Hall to face tribunal

[Bear]

Originally posted by Schneidergirl
Grant rolling around in pain? Are you serious!?

You asked for evidence and you had something very obvious pointed out to you, so I don't know were you are coming from.

Probably not worth saying anything more if you are claiming that this won't be used as evidence in the hearing, other than wait for the hearing.

[Schneidergirl]

Originally posted by Bear
You asked for evidence and you had something very obvious pointed out to you, so I don't know were you are coming from.

Probably not worth saying anything more if you are claiming that this won't be used as evidence in the hearing, other than wait for the hearing.

Actually, just to set the record straight in my defence... I didn't ask for evidence, I said there was no VIDEO evidence of Hall punching Grant. I also DIDN'T say that Grant clutching at his face wouldn't be used as evidence, I think it was a joke to suggest he was rolling around in pain... obviously a very weak man if this is the case.
Probably not worth saying anything more if you aren't going to read my posts properly...

I'm not here to pick a fight with anyone... just venting my frustration that one of our best players has to face the tribunal tomorrow, his fault or not!

[sharpie]

Exhibition C

In front of the Noble stand at one stage of the game, Grant moves towards a loose ball, bends down, picks up as Barry Hall moves in for the tackle, and Grant then leaps forward as if into a swimming pool hoping for Hall to either take him high or get into his back. This guy is a B Class actor at best. He should be emparrassed at himself, he's got nothing on Cressa's performances over the years.

[Mike_B]

Originally posted by TheHood
Why are the AFL wasting everyone's time with this charge?

Because its Barry Hall....simple

[Bear]

Originally posted by Schneidergirl
Actually, just to set the record straight in my defence... I didn't ask for evidence, I said there was no VIDEO evidence of Hall punching Grant. I also DIDN'T say that Grant clutching at his face wouldn't be used as evidence, I think it was a joke to suggest he was rolling around in pain... obviously a very weak man if this is the case.
Probably not worth saying anything more if you aren't going to read my posts properly...

I'm not here to pick a fight with anyone... just venting my frustration that one of our best players has to face the tribunal tomorrow, his fault or not!

Not picking a fight.

You said "no evidence" and have now edited it to say "no video evidence".

[Triple B]

Bear, although I agree with you, perhaps you may do some editing/deleting of your own, particularly that last sentence re: Schneidergirl editing her post.

[hardluck_harry]

I seem to remember a few years ago Chris Grant standing next to Andrew Dunkley, then a few seconds later rolling around on the ground in pain. Dunks was never charged either.

Seriously all Grant was trying do was to milk a free. The guy's a great player, but he's a touch flamboyant with his acting.

[Dpw]

What I thought was more interesting was what happened when Grant got to his feet, he had a real crack at Hall and was letting him know all about it. Personaly I don't want him to go but IF he did hit Grant no matter how hard it was then he has to go and can't say I would feel sorry for him.

[Bear]

Originally posted by BBB
Bear, although I agree with you, perhaps you may do some editing/deleting of your own, particularly that last sentence re: Schneidergirl editing her post.

BBB, why do you suggest I edit it?

[Schneidergirl]

Originally posted by Bear
BBB, why do you suggest I edit it?

Because the only edit I have done to my post was to change bloddy to bloody...

Obviously you are trying to find a fault with my posts and are having no luck!

[sharp9]

Disagree with you Lizz (for a change )

That wasn't a free when Grant dived. yes Barry's hands touched his back but you are allowed to do that, what you aren't allowed is a "second movement" when the hands go forward. I didn't see anything like that. Grant felt Barry was there and just dived.

I was atounded by how biased the coomentators were. E.g. there was free paid against Goodes for interference in a marking contest (goal to the Dogs) and when the replay was played and it clearly showed nothing had happened at all, the commentator said "there's the opush from goodes." Happened 3 or 4 other times. Extraordinary.

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by Jimmy C
Hmmmm. Unless there's some credible explanation for Grant demonstrating his newest Break-Dance moves, I'd guess that Baz'll get 2-4

I do hope you're kidding.

Let's suppose Baz actually did punch Grant. Why would Baz get more than 2 weeks without video evidence, when Brodie Holland did essentially the same thing last year to Paul Williams that WAS captured on camera and only got 2 weeks? Baz has a prior record, but so did Holland.

If he gets suspended, he should not get more than 1 week. I am fervently hoping he gets off though, it's all we need with Saddo doing his knee and the Saints next weekend.

(EDIT: deleted last paragraph)

[liz]

Originally posted by sharp9
Disagree with you Lizz (for a change )

That wasn't a free when Grant dived. yes Barry's hands touched his back but you are allowed to do that, what you aren't allowed is a "second movement" when the hands go forward. I didn't see anything like that. Grant felt Barry was there and just dived.

I was trying to be "objective" when I said that maybe it was a free Either way, there is no way that Grant's dive was caused by any significant push from Barry - which of course is the whole point.

[liz]

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker
I do hope you're kidding.

Let's suppose Baz actually did punch Grant. Why would Baz get more than 2 weeks without video evidence, when Brodie Holland did essentially the same thing last year to Paul Williams that WAS captured on camera and only got 2 weeks? Baz has a prior record, but so did Holland.

If he gets suspended, he should not get more than 1 week. I am fervently hoping he gets off though, it's all we need with Saddo doing his knee and the Saints next weekend.

It's rare these days that players get suspended when there's no video evidence. It wasn't even common in 1965 when Essendon's John Somerville got flattened by his Collingwood opponent behind play in the 1965 Preliminary Final; the Collingwood player was never charged.

The evidence, such that it is, is only relevant to guilt or otherwise. I too fear that if the tribunal decides he is guilty they will put him out for weeks. His record is far worse than Holland's was at the time, and I doubt they will give him any credit for how hard he has been trying to control himself. The OTT suspension they gave him for massaging Primus' face suggests they really don't like him very much, and they tend to take a dim view of incidents off the ball, such as this one was.

Maybe Sydney should invoke the mercy rule - and just show the tribunal footage of St Kilda's last two matches.

[Triple B]

Bear.....

Because if you look at your original post you quoted her and 'no video evidence' was in there.

Her time of edit was AFTER you quoted her, so it stands to reason she didn't edit that particular part.

No good both of you looking silly, she's doing a fine job.