out a player would bring them down to 1 on the bench and could basically win you a game.

[Ricochet]

Total overreaction to a few incidents. If it ain't broke...

it is broken I hit you, you cant come back on the field its not 3 on the bench to 4. thats a major advantage especially if other injuries occur. Lets say you have 2 injured players like GWS did this week. Taking out a player would bring them down to 1 on the bench and could basically win you a game.

It also costs the team in the coming weeks because they have to bring in a lesser player.

It nearly evens itself out.

Say it was Ablett and not Jonas.... Or actually May for his hit on Martin. He's seriously cost GC.

[elephants]

Total overreaction to a few incidents. If it ain't broke...

it is broken I hit you, you cant come back on the field its not 3 on the bench to 4. thats a major advantage especially if other injuries occur. Lets say you have 2 injured players like GWS did this week. Taking out a player would bring them down to 1 on the bench and could basically win you a game.

It also costs the team in the coming weeks because they have to bring in a lesser player.

It nearly evens itself out.

Say it was Ablett and not Jonas.... Or actually May for his hit on Martin. He's seriously cost GC.

But didn't at all effect GC in their match against Brissie.

Lions lost their #1 ruck (and only ruck) meaning one of their forwards essentially had to ruck the rest of the game. Structurally a massive loss.

This example would work remarkably better if the Suns actually won though haha

[Ricochet]

Total overreaction to a few incidents. If it ain't broke...

it is broken I hit you, you cant come back on the field its not 3 on the bench to 4. thats a major advantage especially if other injuries occur. Lets say you have 2 injured players like GWS did this week. Taking out a player would bring them down to 1 on the bench and could basically win you a game.

It also costs the team in the coming weeks because they have to bring in a lesser player.

It nearly evens itself out.

Say it was Ablett and not Jonas.... Or actually May for his hit on Martin. He's seriously cost GC.

But didn't at all effect GC in their match against Brissie.

Lions lost their #1 ruck (and only ruck) meaning one of their forwards essentially had to ruck the rest of the game. Structurally a massive loss.

This example would work remarkably better if the Suns actually won though haha

Nah man, its an example of going forward he's cost GC.

[elephants]

Total overreaction to a few incidents. If it ain't broke...

it is broken I hit you, you cant come back on the field its not 3 on the bench to 4. thats a major advantage especially if other injuries occur. Lets say you have 2 injured players like GWS did this week. Taking out a player would bring them down to 1 on the bench and could basically win you a game.

It also costs the team in the coming weeks because they have to bring in a lesser player.

It nearly evens itself out.

Say it was Ablett and not Jonas.... Or actually May for his hit on Martin. He's seriously cost GC.

But didn't at all effect GC in their match against Brissie.

Lions lost their #1 ruck (and only ruck) meaning one of their forwards essentially had to ruck the rest of the game. Structurally a massive loss.

This example would work remarkably better if the Suns actually won though haha

Nah man, its an example of going forward he's cost GC.

I agree with that, its royally screwed them.

Still doesn't address the issue of the gameday impact on the opposition team though.

[Holz]

Total overreaction to a few incidents. If it ain't broke...

it is broken I hit you, you cant come back on the field its not 3 on the bench to 4. thats a major advantage especially if other injuries occur. Lets say you have 2 injured players like GWS did this week. Taking out a player would bring them down to 1 on the bench and could basically win you a game.

It also costs the team in the coming weeks because they have to bring in a lesser player.

It nearly evens itself out.

Say it was Ablett and not Jonas.... Or actually May for his hit on Martin. He's seriously cost GC.

they team getting hit doesnt beneift. Inf fact you could argue it even works against them. Say Im a port player and I hit a dee. In that game the dees are short and port then win. Then port comes up against the crows and they have lost a player and then lose. That actually hurts the dees again.

thats an extreme case but the team getting hit is disadvantaged for that game and potentially longer the team doing the hit should be aswell.

if its only used in extreme cases its pretty straight forward in my option. Now playing with 17 now thats debatbale.

[fanTCfool]

Unpopular Opinion #344:
If the Red Card was to be introduced, it should be determined from upstairs by a the third umpire who has the ability to look over the footage. If he/she deems that a red card is needed for the incident, then a message is sent down to that useless emergency umpire on the benches who can show the red card to the offending player.

[Ringo]

Why did this only come up when Jonas hit Gaff and not when May hit Martin or Rance hit Watts??

Not needed in our game.

