Hall cited

[CureTheSane]

At the risk of the Swans tearing up my membership card, I am gonna quote some of the article....

And given Hall's record any suspension could not only rule him out of Saturday night's blockbuster but even the start of the finals - should the Swans' make it.

Ummm, isn't that just a wee bit reactive?

What is the usual punishment for unduely rough play?

Surely never has been more than one week.
I wiould suggest that if guilty, perhaps a fine or suspended sentence.

That's 'IF' found guilty, which I wouldn't think he would be.

The AFL should be encouraging Barry to keep up the good behaviour and throw out trivial things like that lol

[mja]

Questions from my limited look at it
Did he throw him when they were both over the boundry and out of play? Had the ump called it out?

[dawson]

Originally posted by mja
Questions from my limited look at it
Did he throw him when they were both over the boundry and out of play? Had the ump called it out?

Doesnt make a difference

[CHF]

At the risk of starting a war, I would like to give a point of view from a Dees supporter.

I was very surprised at the time that we did not get a free from Hall's action as he did sling Nicholson to the ground over the boundary line when he was not anywhere possession of the ball.

No free was given. Look at it from my point of view, what if it was Neitz that had slung Schauble in the same way?

Two things ....
1. You all would have been bleating if your players had not run in to support their man the way the Melbourne players did.

and...
2. You would all still be bleating that you had not received a penality.

Those of you that are talking provokation from Nicholson or that Nicholson went on with it are missing the fact that it was the action of Hall slinging Nicholson that is the reportable incident.

Was the incident reportable?

My opinion... yes it was. It was unnecessary rough and dangerous play.

Will he go for it?

I doubt it. Maybe a week at the most.

[Schneidergirl]

He was mid tackle when they went over the line IIRC.

Nothing in it. They will watch it at the tribunal and throw it out.

Glenn- I'm with you on the "conspiracy theories". Anyone remember which team we ARE playing this weekend? Wouldn't be that 20K working it's magic again would it?

[dawson]

Originally posted by CHF
At the risk of starting a war, I would like to give a point of view from a Dees supporter.

I was very surprised at the time that we did not get a free from Hall's action as he did sling Nicholson to the ground over the boundary line when he was not anywhere possession of the ball.

No free was given. Look at it from my point of view, what if it was Neitz that had slung Schauble in the same way?

Two things ....
1. You all would have been bleating if your players had not run in to support their man the way the Melbourne players did.

and...
2. You would all still be bleating that you had not received a penality.

Those of you that are talking provokation from Nicholson or that Nicholson went on with it are missing the fact that it was the action of Hall slinging Nicholson that is the reportable incident.

Was the incident reportable?

My opinion... yes it was. It was unnecessary rough and dangerous play.

Will he go for it?

I doubt it. Maybe a week at the most.

1) Free kick is one thing and should have been paid. But you don't compensate for a lack of a free kick by reporting someone.
2) The fact that players ran in is fair enough - but that's not Barrys fault or responsiblity. It's that of the players who ran in.

[Pink_Lady]

That's absurd....
I watched it last night and there was nothing in it....

I am however, keeping in mind this week we are playing Bombers and anything to weaken our side and help the Bombers along, will be put into practice....I would have thought the Mark Mcveigh headbutt on Didak was worse than the takle by Barry, but not according to the AFL...funny that....

[swan_song]

Must be a melb media driven thing....if they charge barry, are they going to charge the guy who punched pebbles' lights out...or was that "just" an accident??? This stuff from the AFL is getting beyond a joke...last week we had some very strange anti-Sydney decisions... a) a guy can kinghit the captain and clear a path for McKernan to goal, and it not even warrant a free kick from any of the three umpires, yet it can be so serious that the attacker gets a week's suspension when the match is "reviewed" later. b). You are allowed to push an opponent in the back and make him cross into the centre square, and you are the one that gets the free kick! c). a team gets a perhaps warranted freekick for deliberate outofbounds, in the right forward pocket, yet you as an umpire allow, not the person nearest, nor the next one along, but a third player, who so happens to be a left footer to take the shot for goal. Well, done AFL..and they wonder why people in sydney are turning away from the game...it's getting to be a joke...the Voss acting free...that mark and 50-metre penalty in the Essendon game...the guy riding Bazza like a bucking bronco (no free)... Get real AFl, or the Swans might as well pack-up and go now...I'm thinking of switching next year to the new soccer comp...at least the rules are pretty intelligable...

(just kidding about that)

[liz]

Originally posted by CHF


I was very surprised at the time that we did not get a free from Hall's action as he did sling Nicholson to the ground over the boundary line when he was not anywhere possession of the ball.

Huh??

Nicholson had the ball and Hall was tackling him. Since when has that not been allowed? It was a vigorous tackle, sure, but certainly he was entitled to lay the tackle.

[Jimmy C]

Originally posted by CHF
My opinion... yes it was. It was unnecessary rough and dangerous play.

How do you compare it with Ben Holland the previous week? I must add-there were photos of Holland's fingers raking across his opponents face. Yet he wasn't charged with eye gouging.

[swansrule100]

they were all over hall all day... its a bloody joke

he just wants to get a kick but is attacked and smashed around non stop... just to provoke him

the report is a joke

[hammo]

Not only is it anti-Barry but it is anti-Swans. The Melbourne football mafia strikes again.

If anyone else but Barry did that then there would be no problem.

If the review of the incident is continuing why come out and say Hall has been charged? If others will be, why not wait and announce them all at once. It is bloody biassed to do it this way and by singleing out Hall it proves the AFL is only interested in serving up fodder for the Melbourne pirahnas masqerading as journalists.

It's an absolute joke that Hally has been charged. I am not usually one for conspiracy theories but I imagine the financial windfall of getting Essendon into the finals would be significant for the AFL?

If he gets suspended the umpires should also be dropped for not paying the free.

What a disgrace. I have lost all faith in the umpires this season and have a feeling the tribunal will be next, if it hasn't already.

[swan_song]

Good point PinkLady...I was forgetting about Hirdy's contribution to the AFL coffers...maybe there was a few hundred left in the fund for the video ump...that can be the only logical explanation for this outrage...and who do we play next week? What's the betting we get the full collection of those dill umpire this time...I put a buck on us getting at least, that No 30 dill from the Brizzie game along with Goldsphincter....

[swansrule100]

not only should hall get off but the afl should give him the 100 bucks to replace the guernsey ... the demons ripped it up pretty bad!

[Barry Schneider]

Originally posted by CHF
At the risk of starting a war, I would like to give a point of view from a Dees supporter.

I was very surprised at the time that we did not get a free from Hall's action as he did sling Nicholson to the ground over the boundary line when he was not anywhere possession of the ball.

No free was given. Look at it from my point of view, what if it was Neitz that had slung Schauble in the same way?

Two things ....
1. You all would have been bleating if your players had not run in to support their man the way the Melbourne players did.

and...
2. You would all still be bleating that you had not received a penality.

Those of you that are talking provokation from Nicholson or that Nicholson went on with it are missing the fact that it was the action of Hall slinging Nicholson that is the reportable incident.

Was the incident reportable?

My opinion... yes it was. It was unnecessary rough and dangerous play.

Will he go for it?

I doubt it. Maybe a week at the most.

Could someone set up a netball forum for this bloke.Since when is slinging a reportable offence.It is part of tackling.If Farmer can argue that kneeing a bloke in the head and causing fractures is part of his tackling technique then Barry should have no trouble when he says tackling someone with the ball and taking them to the ground is part of his.
What an absolute joke.