Big, bad, brain-dead Barry Hall shouldn’t have broken his wrist on a Telstra Stadium advertising board on Saturday night. Although it did show that karma really does exist.

After his unprovoked attack on West Coast opposite number Brent Staker early in the match, he shouldn’t have been on the field at all.

In my opinion, it’s time for the AFL to follow the lead of its rival codes and introduce a send-off policy. Referees have that option in rugby league, rugby union and football, so why not Aussie rules?

Some will say that Bazza got his just desserts when the tribunal slapped him with a big suspension last night, but that certainly doesn’t help West Coast.

Staker played no further part in the match after being floored by the king hit, leaving his team one man short for the majority of the match.

The fact that Eagles coach John Worsfold had earmarked Staker to contain Hall, one of the Swan’s best and most influential players, only compounded their disadvantage.

West Coast has received no compensation for the loss of Staker, who is no certainty to line up against Port Adelaide this Sunday either.

Sure, they were flogged by 62 points and wouldn’t have bridged that gap even if Hall was given his marching orders, but the imposing centre half forward had no right to have any further impact on the game after his thuggish act.

In the NRL this season, the Shark’s Ben Ross, Melbourne’s Brett White and Canberra’s Michael Weyman have been sent from the field for similar, but not as brutal, offences.

All three were sent off because their acts effectively robbed them of the privilege of continuing to play the game.

It should also have been the case with Hall.

Staker’s parents made their views pretty clear earlier this week.

“I thought it was pretty weak ... if it was a fight fair enough, but not to be king hit when there’s nothing in it and you’re not expecting it,” Staker’s father Alan fumed.

“My disappointment is in the AFL. They spruik about players not being allowed to go anywhere near the head now and penalising them if they do.

“He deserves a fair sentence for a fairly weak act.”

Mr Staker later labelled Hall a “weak mongrel’’.

His mother Rosemary was also on the front foot.

“For someone who’s been playing as long as he has and who’s supposed to be one of the heroes of the game, he is pretty weak,” she said.

“No young lad out there trying to win games for his club or with his teammates deserves this.”

Putting a player on report is the easy option for the umpires. They can wipe their hands of the whole ugliness and leave it up to the judiciary.

But the current policy only penalises the offending player’s club, and gives a leg-up to Sydney’s opposition over the next few weeks, because they don’t have to shut down Hall.

In no way does it help the team that he committed the offence against, and that’s wrong.

Although he only kicked one goal, Hall racked up 12 kicks, one handball and 10 marks in the match. Most of those grabs were taken across half forward and set up quite a few attacking opportunities and shots at goal for the red and whites.

Presumably, these numbers were accumulated on an opponent less suited to shutting down Hall than the Eagles’ number one choice in Staker.

It’s time for umpires to be able to give players who commit such indefensible acts an early shower.