Because it was the Lions and not Eagles  ;)  Raised it at the time how we were disadvantaged but not much comment.

[Toga]

Don't think it's needed but if it were to be introduced then:

Unpopular Opinion #344:
If the Red Card was to be introduced, it should be determined from upstairs by a the third umpire who has the ability to look over the footage. If he/she deems that a red card is needed for the incident, then a message is sent down to that useless emergency umpire on the benches who can show the red card to the offending player.

Is exactly how I think it would have to be implemented.

[Gigantor]

Side note:

Jonas guilty of intentional striking, not careless striking. AFL counsel pushing for 7 weeks, jury deliberating.

[My Chumps]

Total overreaction to a few incidents. If it ain't broke...

it is broken I hit you, you cant come back on the field its not 3 on the bench to 4. thats a major advantage especially if other injuries occur. Lets say you have 2 injured players like GWS did this week. Taking out a player would bring them down to 1 on the bench and could basically win you a game.

Exactly what Ric's saying.

Fortunately, due to the MRP (as much as they are terribly inconsistent) and modern tech capturing games, people aren't going deliberately outside the rules to injure players for the benefit of one game. It just doesn't happen. It still happens in country footy which is why red cards are necessary at lower levels, but it doesn't happen at AFL level.

In the Jonas/Gaff incident, it was a split second decision fuelled by frustration to go in with that deliberate elbow. Now he's looking at 7 weeks (rightly so). I have no doubt that Jonas and Port are wishing he didn't do it. The punishment far outweighs the potential in game benefits.

It's easy to point at some very few isolated incidents and say it's unfair, but the subsequent punishment is more than enough to deter players from doing this shower.

[Holz]

Total overreaction to a few incidents. If it ain't broke...

it is broken I hit you, you cant come back on the field its not 3 on the bench to 4. thats a major advantage especially if other injuries occur. Lets say you have 2 injured players like GWS did this week. Taking out a player would bring them down to 1 on the bench and could basically win you a game.

Exactly what Ric's saying.

Fortunately, due to the MRP (as much as they are terribly inconsistent) and modern tech capturing games, people aren't going deliberately outside the rules to injure players for the benefit of one game. It just doesn't happen. It still happens in country footy which is why red cards are necessary at lower levels, but it doesn't happen at AFL level.

In the Jonas/Gaff incident, it was a split second decision fuelled by frustration to go in with that deliberate elbow. Now he's looking at 7 weeks (rightly so). I have no doubt that Jonas and Port are wishing he didn't do it. The punishment far outweighs the potential in game benefits.

It's easy to point at some very few isolated incidents and say it's unfair, but the subsequent punishment is more than enough to deter players from doing this shower.

yes but the eagles and GC have been disadvantaged from a clearly illegal act. The fact that May Jonas misses games benefits them in no way.

I also dont think it does any good having that player on the field, when someone does something clearly wrong it will flair up tensions and create more chances of people being rubbed out. 

[My Chumps]

Total overreaction to a few incidents. If it ain't broke...

it is broken I hit you, you cant come back on the field its not 3 on the bench to 4. thats a major advantage especially if other injuries occur. Lets say you have 2 injured players like GWS did this week. Taking out a player would bring them down to 1 on the bench and could basically win you a game.

Exactly what Ric's saying.

Fortunately, due to the MRP (as much as they are terribly inconsistent) and modern tech capturing games, people aren't going deliberately outside the rules to injure players for the benefit of one game. It just doesn't happen. It still happens in country footy which is why red cards are necessary at lower levels, but it doesn't happen at AFL level.

In the Jonas/Gaff incident, it was a split second decision fuelled by frustration to go in with that deliberate elbow. Now he's looking at 7 weeks (rightly so). I have no doubt that Jonas and Port are wishing he didn't do it. The punishment far outweighs the potential in game benefits.

It's easy to point at some very few isolated incidents and say it's unfair, but the subsequent punishment is more than enough to deter players from doing this shower.

yes but the eagles and GC have been disadvantaged from a clearly illegal act. The fact that May Jonas misses games benefits them in no way.

I also dont think it does any good having that player on the field, when someone does something clearly wrong it will flair up tensions and create more chances of people being rubbed out.

But it's soooo rare is my point because of the legislative deterrence imposed post-game.

It's happened twice this year in 9 rounds of football. Total overreaction.

[PowerBug]

And in both cases the team that lost the player still won the game.

Overreaction