Schwab on 774

[Snowy]

He was in his usual slot on "The last word" and the commentators gave him a grilling. Of course he couldn't say much but Gerard Whately played him lots of audio which was kindly disposed towards Hall i.e. Malthouse supporting him, Worsfold saying he hoped Hall played etc. Also when told that Paul Kelly would present the cup if Sydney won Schwab said it would be great given that he never tasted flag glory. It won't sway him one way or the other but you hope the subtle message of the enormity of the decision go through to him. Peter missed out on a GF himself through suspension. He said he couldn't give a time when the citing or otherwise will be announced and also mentioned that the Gaspar incident was also on his table for review. Whately also brought up the possibility that the point of impact might not be in the vision and strongly suggested that the incident should be graded in play, not behind play. He emphasised how Malthouse was adamant that this was the case. Jarrod Molloy was a lone voice in condemning Barry though Gary Davies of Sportsbet later said he thought Hall would miss the granny.

[dawson]

Re: Schwab on 774

Originally posted by Snowy
He was in his usual slot on "The last word" and the commentators gave him a grilling. Of course he couldn't say much but Gerard Whately played him lots of audio which was kindly disposed towards Hall i.e. Malthouse supporting him, Worsfold saying he hoped Hall played etc. Also when told that Paul Kelly would present the cup if Sydney won Schwab said it would be great given that he never tasted flag glory. It won't sway him one way or the other but you hope the subtle message of the enormity of the decision go through to him. Peter missed out on a GF himself through suspension. He said he couldn't give a time when the citing or otherwise will be announced and also mentioned that the Gaspar incident was also on his table for review. Whately also brought up the possibility that the point of impact might not be in the vision and strongly suggested that the incident should be graded in play, not behind play. He emphasised how Malthouse was adamant that this was the case. Jarrod Molloy was a lone voice in condemning Barry though Gary Davies of Sportsbet later said he thought Hall would miss the granny.

Depending on the grading of course, with the early plea and good behaviour discounts Barry can be cited and still play.

[Snowy]

He doesn't get a good behaviour discount, just lucky enough not to have any bad record activated against him.

[Ruda Wakening]

Snowy check your PM's.

[lwoggardner]

So is it 5 years clean to get the 25% discount and 3 years not to have the bad record count against you?

I've seen various articles say he will get the discount (because it is 3 years) and others that say he won't because it is 5 years.

We'll find out tomorrow I suppose, but is there anyone with a definitive answer on this for those who can't wait till then.

[ugg]

Originally posted by lwoggardner
So is it 5 years clean to get the 25% discount and 3 years not to have the bad record count against you?

I've seen various articles say he will get the discount (because it is 3 years) and others that say he won't because it is 5 years.

We'll find out tomorrow I suppose, but is there anyone with a definitive answer on this for those who can't wait till then.

The discount refers to an early plea of guilty (25%). There's a further discount for good record if it applies, which it doesn't in this case.

[Mike_B]

Originally posted by lwoggardner
So is it 5 years clean to get the 25% discount and 3 years not to have the bad record count against you?

Exactly - you get extra points if you have a prior record in the last 3 years, but only get the 25% discount if you've been clean for 5 years.

[Swansinger]

Let's hope he wins the Brownlow.
Surely the tribunal, if it comes to that, couldn't suspend him then?
Yes I know winning "Charlie" has nothing to do with finals but it would be a huge embarrassment for the AFL.

[DST]

Originally posted by Swansinger
Let's hope he wins the Brownlow.
Surely the tribunal, if it comes to that, couldn't suspend him then?
Yes I know winning "Charlie" has nothing to do with finals but it would be a huge embarrassment for the AFL.

Hall will know his fate before the Brownlow is completed.

The only realistic chance of him playing this week is if the accrued points are discounted enough for him to repremanded if pleads guilty.

If the case goes to the tribunal, he odd's for an acquital would be less than 10% IMHO.

DST

[anniswan]

My reckoning is that they will construct it so he will take a reprimand, which is a bugger as it will blemish his record but he will be free to play.

[DST]

Originally posted by anniswan
My reckoning is that they will construct it so he will take a reprimand, which is a bugger as it will blemish his record but he will be free to play.

If I was a betting man anniswan that would be favourite at present.

The video evidence and position of the incident to the play gives the MRC leway to call the impact low and position somewhere in relation to the play.

DST

[Go Swannies]

I think there's a good chance they'll say the evidence is inconclusive and for that reason only, he has no case to answer. But this is the AFL tribunal so he could be rubbed out for the whole of 2006.

I know some people who are mentally preparing for him not being there; I'm the incurable optimist who thinks he will be.

It depends on the influence of the Vic lynchmob, too, I think. Walls would have him up against a wall and shot, even if he does have impressively big thighs.

[timthefish]

the video evidence IS inconclusive - it shows neither the point of contact or if contact was made with a fist or palm. macguire going to ground is consistent with a punch to the solar plexus, but is also consistent with him faking or incidental contact with a tender point from a preexisting condition.

i think macguire was genuinely in pain, but they can't prove that that was entirely or even greatly down to barry. macguire will testify that the contact was slight and with the palm and that either he was faking or that the pain was because of his lack of fitness.

as many said, i think he'll be cited (and deservedly so) but they'll find a way of letting him off with less that 100 points.
if this doesn't happen and he is banned for the big one, i expect the appeals board to overrule it. if that happens, a supreme court challenge would find that the ruling of the committee fails under rules of evidence.

fingers crossed.

anyone know what time these things are announced?

[Snowy]

Grant Thomas was interviewed this morning and said Barry shouldn't be rubbed out just because the result seemed severe. He pointed out that Hamill received broken ribs as a result of a Josh Carr punch but as Aaron didn't let the injury be known and stayed out there the tribunal ruled that the strike didn't have sufficient force.

[NMWBloods]

I don't think the tribunal will be looking for ways to let him off. I think they will simply do what they normally do. I still think it's only a 50-50.