He should never play again. Disgusting.
I do that in my work place, I'm deregistered and working at Coles.

Yeah it brings up 2 things for mine.

1. How the AFL still doesn't have some sort of send off system is amazing. I understand some in football have concerns about how it is used (ie, gets used to send off players in cases with some ambiguity) but in cut and dry cases like this there has to be a method to send players off.

2. Criminal charges. As mentioned above, how is this different to an assault on the street or in the stands? This isn't a criticism unique to AFL, but whenever something like this happens the standard footy talking heads trot out the "what happens on the field stays on the field" tripe. This was assault which has caused significant damage to another person.

Will likely get 8-10 weeks

Sadly some sections of the media have played favourites already and given him a chance to apologise on air after the game and said stuff like it's out of character etc.

Other players get crucified and called thugs by the same people for less without the chance to apologise on air after the game.

Sports media in this country is a joke.

And thats it. Due to the pressure from the footy establishment to leave it on the field, the kid won't dare press charges for fear about being labelled and blacklisted. The establishment don't want guys crimminally charged for stuff that happens on the footy field - Gaff is a "good bloke" after all.

@anon pretty sure that happened in Phillipines so different jurisdiction.

The criminal things is a interesting angle and i'm not advocating either way but with such a push from media and sporting codes to stop the cowards punch surely at least some sort of court appearance and corrections order etc would seem within reason of what a person on the street would cop for a similar incident.

Never a fan of the "out of character" narrative as thats what every person trots out closely followed by "mental health" when they do or get caught doing the wrong thing.

There is a pretty clear difference between a tackle gone wrong and a punch. One is part of the game, the other is not.

The AFL better hope Brayshaw is able to come back and have a good career. Imagine if complications from this result in him never playing again or playing very little. Could there be a civil case against Gaff, the Eagles or even the AFL for night providing a safe working environment. Loss of potential earnings could be in the millions.

The suggestion of criminal charges are ludicrous. If I sling tackle someone and concuss them in the street I'd also be facing charges so the idea that Gaff should face some sort of legal action is ridiculous and a very slippery slope which UI'm not sure we want to go down.

That was really horrific to watch.

And the Phillipino guy was justified because his stickers were taken away remember.

I don't follow the AFL, but partook in the watching of the "derby" in Perth.

I don't understand the inconsequential roughness of AFL. What's the point of it?

Players are used to it, and do it "just because". How does it lead to more point production or defence?

In today's day and age surely the roughhousing is meaningless as these are now pro-athletes not bogans with great hand-eye coordination.

My unbias opinion is the Eagles player went for one of those meaningless "jersey punches" and missed, resulting in a broken jaw.

Should the AFL ban this type of contact?

I understand AFL fans like this roughhousing aspect of the game, but surely player safety has to come into it.

If the roughhousing serves no impact on the game, should it not be outlawed to prevent accidents like this happening in the future?

Completely agreed, and this kind of stuff happens at all levels of footy and considered "part of the game". It adds nothing and is frankly embarrassing to watch at times grown men carry on like 15 year olds.

The idea that because its a contact sport this stuff cant be helped is equally false. Rugby Union in comparison does a great job with disciplining players who step out of line with this kind of "harmless" stuff. The governing body has to demand a higher standard and bring in sanctions to match, but the old boys of AFL would rather the game disappeared that go "soft"

I think the unnecessary contact is what is holding the sport back from being taken seriously internationally.

Why should one player be touching another player if the ball is not in play or a player isn't making a move for the ball or a lead for a pass?

The physical contact during play is fine, but the random punches, elbows and shoves are so meaningless now. What's the point.

In general the AFL really doesn't help their own cause when it comes to how inconsistent they are with these things, and the way they love "taking a stand" on things but then also totally cave on their own stances when they become slightly inconvenient.

On this occasion though, it ain't a grey area.
But I think the AFL would be better off if they weren't so contradictory about how they see punching in general. Maybe Brayshaw might still even have his teeth if it was more ingrained in players that clenching their fist and hitting someone is a no-no at all times.

