Is it time for a Red Card in the AFL?

Andrew Gaff on the bench after the Brayshaw incident

Source: www.sportingnews.com

Yeah, it’s been a while since I have been here. Have thought about a few contributions to the blog but never got around to them. However, given the Andrew Gaff incident on the weekend in the Western Derby, along with other similar offences over time, perhaps there is need for discussion about how to even up the contest in these situations.

Let’s face it, the team with the injured player has one less player to use for substitutions (which are capped at 90 per game) and therefore those players are fatigued quicker which obviously provides an advantage to the team whose player caused the injury. The earlier in the game that this happens could lead to a greater advantage for the offending team.

So, how could the AFL rectify the potential advantage created when a player is injured during the match. That is, does the idea of a red card system have merit in the AFL?

Now, I’m all for Aussie Rules Football that is played tough and hard, but it needs to be done in a fair manner. Aussie Rules is a very physical game in nature, so there is no need to be unfair or against the rules when it comes to physicality on the field.

Unlike sports such as Association Football or Rugby Union, AFL is a high scoring game that is played over a much larger field and for a longer period. Even though the playing time is specified at 80 mins, the clock is stopped quite regularly in Aussie Rules for any score, boundary throw-ins, free-kicks etc. A quarter in Aussie Rules usually lasts around 30 mins so players can be active up to 120 mins during a match. Based on this it becomes unfeasible to have one team with a player short on the field for any length of time as the match would end up being too one-sided.

I have been giving this scenario some thought over the last year or so and perhaps the answer lies in a combination of two ideas. The idea that the player responsible for the incident is no longer allowed to participate in the match is valid. However, we don’t want to make the contest too one-sided by having one less player on the field for one team.

Therefore, we could take the middle ground so that the offending player takes no further part in the game and the offending team keeps 18 players on the field during the game.

This effectively gives the offending team the same resources that the team with the injured player now has for the duration of the game. However, this idea does have a limitation in that in a Grand Final a team could select an average player to deliberately cause injury to a star player early in the match. This would remove both players from the contest but the offending team benefits as the star player for the opposition no longer has an impact.

Another idea and my preferred one, could be to remove the player through substitution and then remove all remaining interchanges for the offending team. Imagine if a team has their No.1 ruckman, midfielder and forward on the bench when the offence occurred and they could not return to the field. The team would have to make one substitution to even up the players on the field and would need to make a choice between the ruckman, midfielder or forward.

Again, this idea could be “gamed” somewhat, but it provides an option for the AFL to consider in removing the potential advantage for a team during the game. Of course, the offending player is likely to be suspended after the match as they would most likely face the tribunal and this affects the club in subsequent weeks.

However, the aim also is to provide an in-game deterrent so that an incident such as Gaff’s on the weekend does not occur. Let's see how the AFL tackles this situation in the coming weeks.