Barrygate

[SimonH]

From a legal perspective, for this to all be any use on appeal (if the Tribunal goes against us), the following needs to happen:
a) One or more of the "30 or 40" needs to come forward and put their name to an affidavit or stat dec (an anonymous posting on an internet forum isn't worth anything as evidence)
b) Stoneham needs to be scheduled to sit
c) The Swans need to make an application at the start of the hearing for Stoneham to excuse himself for apprehended bias (you can't sit on your hands and then complain later), and
d) Stoneham needs to refuse the application.

It all sounds hopeful that it's the rabbit out of the hat we need, but I'm pretty sceptical about whether this turn of events will unfold.

[Sanecow]

Get a grip. Hall has not let us down, he has gotten us into a Grand Final.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by legaff
The fact is that Hall hasn't got a brain in that thick skull of his, and acted very irresponsibly. I cant beleive he did this to us...and i will never support him in the same way ever again. He has let us down

Ok. Just ignore the 72 goals he kicked this year, and the four he kicked in that game. Everyone deserves to be hated over one incident.

[Diego]

Originally posted by legaff
It doesn't matter...either way he has done irrepareable damage to the team. Even if he gets off, it would mean a lot of expelled energy from the swans management that could have been put to better use. If doesn't get off, then we will probably lose this week and will always be saying "yeh but we would have won if hall played"..."the AFL hates the swans"...its all a bunch crap.

The fact is that Hall hasn't got a brain in that thick skull of his, and acted very irresponsibly. I cant beleive he did this to us...and i will never support him in the same way ever again. He has let us down

I am embarrased you have a) kirk as your avatar b) that you support the same team i do.

Go support the Saints.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
My memory is that Barry is running back to the square with Maguire, swings the arm, and runs off in the opposite direction to receive the mark without an opponent.

The mark he gets (and kicks a goal from) is a bit further along in play. IIRC Hall leads to the left side of the ground (looking from behind the goals) and the ball is out there, but then WC take possession and push it forward. It is turned over and the Swans run it back up the other side of the ground and Hall runs out to that side (the right hand side from behind the goals) and takes the mark.

The key issue is who has the ball and where is it when Hall does his 'punch and lead'. A bit hard to tell based on the footage, but it certainly appears from Hall's actions that he is looking up and running to make space.

What is also interesting, is that it is not enormously different to the solid double-handed push-offs that forwards do all the time against their defenders. They are just as likely to hit someone in the chest or stomach and cause them to double over. Indeed I've seen a few occasions in the past where a defender has been inconvenienced from that sort of shove. There is nothing to suggest that Hall simply didn't do the same thing but with one hand instead of two.

[BayesysLeftBoot]

Imagine how the saints fans would feel if this actualy enabled Hall to play in the GF, knowing that it was only discovered because of a post on their site. Oh the irony

[BayesysLeftBoot]

Theres some arguments for both sides. I think he is a champion player and I will really feel for him if he misses out....But he has no one to blame but himself and he has let his team mates down.

[boroboy]

Just taken a look at the mechanics of the tribunal - here's a few pointers for tomorrow;

'How strong does that evidence have to be? In other words, what is the "burden of proof", how much of a case does the AFL have to make to prove the player is guilty of the charge?The AFL Tribunal doesn't hear criminal charges, so the civil burden of proof applies - a player is guilty of the charge if, "on the balance of probabilities" he committed the offence. However, it's not up to the player to prove he didn't do it ? it's up to the Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence, to find him guilty. Lawyers call this the "onus of proof".

Based on this I'd think its highly likely they will come to the conclusion he committed the offence - therefore getting the charge thrown out on the fact the tv coverage was inconclusve is improbable. Looks like the favored option is somehow getting the charge downgraded.

Also, the Tribunal is made up of a Chairperson and Deputy, who must be lawyers with at least seven years experience, and a panel of not more than ten people who have a knowledge of Aussie Rules. The Chairman (or Deputy) hears cases together with two panel members. I've no idea who the tribual is made up of...

[legaff]

Originally posted by Diego
I am embarrased you have a) kirk as your avatar b) that you support the same team i do.

Go support the Saints.

Whatever mate...i am a true sydney swans fan, and i will always support the club over one individual player. If you want to blame umpires for you're teams mistakes, go and join collingwood.

I know he kicked 72 goals, and that we wouldnt be the same team without him. But how does that exclude him of sole responsibilty for his actions? It's a like a 100 metre sprinter who is winning a race and falls over just before the finish line. It doesn't matter that he was winning for the first 90metres, who cares.?

Hall was completely reckless in his actions. Even if he gets off on some technicality, he has still hurt the club dearly.

[BayesysLeftBoot]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
The mark he gets (and kicks a goal from) is a bit further along in play. IIRC Hall leads to the left side of the ground (looking from behind the goals) and the ball is out there, but then WC take possession and push it forward. It is turned over and the Swans run it back up the other side of the ground and Hall runs out to that side (the right hand side from behind the goals) and takes the mark.

The key issue is who has the ball and where is it when Hall does his 'punch and lead'. A bit hard to tell based on the footage, but it certainly appears from Hall's actions that he is looking up and running to make space.

What is also interesting, is that it is not enormously different to the solid double-handed push-offs that forwards do all the time against their defenders. They are just as likely to hit someone in the chest or stomach and cause them to double over. Indeed I've seen a few occasions in the past where a defender has been inconvenienced from that sort of shove. There is nothing to suggest that Hall simply didn't do the same thing but with one hand instead of two.

I've watched the tape a couple of times today and I reckon he does it when ben mathews has the ball and is about to kick upfield but he stumbles. I cant be sure this is exactly when but the ball is almost definately in our possesion going forward when it happens.

[Go Swannies]

Magic at 3pm

I just heard Magic quoted on 702 and he was saying that they hope Baz plays but if he doesn't then the even spread of goal kickers can cover for him. "I'll just have to step up a bit more." Funny, hearing Magic being so positive when all is doom here has me feeling more positive.

[boroboy]

More info;

Who's on the Tribunal?

Brian Collis QC (Chairperson); Shane Maguire (Deputy Chairperson); Elaine Canty; David Shibury; Brian LeBrocq; Emmet Dunne; and Michael Green.

The player?s mouthpiece

The player is entitled to have a "Players' Advocate" represent him and make sure he gets a good hearing. Often this will be someone employed by the club ? no lawyers allowed!

The Tribunal?s assistant

There is also a person (not a lawyer), who is there to help the Tribunal ? they are called the Reporting Officer (which is a silly name for this person ? the umpire/AFL did the reporting). Their job is to:

advise the Tribunal about the charge;

tell them what they think about the charge;

bring along people to give evidence;

ask questions of these people; and

finally summarise it all.

For example, they might call the umpire(s) and players to give evidence, no matter who that evidence might benefit, or make sure they are available if the Players' Advocate wants to ask them questions. They are also allowed to change the charge during the hearing, if the Tribunal agrees.

The decision

The Tribunal can impose any penalty they like, but they should have some regard to:


the seriousness of the offence;

any injuries as a result of the offence; and

the guilty player's prior offences.

The Rules do not oblige the Tribunal to give reasons for its verdict.

[Go Swannies]

Listen to 702 now

discussion of the incident

[cruiser]

Thanks Boro Boy.

[Dave]

The annoying thing is that this could drag out to Thursday a la Dunkley in '96.