Should be 4 week down to 3:

Gaff has good record

Gaff targeted by dockers from before first bounce. they sniped him every chance they got, hitting him in the back behind play, pushing his face into dirt after tackle (not just him either). They knew they couldn't win and went out of their way to dump blokes and punch them behind the play. pretty ordinary.

Brayshaw pushed him and Gaff, after being targeted all game, took a swing, aiming to hit him in the chest or shoulder - this kind of thing happens every week and is never addressed. Every single week and the umpires do nothing - it is unnecessary and now we see the results.

The only difference this week is that Gaff hit him in the jaw. It was not a strong hit, he didn't mean to get him in the face and Brayshaw leaned into it. hit him in just the wrong spot to break his jaw - a fluke given how slim Gaff is - not capable of doing it on purpose.

Comparing him to barry hall is a joke. hall is a thug. Gaff is not. plain and simple.

dockers then have the gall to claim the moral high ground. ross the loss trying to influence tribunal is disgusting. it was not 100m off the ball, nor was it a king hit as he claimed. He doesn't have a problem when his players do it - ie ballantyne punching blokes in the back, aiming for kidneys and such.

then they blame the crowd for cheering him. The incident was NOT shown on the big screen. No-one knew what had happened. Everyone cheered him because dockers were targeting him, like they had been all game and he got up after being deliberately lined up and taken out - umpires blind to their dirty tactics and deserve some of the blame for letting the game get so out of control. WCE fans entitled to support their players - rest of competition does it with no problems.

the media all jump on the same bandwagon - once one bloke brings up a topic they all follow along blindly. WTF was pavlich commentating a derby - biased - and once he opened his big mouth the narrative was written - never mind the truth. most of them wouldn't have watched the game - saw one incident and didn't look at the context - they all believe he deliberately went out of his way to hospitalise him - untrue.

typical Vic media will do what they want - don't give a toss about the truth.


broke a guy's jaw - 4 weeks - good record - down to 3: justice.

The crazy thing is they are not calling it a coward punch, they are calling it a 'king hit'

AFL web site, multiple news sites.

Disgraceful considering how long ago they changed the term to coward punch in order to not approve of such a pointless and defenseless act.

Only weeks ago the AFL ( I mean Channel 7 news web sites) were saying how the Phillo / boomers melee was a blight on the game and the real loser was the game. Here they are now streaming stacks of articles saying that it is out of character and won't affect the guys trade value.

Not once (only read two articles but seen many article headings) have they said that this sort of contact should not happen within their 'great game'

As somebody said, Neanderthal sport which needs to move with the times and stamp out the embarrassing pushing and shoving that server little to the games outcome.

And no, I am not an AFL supporter and don't watch games. But given how this event is pasted across the media today I can't avoid it. No sport is without its issues, but this is one that should be easy to eradicate as as certainly don't want my son playing a game where he can potentially have his teeth knocked out for minding his own business 100m away from the action.

"Should be 4 week down to 3"

LOL! If he got 5 he could count himself extremely lucky.
I think it's 6-8, and because hypothetically the Eagles could play in a GF in 7 weeks time, he won't get less than 7.

Put Gaff before the FIBA panel, tell 'em his mum is a Philo and he'll get two weeks and a pat on the bum.

It's not a "coward punch" (pka "king hit") if you're facing and tussling.
Just saying.

Penalty will be what it will be. AFL has a matrix for most offences, so it may well be less than what we expect.
FYI worse hits have historically only attracted terms of around 5~6 weeks.

And lets not forget that Conklin got nothing for his hit on Martin.

As for "not being able to eat solid food", the Wildcats are sending Martin around to offer nutritional advice.

Unfortunately this is a cultural legacy that the AFL has yet to stamp out. I've had occasions at work where I got so worked up, I had a nose-bleed. Yet it never occurred to me to punch somebody. End of the day, in a game of footy you can at least push and shove your opponent. Absolutely no excuse for swinging with a fist.
Unfortunately the AFL also has a history of excusing such behaviour under provocation, which sends completely the wrong message.

