Barrygate

[Charlie]

Sorry guys - they said '1 week' and then mentioned a reprimand. I heard wrong. ********!

[swan_song]

I think I heard it's two weeks....reduced to one week for an early plea....I think the lawyers will only win out of this

[Agent 86]

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

Harder to prove than the behind play. Too subjective.

Is it possible to have a bunch of independent expert witnesses dispute the behind play ruling?

[mocaholic]

Originally posted by Agent 86
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.

Agree. Low impact and reckless were two big wins.

If we could get it down to in play (going for the lead), then I believe pleading guilty to 5 activation points would get us under the 100pts.

Gaspar's was an elbow to the head.

[swanzotope]

unless that guy who posted the level two striking charge thing is part of the tribunal its bull********

i can't find it anywhere else

[timthefish]

Originally posted by 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.

don't let them kid you. two separate events with clubs haviing different levels of interest in the result. they might not even select gaspar.

[Young Blood]

Thanks Shaker.

I'm more optimistic. I don't think its a witchhunt - it was a solid punch that should be looked at by the tribunal.

But I think they can successfully argue that as he was making a lead at the time, and his eyes were firmly on the ball, that he was 'in play', not 'behind play'. Just hope the tribunal sees it that way, and it doesn't have to go to appeal.

[Diego]

1996 all over again.

I think i really don't care anymore about the Grand Final. I am shattered to know Barry Hall will be in the stands watching.

I think this was the last straw for me. I can't handle the way AFL has gone.

[timthefish]

Originally posted by swanzotope
unless that guy who posted the level two striking charge thing is part of the tribunal its bull********

i can't find it anywhere else

try afl.com

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker
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.

Damn this makes for an even more nervous wait.

1. Plead guilty and go in with only one or two defences: being that it was a negligent contact ("I was trying to puch him away but used too much force") or that it was "in play"
2. Plead not guilty and say that there is no real evidence of contact so the whole thing will be thrown out.

If I am correct, by pleading guilty to the lesser charge, the Swans deny any other legal recourse. But by pleading not guilty they leave open more opportunities to contest the technicalities of the contact, including presenting clear-cut cases of inconsistencies on these sorts of rulings - even in court if necessary.

Damn.

[swanzotope]

actually i was wrong

its everywhere now

[stellation]

I need a drink.

[Sid]

Ok, so whos gonna slash their wrists with me?

[Jeffers1984]

********

[swanzotope]

PLEASE POST IN HALL CHARGES THIS THREAD IS TOO BIG NOW