Hall to face tribunal

**Ryan Bomford** · 1 June 2004, 11:49 AM

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

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker
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?

Well Sherlock, Watson here. It appears the Dog (Grant) did bark and that's why Hall's fronting the tribunal.

***NMWBloods*** · 1 June 2004, 11:59 AM

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

Now that's just rude. You accused her of something she obviously didn't do and now you imply she is lying.

**Bear** · 1 June 2004, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Now that's just rude. You accused her of something she obviously didn't do and now you imply she is lying.

Thanks for entering something you have NFI about and continuing it. I stand by what I said - I know what I read before the edit - and am leaving it at that. Not really a big issue anyway... Time to move on.

***NMWBloods*** · 1 June 2004, 01:24 PM

It's pretty easy to follow what has happened.

Have a look at what you quoted from her. It includes the term "There is NO video evidence." She wrote it originally at 8.52pm, you quoted her at 9.04pm and she edited at 9.11pm. Even if not for the timeline, she couldn't have edited what is in your post anyway!

Yet of course, it must be someone else who is to blame not you...

**Schneidergirl** · 1 June 2004, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by NMWBloods
It's pretty easy to follow what has happened.

Have a look at what you quoted from her. It includes the term "There is NO video evidence." She wrote it originally at 8.52pm, you quoted her at 9.04pm and she edited at 9.11pm. Even if not for the timeline, she couldn't have edited what is in your post anyway!

Yet of course, it must be someone else who is to blame not you...

Thanks NMW.

Bear, I don't have anything to hide from you, I am an honest person (as you seem to be bringing up personal issues) and if I did say something wrong I will be the first to admit it. As people before me have already made clear to you, I couldn't have edited my post to include "video" as you quoted me before I edited it.

I'll say again that all I edited was bloddy tobloody at the end of my post... I had spelt it wrong in my haste.
I don't see why attacking me as a person is in anyway, shape or form got to do with my opinion on Hall going to the tribunal tonight.
If you didn't make such an arse out of yourself there wouldn't be anyone replying to your stupid useless posts in the first place.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, this is a Swans supporters board, I love my team, I will stand by them but don't start attacking me when you have no idea who I am!

**CureTheSane** · 1 June 2004, 01:46 PM

Well this thread was a bloddy interesting read

**Bear** · 1 June 2004, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Schneidergirl
Thanks NMW.

Bear, I don't have anything to hide from you, I am an honest person (as you seem to be bringing up personal issues) and if I did say something wrong I will be the first to admit it. As people before me have already made clear to you, I couldn't have edited my post to include "video" as you quoted me before I edited it.

I'll say again that all I edited was bloddy tobloody at the end of my post... I had spelt it wrong in my haste.
I don't see why attacking me as a person is in anyway, shape or form got to do with my opinion on Hall going to the tribunal tonight.
If you didn't make such an arse out of yourself there wouldn't be anyone replying to your stupid useless posts in the first place.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, this is a Swans supporters board, I love my team, I will stand by them but don't start attacking me when you have no idea who I am!

OK OK. If I'm wrong I apologise to you. I don't know how the posts work, if they don't update things then I'm wrong, if so I apologise. Let's move on.

**Bear** · 1 June 2004, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by NMWBloods
It's pretty easy to follow what has happened.

Have a look at what you quoted from her. It includes the term "There is NO video evidence." She wrote it originally at 8.52pm, you quoted her at 9.04pm and she edited at 9.11pm. Even if not for the timeline, she couldn't have edited what is in your post anyway!

Yet of course, it must be someone else who is to blame not you...

Yes, but there could have been more than one edit... but I am taking her word for it and believe that I am in the wrong.

**Schneidergirl** · 1 June 2004, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Bear
OK OK. If I'm wrong I apologise to you. I don't know how the posts work, if they don't update things then I'm wrong, if so I apologise. Let's move on.

Fine with me.

**Go Swannies** · 1 June 2004, 02:09 PM

Well I still think Schneidergirl was the one who punched Bazza in the last few minutes of the Dogs game (easy to see where they got that name!)

Are tempers a bit short today?

***NMWBloods*** · 1 June 2004, 02:10 PM

That's fine by me too!

**Mike_B** · 1 June 2004, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Schneidergirl
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.

I think this is because upon review, the umpire deemed the footage showed that Kerr had nothing to answer for (which is crap IMHO, but that was his decision). With this issue, they have sent it to the tribunal because there is no video evidence - what seems silly to me is the investigation was over VERY quickly deciding Barry has a case to answer. Rick Lewis will have a lot of egg on his face if the tribunal throws it out in 5 minutes.

**Bear** · 1 June 2004, 02:20 PM

But getting back to my original point... I'm just trying to take a balanced view... and I think the unbiased football fan would be on Grant's side given the history of the players involved, but let's wait and see what the tribunal hearing uncovers.

**BAM_BAM** · 1 June 2004, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by BBB
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.

I certainly hope that wasn't a dig. There is a reason I've remained silent. I thought you wold have figured that bit out by now. If it wasn't a dig, then I'll get back in my cage and take a deep breath.

***NMWBloods*** · 1 June 2004, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Bear
But getting back to my original point... I'm just trying to take a balanced view... and I think the unbiased football fan would be on Grant's side given the history of the players involved, but let's wait and see what the tribunal hearing uncovers.

Oh, I completely agree with this. Grant is considered one of the nice fair guys of football and Hall one of the bad guys, even though he has tried to improve his image. As you said earlier, if Hall wasn't a Swans player then we'd be just as down on him as most other people are.

Come on Bam_Bam - are you going to tell us what happened? Send me a PM and I won't tell anyone. Or tell us all here after the hearing.

Hall to face tribunal

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment