Hall to face tribunal

[Bear]

people, take your red and white glasses off and get realistic.

the AFL has rightly said that if people fake things there will be retribution, leaving Grant in a no-win situation.

if BBBBH has reverted to his old tricks he should go... IF that is. lets wait to see what comes up in evidence.

i have spent considerable time with Chris Grant and know he is a man of complete integrity.

[DST]

Not surprising that he has been asked to go up.

Much easier for Rick Lewis and the AFL to throw up the charges and let the tribunal decide on the availbale evidence. No bleating on about favortism etc from the media.

We already have precedent this year where the tribunal (with no clear footage) threw a case out when both players talked of no contact.

DST

[The Boot]

With his record, it certainly might work against him. Though - and its a BIG though - he has been the model of sobriety for some time. That's gotta count for something, one would hope.

Where is the tribunal for weazle-faced, dickhead, loser umpires like Goldspink?????????????????

... sorry ... I just couldn't help myself ..

[stellation]

Well that isn't that good. I wonder if the logic was "well we have no proof, but he IS Barry Hall..."

[Schneidergirl]

Originally posted by Bear
people, take your red and white glasses off and get realistic.

Look... I honestly think striking players should carry a penalty, I just don't think it's fair that;
A) He wasn't sited at the time. (There was an umpire watching afterall.)
B) There is NO video evidence, and this is being telecast as an "alledged strike"
C) Kerr didn't even get to the tribunal for charging at Kirk which in return concussed him.

If we are going on "playing for free kicks" then why the hell isn't Tarrant going up? He fell over and was awarded a free kick inside their goal square, there was NO PLAYER within 2 meters of him!

If Hall is charged (heaven forbid) it will just prove what a mockery the tribunal has become!

I'm sorry, but I am emotionally overcharged at the moment! Stinking bloody umpires!

[DST]

Originally posted by stellation
Well that isn't that good. I wonder if the logic was "well we have no proof, but he IS Barry Hall..."

I don't think it has anything to do who he is.

Remember we have footage of Hall standing next to Grant, then Grant lying on the ground clutching his stomach/head.

Something happened and whether it be an intentional punch or un-intentional jumper pulling contact Rick Lewis is smart enough to run it up the flag pole (and wash his hands of it) and see who the tribunal believes once speaking to both players, whether intentional contact was made.

My money is on Grant claiming they were wrestling and he was un-intentionaly being struck. No video footage, no umpire to give evidence to the contray, case closed not guilty!

DST

[Triple B]

Schneidergirl...

(a) I seriously doubt there was an umpire watching at the time. What is the basis for thinking there was?

(c) Kerr incident = Irrellevant.

[Bear]

Originally posted by Schneidergirl
Look... I honestly think striking players should carry a penalty, I just don't think it's fair that;
A) He wasn't sited at the time. (There was an umpire watching afterall.)
B) There is NO video evidence, and this is being telecast as an "alledged strike"
C) Kerr didn't even get to the tribunal for charging at Kirk which in return concussed him.

If we are going on "playing for free kicks" then why the hell isn't Tarrant going up? He fell over and was awarded a free kick inside their goal square, there was NO PLAYER within 2 meters of him!

If Hall is charged (heaven forbid) it will just prove what a mockery the tribunal has become!

I'm sorry, but I am emotionally overcharged at the moment! Stinking bloddy umpires!

If there really was an umpire watching this would be known. Don't believe everything you hear.

Evidence = Grant rolling over in pain!!!

[Schneidergirl]

Originally posted by BBB
Schneidergirl...

(a) I seriously doubt there was an umpire watching at the time. What is the basis for thinking there was?

(c) Kerr incident = Irrellevant.

BBB.....

A1)

Originally posted by dendol
The umpire was on the spot, and didnt award a free or even reprimand Bazza - in fact, eye witness accounts from RWO say that the ump was telling Grant to get up (no bias on RWO, im sure!).

A2) When watching the replay an umpire (would have said it was Goldspink, but picture in Tele too hard to distinguish) is watching them near the 45m line... what reason would he look away for when there is obviously jostling going on

C) Charging at someone is not irrellevant, especially when it is to the head.

[Schneidergirl]

Originally posted by Bear
If there really was an umpire watching this would be known. Don't believe everything you hear.

Evidence = Grant rolling over in pain!!!

Grant rolling around in pain? Are you serious!?

[AussieAnge]

IF he did something wrong then he should pay. Look how we were up in arms about the Holland/Williams incident last season. The AFL does have a duty to investigate these things. I was sitting in the M A Noble stand so couldn't see what happened (and was watching the game at the time). I did notice a few minutes later Barry going off for the blood rule (pay back?), no report and no investigation for that?

[liz]

Exhibit A for the defence.

Wind the tape forward to early in the second quarter. Hall, down at the Randwick End, takes a pack mark, standing behind Grant. Grant executes a dive forward of which Greg Louganis would have been proud. Result? Free to Grant.

Now maybe technically it was a free kick ? Hall?s hands were momentarily in contact with Grant?s back. But if you watch it in slow motion ? even frame by frame ? you can see that Grant?s actions were out of all proportion to any motion from Hall.

a) Hall?s arms were never extended. In fact, the angle of his elbows was about 90 degrees while his hands were in contact with Grant?s back. There was no obvious straightening of the arms during the contact.

b) At the point where you can clearly see Bazza?s hands lose contact with Grant?s back, Grant was clearly upright and balanced.

c) It wasn?t until Hall?s hands had almost met the ball that Grant started his trajectory forward. And boy, was it some trajectory!

I defy anyone to push a person of about their own height and weight in the back to cause them to fall in the way that Grant did with their elbows bent at a 90 degree angle from a standing position. I suggest that it is a physical impossibility.

Now obviously this is an entirely different incident but it provides clear evidence of Grant?s attitude towards his match-up with Hall ? ie he wanted to make sure the umpires had no doubt that even minor contact had occurred.

Exhibit B

Moments before we see Grant writhing on the ground, you see the two of them standing calmly together, not talking, not touching. I know Bazza has done some daft things in his time, but are we to believe that out of the blue he suddenly turned around and made contact to Grant?s head (the area Grant originally held) of sufficient force to cause him to the ground unless Grant was determined to help him along? Note that there was no mark to Grant?s face immediately after the incident ? ie no redness ? or any that developed later in the game.

Rohan Smith was close to the incident and you see him remonstrating with Hall. But it was a very half-hearted remonstration.

All circumstantial I know, but when it is one person?s word against another, surely relevant.

There is probably little doubt that Hall made some contact to Grant but was it really anything as bad as Grant?s actions suggest? I know I?m one-eyed but there must be significant doubt given earlier actions

[DST]

Originally posted by AussieAnge
IF he did something wrong then he should pay. Look how we were up in arms about the Holland/Williams incident last season. The AFL does have a duty to investigate these things. I was sitting in the M A Noble stand so couldn't see what happened (and was watching the game at the time). I did notice a few minutes later Barry going off for the blood rule (pay back?), no report and no investigation for that?

Barry got his cut lip from general play, not a reportable offence. It did however deserve a free kick due to the bulldogs player in question not looking at the ball and catching him high.

DST

[AussieAnge]

As I said Iwas down the other end of the ground so couldn't see the events unfolding, I was just wondering if the cut lip was retribution (accidentally on purpose).

[TheHood]

Why are the AFL wasting everyone's time with this charge?

There is no video or witness evidence of what occurred.

Grant was not injurred at all (Oscar material only).

When are these bored police going to put the cue in the rack and stop faffing with the game. They have a full house tomorrow night as it turns out, so why block up hours on a case built on soggy leaf foundations?