Barrygate

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker
There won't be a court challenge. There will be a tribunal hearing, and possibly an appeal. If the appeal is unsuccessful we will cop it.

Dont know about that. There is still the matter of a lack of physical evidence of contact, and the level of inconsistency from the match review panel over the course of the year.

These two technicalities may seem insignificant within AFL circles, but I'd be interested to see what a "laymen" panel of judges thinks about it. How does the AFL argue that it treats all employees fairly, when there is clear footage of some people whacking others in the guts and getting nothing, whilst there is just an assumption of guilt (techincally) in this case but this employee misses out on the most important day in his career?

[Sanecow]

The rule was only that they weren't allowed to show incidents that resulted in a report, but there was no report on the day so it makes no difference anyway. It doesn't seem to be in place this year though.

[Xie Shan]

Originally posted by swanzotope
I agree with you, but the swans have been working basically since the incident too build a case too get him off, im pretty sure they knew he would be cited.

God I hope so! Best chance is to show video of the other incidents this year that got off - the SMH had pictures of all 6 incidents similar to Hall's, all in a row - the 2 Archer ones looked worse, and in full view of the camera, yet he got off! Contesting the charge may be the only way to go after all, maybe embarrass the tribunal into clearing him?

[WASwansFanatic]

I was listening to a ABC summary of the Brownlow yesterday an on the panel was Jarrod Molloy and also Peter Schwab. Now Molloy was saying he has to go. No doubt about it. and he emphasised the point about 5 times. Now if this is not conflict of interest in the case of Schwab I do not know what is. How could he not be influenced by the opinion of his peers. The AFL are a bloody hypocrisy. Archer didnt even get cited and he did a similar thing to Hall.

[swan_song]

Originally posted by sydfan83
I don't think he deserves to be suspended based on the precedents set so far this season(

How come you can kick a guy in the head requiring him to have plastic surgery and a virtual face remodelling, and get off...yet you can do a silly punch to a big blouse and get two weeks...this stuff is just ridiculous!

[DST]

Originally posted by cressakel
Unfortunately, Hall won't be playing unless he beats the charge totally !!

If the Swans appeal and reduce the charge from "reckless" to "negligent", then the 25% reduction doesn't apply for pleading guilty in this instance and therefore Hall will still miss a week....

Looks like those ratdogs Demetriou and Anderson will have the last laugh after all....

SHATTERED for Bazz, still reckon we will win !

Thats not eniterly correct, there has been instances where a player has had their charge down graded by the tribunal and also been allowed to receive the 25% discount as he can still plead guilty at the tribunal but ask that the level of the charges be changed to lower.

Our whole case is going to be around:

* The force of the blow
* Whether it was in play or not

Get the tribunal to reduce those two and apply the 25% reduction and he can still play despite it being over a week.

DST

[desredandwhite]

Soft as melted butter. Viewed in full-speed, there was nothing in it.

However, the hit WAS there. You can't deny it. Whatever happens in the next couple of days, the side has to regroup and get their minds right for the weekend. I'd rather be feeling sorry for Barry missing out on a premiership than feeling sorry for Barry missing out on a losing grand final!!!!

Still have a couple more days though. It's a given that we'll go to the tribunal in a bid to downgrade the grading of the incident, then contesting the charge if that fails, and appealing the decision if THAT fails.

[monopoly19]

Originally posted by cressakel
If the Swans appeal and reduce the charge from "reckless" to "negligent", then the 25% reduction doesn't apply for pleading guilty in this instance and therefore Hall will still miss a week....

I think you're wrong there.

This is taken from the AFL website regarding a player that accepts a guilty charge but disputes the level of the charge:

If the tribunal accepts ____'s case, and reduces the level of Conduct to Reckless, and the offense to Level 2. As ____ has 'successfully' pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, he is eligible to receive the early plea discount of 25% and would receive a one match suspension.

So if they downgrade it to one of 'in play' or 'incidental' (the former is much more likely), that's 5 activation points, 125 demerit points, minus 25% is 93.75 points which is a reprimand.

[boroboy]

Not sure how we'd prove it was in play. Whilst there are multiple angles of the actual play at the time of contact, as we know there is only one shot of the incident itself - which itself gives no indication of where the ball is.

Therefore there's no reference as such from the camera angles we can use as an argument. Or am I missing something?

[punter257]

this is just insane - i'm still sure that he'll be running through the banner come saturday arvo

the "behind play" definition has me sold

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by boroboy
Not sure how we'd prove it was in play. Whilst there are multiple angles of the actual play at the time of contact, as we know there is only one shot of the incident itself - which itself gives no indication of where the ball is.

Therefore there's no reference as such from the camera angles we can use as an argument. Or am I missing something?

Here's the definition of the "in-play" rule:

'An incident will be regarded as in play if it is in proximity to the ball or the next passage of play."

[ScottH]

Originally posted by swan_song
How come you can kick a guy in the head requiring him to have plastic surgery and a virtual face remodelling, and get off...yet you can do a silly punch to a big blouse and get two weeks...this stuff is just ridiculous!

So right, just like Jolly's "contact"

[desredandwhite]

Originally posted by boroboy
Not sure how we'd prove it was in play. Whilst there are multiple angles of the actual play at the time of contact, as we know there is only one shot of the incident itself - which itself gives no indication of where the ball is.

Therefore there's no reference as such from the camera angles we can use as an argument. Or am I missing something?

Camera timecodes. That's how they are able to show the "picture in picture" screens. They can overlay that angle with the main angle footage.

[cressakel]

Originally posted by monopoly19
I think you're wrong there.

This is taken from the AFL website regarding a player that accepts a guilty charge but disputes the level of the charge:

If the tribunal accepts ____'s case, and reduces the level of Conduct to Reckless, and the offense to Level 2. As ____ has 'successfully' pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, he is eligible to receive the early plea discount of 25% and would receive a one match suspension.

So if they downgrade it to one of 'in play' or 'incidental' (the former is much more likely), that's 5 activation points, 125 demerit points, minus 25% is 93.75 points which is a reprimand.

My mistake - I was given the information by someone who supposedly knew the AFL tribunal backwards (NOT)....

Let's hope now the above applies to Hally then.....

[Rizzo]

So, if behind play is knocked out, how many points are left? Can someone run through the points system? What's the threshold for 1 game?

ta.


"The panel assessed the first quarter incident as reckless conduct (two points), low impact (one point), behind play (two points) and body contact (one point).

The altercation drew a penalty of 225 demerit points - or a two-match suspension - but an early guilty plea will reduce the penalty by 25 per cent to 168.75 points and a one-game suspension."