Barrygate

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by floppinab
He's a potential panellist isn't he???? They have to pick 3 out 6 they have available to sit. He might not sit yet.

Interestingly enough Stuey Loewe could sit on the panel as well.

Already picked. The roster is set at the start of the year. EDIT: I dont know if Stoneham is on the panel, just that its a known panel.

And Charlie, the assumption you are making is that he knew Hall would be cited, that he'd be offered 2 weeks, and that we'd appeal to the Tribunal. That's either very careful planning, or just prescient. Especially considering we were still apparently behind at the time, and momentum with the Saints.

[ugg]

Originally posted by swan_song
What we need now is to get that lawyer over here who got OJ off! This should be a piece of cake in comparison...though it all depends, I guess, on the supposition that Goldspink isn't a judge in his spare time

The Chewbacca defence!!!

[Captain]

It's going to take something special to get him off the charge. Watching at the game, the incident definately seemed like it was behind the play.

I hope the tribunal comes to its senses and throws out the charge.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by liz
Definitely the best chance of defence.

I thought the sticking pt was going to be the degree of impact but that one is no longer in dispute,

Now the Swans just have to demonstrate that it was in-play.

However, the grey area of the tribunal machinations is whether, if they go to the tribunal and fight on this point, will he still be eligible for the discount for an early plea? If not, it becomes a moot point - he will miss anyway.

Some have managed to work the system so that they still get the early plea discount even after fighting it, but some others have failed to do this.

The system is massively flawed - Adrian Anderson is a fool.

But Hall should still be able to claim the early plea (theoretically). Simply say he is happy to plead guilty to the charge, but the charge needs to be correct and it isn't.

[adnar]

What's most disturbing is that Gasper got the exact same freaking rating for elbowing someone in the Jaw befor ethe ball had even been bounced.

[ugg]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
The system is massively flawed - Adrian Anderson is a fool.

But Hall should still be able to claim the early plea (theoretically). Simply say he is happy to plead guilty to the charge, but the charge needs to be correct and it isn't.

Most of this tribunal stuff goes over my head, but isn't that what Koschitzke did with his case and succeeded?

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by adnar
What's most disturbing is that Gasper got the exact same freaking rating for elbowing someone in the Jaw befor ethe ball had even been bounced.

I'm not sure the AFL has any claim to rule on incidents outside the duration of the game. Should be an assault charge IMHO.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by monopoly19
"Negligence requires that a person must take due care to avoid acts which can be reasonably seen to be likely to cause illegal contact."

I wonder if a "pulled punch" counts. And if a biometrics expert can back up a claim that Barry was actually swinging his arm to push off from his opponent but because he changed tack halfway through it looks more like a punch.

I am still really dubious on the charge at all. There is no footage of an actual punch - no contact and no indication the hand was closed at "impact". I cant believe that a player can get suspended purely based on another players reaction, regardless of whether he dived or not. Its an assumption that simply does not bear up the whole "innocent until proven guilty" principle our entire democracy is founded on!

[adnar]

Originally posted by Sanecow
I'm not sure the AFL has any claim to rule on incidents outside the duration of the game. Should be an assault charge IMHO.

Gee that's a can of worms!

[NMWBloods]

I still can't see how they can lay a charge when there is no vision or eyewitness view of the contact. I seem to recall there was a case last year or the year before where a player was let off on that basis.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by BayseysLeftBoot
Graham Bond was just on Fox News saying that if Hall gives an early plea and the AFL accept it was behind play he can get it reduced to 97.5 points. There is a reasonable chance of this happening as he was on a dummy lead at the time.

As I said in the other thread (why did we have to start a new one?) - this is our best option.

[BayesysLeftBoot]

Originally posted by Captain
It's going to take something special to get him off the charge. Watching at the game, the incident definately seemed like it was behind the play.

I hope the tribunal comes to its senses and throws out the charge.

Just because it was 40m off the ball doesn't mean it was outside of play.

The rough definition: Within close proximity to the ball OR in an area of the ground where the ball is likely to be directed to.

The ball was in our possesion looking to move it into the forward line, Hall had allready made a dummy lead and then turned around to make a real lead.

As far as I'm concerned this is "In Play"

[BayesysLeftBoot]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
As I said in the other thread (why did we have to start a new one?) - this is our best option.

I dunno, I didn't start it, just got home, jumped on RWO and assumed that this was where people were discussing it.

[punter257]

yeah your right NMW - its just downright stupidity
if the appeal doesnt work it will hit the courts 4 sure
way too many dark areas in all of this

[hammo]

A few thoughts -

* Bio-metrics experts almost never work. A panel of ex-footballers is more likely to agree that Hall was in-play or part of the next phase which also counts, rather than some scienticic explation as to whether he pulled the punch or not.

* Time to pull out all the GPS tracking the Swans have done on Hall. If he runs 21 km per match in leads etc then it shows how hard he works - and would add weight to the argument he was in play.

* If he is denied an opportunity of pleading guilty to a lesser charge then it can probably be challenged in a higher court, although I doubt the tribunal would deny Hall this option.