Hall to face tribunal

[Go Swannies]

Lucy, if you're thinking of doctoring any evidence can you turn your mind to a certain video so it shows Bazza and Chris holding hands and laughing as they skip out of the goal square together?

[Schneidergirl]

Originally posted by Go Swannies
Lucy, if you're thinking of doctoring any evidence can you turn your mind to a certain video so it shows Bazza and Chris holding hands and laughing as they skip out of the goal square together?

Maybe hard.... I'll try my best though.

[Schneidergirl]

Originally posted by BBB

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

Where is your evidence?

[Sid]

Theres been a lot of points made but im still bloody scared. Who knows what other evidence there is apart from Hall and Grant themselves. We all know how much the umpires love Hall.

[Triple B]

Schneidergirl, you lost cred with me when you told me an umpire was looking at it because somebody on RWO said so and your insistance that the Kerr/Kirk incident is relevant to this case.

That is silly.

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by BBB
Schneidergirl, you lost cred with me when you told me an umpire was looking at it because somebody on RWO said so and your insistance that the Kerr/Kirk incident is relevant to this case.

That is silly.

There was a photograph posted yesterday - may have been on BigFooty - that absolutely showed Grant on the ground in an umpire's field of vision. You should apologise.

Also, take the time to think. The umpires are there to adjudicate, not watch the game. If there was a scuffle nearby don't you think that the nearest umpire would be concentrating on that, not watching play at the other end of the field? The fact that he was just keeping "his" players within his broad field of sight suggests that nothing was going on.

And, look at the aftermath. Grant ran back into position and he and Bazza merely started jostling again. And Hargraves yelled something at Barry but did nothing more. Would that happen after a punch that produced the reaction Grant showed?

[Bear]

Originally posted by Schneidergirl
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!

Pffft... As long as you're happy with your level of honesty that's all that matters I suppose.

[Schneidergirl]

Originally posted by BBB
Schneidergirl, you lost cred with me when you told me an umpire was looking at it because somebody on RWO said so and your insistance that the Kerr/Kirk incident is relevant to this case.

That is silly.

Fair enough...

But when I was watching the replay (like I said previously) the umpire was watching them... I still don't see why he would look away when jostling was going on if Hall had of punched Grant in the face, should he not have been reported on the spot?
I shouldn't have used Dendol's quote to justify what I was saying.

Agree on the Kerr/Kirk being irrelevant to this case, just don't understand why that charge at Kirk was dropped with video evidence supporting it, and Hall has to face the tribunal with no video evidence for back up.

???

[Bear]

Originally posted by Go Swannies
There was a photograph posted yesterday - may have been on BigFooty - that absolutely showed Grant on the ground in an umpire's field of vision. You should apologise.

Also, take the time to think. The umpires are there to adjudicate, not watch the game. If there was a scuffle nearby don't you think that the nearest umpire would be concentrating on that, not watching play at the other end of the field?

The alleged strike happened totally out of the blue with no prior wrestling, etc, or scuffle, as you put it. Therefore there was nothing to draw the attention of an umpire before any alleged strike. Watch the TV replay and you will see that the camera is on BBBBH and Grant who are just side by side, then crosses back just a few seconds later with Grant on the ground. This is when the attention of the ump is turned to the situation, as you would expect.

Did the 'photo' show the umpire looking as the alleged strike was actually made??? If not you are barking up the wrong tree asking for an apology.

[Schneidergirl]

Originally posted by Bear
Pffft... As long as you're happy with your level of honesty that's all that matters I suppose.

I don't know why I am even bothering to reply but...

I don't know what my level of honesty has to do with this topic, or the remark I made! Are you trying to suggest I am not being honest in my posts?

[Triple B]

There was a photograph posted yesterday - may have been on BigFooty - that absolutely showed Grant on the ground in an umpire's field of vision. You should apologise.

GoSwannies, we have ALL seen the photos and watched the replay.

Everybody 'absolutely' saw Grant on the ground. Even the umpire was looking at Grant 'on the ground', but we are talking about what caused him to be 'on the ground'. Obviously the umpire/s only saw the aftermath, not the incident, as did the rest of us except Bam Bam it seems.

[Thunder Shaker]

The dog that didn't bark in the night

Reading through the various threads, I am reminded of a Sherlock Holmes story where the fact that a dog didn't bark in the night was a crucial clue to solving the case. This is particularly apt here, because there is negative evidence that suggested that nothing much happened. Here I collect it for your perusal.

• The alleged incident happened about 40 metres from the Bulldogs' cheer squad. They didn't react. In other words, the dogs didn't bark!
• There was an umpire nearby. The umpire neither laid a report, nor awarded a free.
• Grant allegedly was hit with enough force to knock him to the ground. The blow is unlikely to have been to the face because there was no visible mark.

None of these are conclusive proof, but they are suggestive. At the very least, they provide some grounds for reasonable doubt.

From what I remember, Grant did get up a little slowly after the alleged incident. However, nobody seems to have checked the footage of Grant in the minutes afterward to see if he was still moving slowly, or if he staged a miraculous recovery.

In pro wrestling, "selling" an "injury" is an essential skill that adds to the performance. The wrestlers must sell the injury for the duration of a bout for maximum effect. A footballer who is trying to sell an illegal contact to an umpire (that is, staging for a free) will not need to sell for the same length of time. Therefore, if Grant was moving quickly and well a minute after the alleged incident, then it is more likely that no incident occurred.

If anyone has a tape of the game, can you check Grant's movements in the couple of minutes after the alleged incident to see how well he was moving?

[liz]

Re: The dog that didn't bark in the night

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker

If anyone has a tape of the game, can you check Grant's movements in the couple of minutes after the alleged incident to see how well he was moving?

Strangely enough, he was moving fine!

[Schneidergirl]

Re: Re: The dog that didn't bark in the night

Originally posted by lizz
Strangely enough, he was moving fine!

Funny that because he was "rolling around in pain" just moments earlier!

[Bear]

Originally posted by Schneidergirl
I don't know why I am even bothering to reply but...

I don't know what my level of honesty has to do with this topic, or the remark I made! Are you trying to suggest I am not being honest in my posts?

Let's just leave it at that. This is going nowhere.