Barrygate

[skilts stilts]

The video distributed by the league at the beginning of the year to all clubs shows that under there own rules this incident is in play and therefore only 1 point hence a reprimand. So it will be thrown out on appeal.

[Mike_B]

Originally posted by timbo
what they have to do is claim that is negligent rather than reckless.

I think it will be difficult to get it downgraded to negligent as the way I see it, negligent would apply to what may be incidental contact eg going for a spoil and collecting someone in the back of the head - say not taking due care to avoid that contact - whereas here there is no way it could be contsrued as 'incidental'.

Almost makes me think that anything classified as 'behind play' could not be classified as 'negligent'.

[j s]

Originally posted by Mike_B
It will be tomorrow at the earliest as he has till 10am Tuesday to accept the charge or take it to the tribunal.


Source

Tuesday night isn't it normally? The 10am deadline is to give time for preparation.

[Young Blood]

Originally posted by giant
IIRC, the Pies had some success with this method?

mick malthouse said on 774 that they used this for the Tarrant report earlier in the year. I was overseas for most of the season, so have no idea what the Tarrant incident entailed!

[Ryan Bomford]

The complicating factor now, of course, is that Gaspar has been done for the same offence. If Bazza is successful at appeal and Gaspar not there will be all sorts of accusations made.

[Charlie]

Hall Will Play! Sen

Just announced that both he and Gaspar have been offered one week, with the 25% discount to give him a reprimand.

[Agent 86]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
'Behind play' is an error of fact. This gives the Swans an out on the basis that the charge is flawed.

Spot on. Many commentators agree that it occurred whilst jostling for a lead & hence in play. My main concern was that the "impact" would be considered medium (or worse). I think this gives him a reasonable defence.

[Sid]

Please tell me ur wrong about this.

[Charlie]

Why?

I think I head right. God, I hope I heard right.

[Sid]

Have a look at other sources mate.

[Ryan Bomford]

More than likely to apply to Gaspar and not Bazza.

[Sid]

Then what the hell is that article on AFL.com about?

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by Young Blood
If he automatically loses the 25% upon challenging the rating, the current system doesn't offer a way out (IMO there's no way they can argue it was negligent rather than reckless). They'd have to challenge the system itself ... which really does bring us back to '96.

Under the tribunal system, a player can plead guilty to a lesser charge. and then contest the lesser charge. Even if the hearing is unsuccessful, the guilty plea stands.

This is Baz's best chance - plead guilty to a lesser charge and hope he gets off by winning a reduction.

The alternative is to contest the charge on the grounds there is no clear vision of the alleged contact, but that denies the opportunity for a guilty-plea reduction so it's an all-or-nothing shot.

I am pessimistic about his chances, however. The witchhunt won't allow it.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by Charlie
Why?

I think I head right. God, I hope I heard right.

Sadly, I think they must have meant a week AFTER the discount.

[monopoly19]

Not as far as Fox Sports is concerned.

Grade 2 charge:
- reckless
-behind play
-low impact
-body contact

link