SA Footy

woodublieve12 wrote:I actually had one of my mates on Facebook try and explain that Gaff was unlucky and the players injuries shouldn't be taken into account

You have some strange mates then.

End if the day he's not a bad person just made a really bad decision and a bad act. The result of which has a young player with significant injuries.

He now has the consequence of the action.

Was 8 games enough? I don't know. It's hard to work that on out. But that's what the AFL have handed out.

woodublieve12 wrote:I actually had one of my mates on Facebook try and explain that Gaff was unlucky and the players injuries shouldn't be taken into account

The injuries to Brayshaw definitely have to be taken into account. I think your mate is thinking how many times do you see a hit like that not break someone's jaw & teeth.

stan wrote:

woodublieve12 wrote:I actually had one of my mates on Facebook try and explain that Gaff was unlucky and the players injuries shouldn't be taken into account

You have some strange mates then.

End if the day he's not a bad person just made a really bad decision and a bad act. The result of which has a young player with significant injuries.

He now has the consequence of the action.

Was 8 games enough? I don't know. It's hard to work that on out. But that's what the AFL have handed out.

not disputing that

Gaff had a brain fade, with 170 odd games to his name and zero reports you know he's not a sh#t human. His reaction alone on the day proves hes incredibly remorseful. But it does take one mistake to tarnish a career.... Hopefully this doesn't but it was incredibly dumb and he deserves everyone one of those 8 weeks

cracka wrote:

woodublieve12 wrote:I actually had one of my mates on Facebook try and explain that Gaff was unlucky and the players injuries shouldn't be taken into account

The injuries to Brayshaw definitely have to be taken into account. I think your mate is thinking how many times do you see a hit like that not break someone's jaw & teeth.

considering in a court of law injuries are definitely taken into account, I cant see why this is any different

woodublieve12 wrote:

cracka wrote:

woodublieve12 wrote:I actually had one of my mates on Facebook try and explain that Gaff was unlucky and the players injuries shouldn't be taken into account

The injuries to Brayshaw definitely have to be taken into account. I think your mate is thinking how many times do you see a hit like that not break someone's jaw & teeth.

considering in a court of law injuries are definitely taken into account, I cant see why this is any different

How many of us have ever thrown a punch that if connected could have done some serious damage. I think your mate is saying that Gaff is unlucky that he got Brayshaw in the right (for lack of a better word) spot. Mark Brayshaw said he doesn't believe Gaff intended to hurt his son at all.

8 is about right.
Won't play again this year and if all the stars aligned he could miss out on a flag.

Hopefully this sends a message that if you are being scragged and mauled your only recourse is to square up legally.
IE a Varcoe type bump, in play, and not head high.

tigerpie wrote:8 is about right.
Won't play again this year and if all the stars aligned he could miss out on a flag.

Hopefully this sends a message that if you are being scragged and mauled your only recourse is to square up legally.
IE a Varcoe type bump, in play, and not head high.

Or you could just keep getting the ball, help your team win and have the last laugh.

cracka wrote:

woodublieve12 wrote:I actually had one of my mates on Facebook try and explain that Gaff was unlucky and the players injuries shouldn't be taken into account

The injuries to Brayshaw definitely have to be taken into account. I think your mate is thinking how many times do you see a hit like that not break someone's jaw & teeth.

The injuries certainly have to be taken into account when it comes to assessing the impact - medical reports are obviously a good indicator of this.

However, when it comes to assessing the intention of the reported player, the player's injuries are arguably less relevant.

Nevertheless, it is not unfair to take the victim's injuries into account when deciding the penalty given that the ultimate aim of suspending players is to deter these sorts of actions.

Given Barry Hall technically got ten weeks for the hit on Staker (albeit reduced due to the guilty plea), I think eight for a guy with a clean record is about right.

Of course if he does it again, you could probably double the penalty.

Booney wrote:

tigerpie wrote:8 is about right.
Won't play again this year and if all the stars aligned he could miss out on a flag.

Hopefully this sends a message that if you are being scragged and mauled your only recourse is to square up legally.
IE a Varcoe type bump, in play, and not head high.

Or you could just keep getting the ball, help your team win and have the last laugh.

Yeah I get that but when you are constantly being belted, pushed and dragged off the ball unfairly a certain amount of frustration builds up.
That has to be released somehow.
You have to be some superhuman to absorb it without lashing out.

What do people think Gaff gets if he misses the face and hits thin air?

whufc wrote:What do people think Gaff gets if he misses the face and hits thin air?

What do people think Gaff gets if he misses the face and hits the chest?

The Bedge wrote:

whufc wrote:What do people think Gaff gets if he misses the face and hits thin air?

What do people think Gaff gets if he misses the face and hits the chest?

What do people think Gaff gets if he misses the chest and hits the jatz crackers?

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:

The Bedge wrote:

whufc wrote:What do people think Gaff gets if he misses the face and hits thin air?

What do people think Gaff gets if he misses the face and hits the chest?

What do people think Gaff gets if he misses the chest and hits the jatz crackers?

A seeing eye dog?

Sent from my F8131 using Tapatalk

Was it 10 down to 8 for a good record?

Brodlach wrote:Was it 10 down to 8 for a good record?

I though it deserved 10 FWIW.

tigerpie wrote:

Booney wrote:

tigerpie wrote:8 is about right.
Won't play again this year and if all the stars aligned he could miss out on a flag.

Hopefully this sends a message that if you are being scragged and mauled your only recourse is to square up legally.
IE a Varcoe type bump, in play, and not head high.

Or you could just keep getting the ball, help your team win and have the last laugh.

Yeah I get that but when you are constantly being belted, pushed and dragged off the ball unfairly a certain amount of frustration builds up.
That has to be released somehow.
You have to be some superhuman to absorb it without lashing out.

Gaff admitted at the tribunal that there were no circumstances like this

Of course he's gonna say that at the tribunal.
I bet he didn't say anything about Johnsons hit on him either.

A combination of putting up with it every week...
and where he's going to be next season. Massive pressure on the bloke. He broke!
Like most of us would.

cracka wrote: How many of us have ever thrown a punch that if connected could have done some serious damage. I think your mate is saying that Gaff is unlucky that he got Brayshaw in the right (for lack of a better word) spot. Mark Brayshaw said he doesn't believe Gaff intended to hurt his son at all.

My view is that the McNaughton Rule is basic to anyone getting off being responsible for their actions at any time:
- There is in this a presumption, that the defendant is sane, and that they are responsible for their criminal acts.
- At the time of the crime, the defendant must have been suffering from a “disease of the mind” to be able to claim they did not know what there were doing or that it was "wrong", and even if there is a “disease of the mind” the defendant may still know the nature and likely consequences of their action and know at the it is a wrong action according to social values and the law.

When I've given evidence in court in such matters - the last time was in 2009 - my view (and the generally supported one in the system) is that anyone who is not severely psychotic, or suffering a condition like Temporal Lobe Epilepsy which can trigger episodes of violent behaviour in a semi-conscious state, is responsible for their behaviour at all times regardless of what other pressure thay are under.

Anything else is a cop out, and saying sorry after such an action when not insane (or acting unconsciously such as in TLE) does not wash.