Kangaroo Court

[dawson]

I am stunned that Barry Hall has a charge to face.

If players suffer short term memory loss when giving testimony at the tribunal when there is footage and its plain for all to see, how much more so would you think this would be the case when its just an investigation and there is no footage.

I doubt Chris Grant would have dobbed Barry in. Players don't like to be known as those who rubbed out other players. They are pretty big on the 'what happened on the field, stays on the field' mantra.

So tonight will come down to a fuzzy Grant giving testimony and a Barry who will deny everything. I genuinely will be suprised if Barry gets rubbed out but there is no doubt in my mind that the Swans would appeal even if Barry gets one week.

For mind this smells like the Dunkley fiasco of 96 where they proceeded on a whim.

The fact that a player is lying on the grass is no reason to send someone to the tribunal. If the umpire saw it - free kick. If he didn't - who cares.

Even if something did happen and Barry knocked out Grant cold without evidence or any reasonable testimony how can the case proceed?

Kevin Sheedy spoke about the AFL being akin to the Kremlin well looks like they are following the KGB playbook on this one.

PS: Would have liked to brought up my 400th in happier circumstances but you can't always do that in milestone posts.

[liz]

Re: Kangaroo Court

Originally posted by dawson

For mind this smells like the Dunkley fiasco of 96 where they proceeded on a whim.

The Dunkley incident was quite different. There was video evidence to support the charge, not to mention Hird emerging from the pack with a blood face. Problem then was that they didn't find the video footage until the Wednesday afternoon of GF week and then expected Dunks to front the tribunal less than 24 hours later.

When he did finally appear he was found guilty - and it was probably reasonable based on the evidence that eventually came to light.

[Ryan Bomford]

Dawson, your points are all well made, but the tribunal has a job to do in eliminating the game of unnecessary violence, well at the same time influence behaviour for players who try to capitalise on game situations to their team's advantage.

After the weekend, the tribunal will have had a gutful of all the staging antics but will they use it (the Grant episode) as an opportunity to stomp out staging, especially with a player like Grant? Highly unlikely.

But at the same time they can't ignore the episode altogether because of the lack of hard evidence.

IMO, Grant will spill the beans, to protect his reputation and to do his part to disadvantage the Swans to his own team's advantage.

[Schneidergirl]

Originally posted by Ryan Bomford

IMO, Grant will spill the beans, to protect his reputation and to do his part to disadvantage the Swans to his own team's advantage.

Then he will never be welcomed into Sydney town again....

[Go Swannies]

And it would be against the whole "Players code" - something a captain would be loath to do if he's to keep the respect of his team.

Apparently he's trying to do a "well he hit me a bit but it was accidental" and that won't work well at the tribunal.

[DST]

Originally posted by Ryan Bomford
IMO, Grant will spill the beans, to protect his reputation and to do his part to disadvantage the Swans to his own team's advantage.

How can Grant advantage his own team by contributing to rubbing out Barry? We don't play them again this year.

From the limited peices of information we have recieved in the media so far, it would seem Rick Lewis has laid the charge not based on the evidence brought by either Gran, another Dogs player or an umpire but from something else.

Hard to see Barry getting rubbed out if there is not footage, both of them say they were wrestling and contact was un-intentional and no other player or umpire saw it.

Me thinks Rick Lewis has something else up his sleeves.

DST

[CureTheSane]

Is the hearing at Arden St now?

sorry, that was sick

[jixygirl]

I have no idea what's going on. The media haven't clearly reported anything. To me, it's baffling that Hall even got reported, unless the umpires know something that the general public doesn't. From what I can see, it all depends on Grant if whether Hall gets rubbed out.

[Glenn]

Hmmm just a thought, would any evidence come from the goal ump at end of the field, assuming he is the one closest to what is alledged to have happend

[DST]

Originally posted by Glenn
Hmmm just a thought, would any evidence come from the goal ump at end of the field, assuming he is the one closest to what is alledged to have happend

Reports so far suggest no umpire evidence has been used by Rick Lewis to lay the charges so the goal umpire must have nothing to do with it.

The only thing the umpires have done so far is to lodge a review request to allow Rick Lewis to investigate the incident.

Unless Rick has something up his sleeve, the case will only rely on Chris Grant's word against Barry Hall's. Other media reports suggest Grant merely suggested they were wrestling and that un-intentional contact was made to the head and he beleived a free kick was warranted.

If that is it, then Barry has a good chance of beating the wrap. But we won't know until tonight.

Would love to see the tribunal broadcast live.

DST

[stellation]

Originally posted by Ryan Bomford
IMO, Grant will spill the beans, to protect his reputation and to do his part to disadvantage the Swans to his own team's advantage.

I like Chris Grant, I have always thought of him as a great player to watch and he was true to form last Saturday night. He dived at least once for a push in the back and that was pretty obvious, and I am not sure if he dived here again or not. I don't think as a gut feel that he will give evidence against Barry Hall, Grant probably knows better than anyone (on a par with Tony Rocky Horror missing last years GF) how much damage a suspension can do...

[dawson]

Re: Re: Kangaroo Court

Originally posted by lizz
The Dunkley incident was quite different. There was video evidence to support the charge, not to mention Hird emerging from the pack with a blood face. Problem then was that they didn't find the video footage until the Wednesday afternoon of GF week and then expected Dunks to front the tribunal less than 24 hours later.

When he did finally appear he was found guilty - and it was probably reasonable based on the evidence that eventually came to light.

Given the postponement Lizz, do you want to change your opinion?

[robbieando]

Re: Re: Kangaroo Court

Originally posted by lizz
The Dunkley incident was quite different. There was video evidence to support the charge, not to mention Hird emerging from the pack with a blood face. Problem then was that they didn't find the video footage until the Wednesday afternoon of GF week and then expected Dunks to front the tribunal less than 24 hours later.

When he did finally appear he was found guilty - and it was probably reasonable based on the evidence that eventually came to light.

Lizz, the footage from a OptusVision TV crew, thats sole intention was to track Hird's every move so they could get close up footage of him for their Brownlow coverage during the week, came to light thought the media, on the Tuesday Night (in fact it was shown on the back page of the Herald Sun on the Wednesday), but was not made available in full to the AFL until the Wednesday morning. The Swans were then informed of the report at 4pm on the Wednesday, with the case to be heard at 7pm that same night.

That gave the Swans the best part of 3 hours to get Dunkley and themselves down to Melbourne and prepare a case based on the report. The Swans maintained thoughout that if the AFL had the sitting on the Thursday morning and not the Wednesday night they would not of gone to the courts and would of accepted whatever punishment Dunkley got (which was in the end 3 weeks)