He'll probably get 8 weeks.

He deserves 12 I reckon. Half a season on the sidelines- no chance of finals, and a significant dent in his new contract seems about fair for a cowardly punch that left an opponent in such dire straits and potentially derails a career.

Whether it's out of character or not, fact is, he did it, it was very ugly, and it's a bad look for the game. These guys are considered role models in society- whether they like it or not. The AFL being too lenient would indeed run counter to the current focus on one punch assaults. This wider context needs to be factored into the penalty.

Good read on ABC- some backstory on Brayshaw's family is interesting

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-06/brayshaw-gaff-why-random-act-of-violence-is-shocking/10076978

Criminal charges would send a message. I'm not against it at all. The "stays on the field" thing isn't a helpful approach given the wider societal context mentioned above.

There will come a day when someone is killed or is put in a wheel chair due to a an field assault and then, maybe then, idiotic traditionalists will stop defending such assaults as "part of the game".

The Matthews hit on Bruns in 1985 can be seen here (at 1.24 mark).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyWs7_U5LDk

Matthews faced criminal charges at the time.

I believe it is the last time that a AFL/VFL footballer has faced a criminal charge from on field assault.

Prior to that it was the O'Dea hit on one of my favorite players John Greening in around 1972 which left Greening a mess thereafter.

The rules of the game kind of highlight the "coward punch" aspect of the incident. The fact that you can niggle and do certain things without the slightest thought that you might get a punch in the mouth leads to guys not having their hands up.
The NRL has gone a bit the same way since they banned punching, with more niggly stuff. When Curtis Scott from Melbourne lost his shit and retaliated against a known niggler and trash talker many in the media wanted to try and call that a "coward punch" as well. Loads of former players disagreed and said if you want to be a tough talker you need to have your hands up. "Talk shit get hit"

From footage I've seen in old days of the VFL/AFL it was more commonplace. Rarely happens now.

This will not get you suspended the 2018 AFL, so it should be no surprise to anyone that one went wrong sooner rather than later given that there's virtually no discouragement by the league for this type of stuff:

The above GIF is a good point. If that punch gets the wrong angle he could have broken the Essendon players jaw as it doesn't take alot of power to break a jaw.

The AFL have let most of the punching go on because it didn't cause injury but perhaps the actual action of punching someone needs to be what gets blokes suspended, that said start players (particularly Melbourne based) will always get away with the jumper and gut punches.

Another reason the AFL have let it go on is because they are piss weak from the top down, and will readily bend whichever way the breeze is blowing that day. Combine that with the fact that a lot of AFL people in the media are boofhead ex-players who scoff at punches to the gut as "pffft... nothing in that! get off the ground, stop sooking and play on" and you end up with where we are now.

Forgot to throw in the old macho favourite "Come on, this is meant to be footy not basketball"

This is the difference between and Aussie punch and a filipino punch. The filipino team are lucky we didn't punch back.

I didn't realise that.

AFL just doesn't make any sense.

Too many loop holes in the sport.

One thing is certain in all of this uncertainty, that is the AFL's interpretations of their own rules, the match review committee and tribunal process are all inconsistent.

But then again, most sports are...

They only crow about these types of incidents when it becomes a knee jerk reaction to something serious happening, so now the focus has been on the symptoms and not the causes to these types of incidents for far too long.

Their whole ethos has moved towards a 'what was the resulting injury' instead of 'what was the action' and 'was it against the rules' to determine their stance and punishment.

The AFL community is spending endless time and effort trying to come up with crazy and useless ideas of how to 'fix the state of the game', yet they are missing the obvious for all their rhetoric.

As far as striking is concerned, outlaw it, any player who strikes another player with a clenched fist, anywhere (body, arm, head, whatever) gets one week immediately and that penalty increases with the severity of the strike (punch). Also, include the elbow as exactly the same penalty as neither a punch nor an elbow to another player is in the rules (it is outside of the rules).

Then do the following:

1. Limit interchanges to 10 per quarter, with the ability to save any not used towards the next quarter. (Yes, I am with KB on this issue, it isn't rocket science).

2. Interpret the rules properly and start paying the push in the back, the holding off the ball and grabbing of the arms etc... But just start officiating the bloody game the way it is supposed to be and stop allowing rugby play into our classic game of Aussie Rules Football.

3. Get rid of the silly ruck nomination system and allow free movement and third man up again. Blocking a player near the ball is allowed, if they call the holding off the ball the throw ins and ball ups will work themselves out.

4. Stop inventing stupid knee jerk rules for the sake of some media blown up problem that does not exist, stop over reacting to all the hype and stop trying to fix something which is not that much broken as all the media hype suggests it to be! No zones, no more lines, no more attempts at limiting coaches in what they are implementing and leave the game alone to evolve naturally, the way it has for 150 bloody years.

You're welcome...

Have to respectfully disagree with Bear.

The AFL SHOULD attract the constant attention of its rule makers for the following reasons:

(1) The core elements that underpin Aussie Rules (and Ice Hockey as well) bring players closer to injury than other sports. There are heaps of turnovers and 50:50 contests. Teams have to be good at winning contested ball. If you can make your opposition fear you, you are well on the way to winning.

(2) Local culture and local history has a big impact on how the game is played. Soccer has FIFA, Basketball has FIBA. Game rules are influenced by different cultures and different values. There is not much culture variation in the history of the AFL. Its history venerates "tough guys" and fans laud acts of thuggery where they are seen as aiding victory.

Only when you get instances like the Gaff incident occurs - is the cozy consensus challenged.

Does it really have to be this way?

Is it a good thing that violence and physical intimidation are necessary ingredients to winning? Can it be toned down, allowing for other attributes (like skill and tactics) to become more important?

What is the justification for current rules allowing teams to gain a competitive advantage by engaging in violence and eliminating an opposition player from the contest? In Ice Hockey - a sport that venerates physical toughness - players who engage in stick abuse are removed from the field.

In rugby league - a pretty tough sport IMO - following a spate of spinal injuries, the tackler now has a duty of care to return his opponent safely to the ground if they lifted. Where is the duty of care in the AFL in allowing sling tackles and chicken wing tackles, resulting in heads being slammed into the turf?

@Red84, there should be other points of view, I would be first to encourage debate and disagreement, goodness knows how many times I am contrarian to the norm.

However, I am confused as to your stance, especially that you disagree with something in my post, because I can't seem to figure out where it is specifically that you disagree?

I am not against common sense rule changes that deal with issues identified as true causal factors.

I do have a hatred of rules being made that only deal with symptoms and reactionary hype.

I have no problems with the toughness and aggressiveness required to play these types of gladiatorial sports, however I do have a problem with tactics used which are completely outside of the rules of said sport.

You may be confusing toughness with thuggery, two very different things, I will suggest...

Oh, just to be clear, I made a point about something which is very important in all of this and that is how inconsistent the AFL is with such contact/striking events (among other rules and decisions).

I suspect most sports have an issue with being consistent in their policy and rule enforcement and interpretation.

So be it, but I still find it very frustrating...

The problem with the AFL is that there is no consistency.
I'm not saying he shouldn't have got 8 weeks, but how do you judge what is appropriate?

Barry Hall, a known thug with a record as long as your arm, hit Brent Staker so hard it broke his jaw, knocked him unconscious, and by Hall's own admission could have killed him.
He got 7 weeks.


Other players take swings and get no penalty if they miss.

Gaff's record is comparatively spotless. He was unquestionably provoked. He swung at Brayshaw's chest and hit his face.
Yet he deserves a worse penalty than Hall?

Players have inflicted worse injuries using their shoulders, and depending on the whims of the AFL get anything from nothing to a severe penalty.

Maybe in the scheme of things, 8 weeks is indeed the appropriate penalty, but if so, other penalties should be more appropriate.

Hall actually got 10, but back then the Tribunal allowed any early guilty plea to receive a 25% discount so he ended up on 7.