Barrygate

[BayesysLeftBoot]

Originally posted by Go Swannies
See - that's how you underestimate Ben. He knew if he did that fumble that he'd captain the Sydney Swans to their first premiership. Forethought indeed.

I'm slightly calmer than I was around lunchtime. Time to start repairing the damage around the office, I guess.

lol, and the conspiracy theories continue

[Bart]

Originally posted by BayseysLeftBoot
No doubt there will be this kind of technology used tommorow but if you watch the replay you can pretty much get the incident to within about an 8 second time frame in which the swans had the ball. I believe when it happened the ball was in Ben Mathews possesion and he was running forward and then fumbled.

Is there a behind-the-goals angle of the whole ground ?

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by boroboy
I'm really no expert - only trying to read between the lines of what he was saying (any hope of work of work this week has vanished). My interpretation was that where the ball / play is, is irelevant to a degree - it's what Baz was trying to do at the time of contact in order to set himself up to be ready for when the ball came back down...

Ok. Graeme Bond on 3AW said as much:

It comes down to how well the evidence is argued by our representation tomorrow night as to whether it we can change the charges from "reckless" to "negligent", and whether the ball was indeed "in-play".

I feel pretty confident we will argue both, as I suggested earlier, but really hammer home the in-play part.

[hammo]

So Barry is charged despite inconclusive video evidence and now our biggest obstacle to mounting a defence is the same inconclusive video?

It's a bloody joke!

[big bear]

you can elbow someone in the face before the ball is bounced and get offered a week or you can tap someone in the ribs and maybe get 2 weeks. What a joke. Archer tapped Tredrea harder in the North v Port match and was not reviewed by panel What a joke, If Hall misses the GF it will be a travesty of justice. Baker hit Goodes as hard before the game when he was trying to shake hands. No mention. Come on guys be fair and let the big bloke off.

[BayesysLeftBoot]

This thread is the bane of my existance

[Snowy]

According to both Bond and Whately the definition of in play can be expecting to receive the ball in the next action of play. Surely leading comes under that. Gaspar looks unlikely to get off as there is no room to move with his gradings.

[grantygrant]

I have my t-shirt ready...

[Ruda Wakening]

Originally posted by Snowy
According to both Bond and Whately the definition of in play can be expecting to receive the ball in the next action of play. Surely leading comes under that.

"The way that I saw it, the incident was not off the ball. If he is the full-forward and anticipating where the ball is going to come from, he is anticipating his team-mates to run across and him to lead up into a particular space, and he illegally got rid of his opponent but he was in the play. The ball could be one yard off or 100 yards off. He was trying to find space."- Mick Malthouse.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by Ruda Wakening
"The way that I saw it, the incident was not off the ball. If he is the full-forward and anticipating where the ball is going to come from, he is anticipating his team-mates to run across and him to lead up into a particular space, and he illegally got rid of his opponent but he was in the play. The ball could be one yard off or 100 yards off. He was trying to find space."- Mick Malthouse.

This video footage courtesy of Channel Ten, shows all of the players turning around in the area and watching the ball. The only one not doing so is in fact Maguire, which to me shows he was not himself that night.

I think it was in play. I also think the blow was negligent rather than reckless. Bazza's eyes were only ever on the ball and he was swinging his arm around to smack Maguire one. I actually doubt he meant to punch him, but more to forearm him around the waist, but Maguire ran further than he thought and copped the knuckles. Also I think it was a lucky shot (well unlucky) because it was not the force, but rather the point of impact that made it hurt. It it had been a little lower and more around the hip bone, it would have been ignored.

[floppinab]

Originally posted by Mike_B
Agree there because it comes down to one of two options:

1) Try to beat the charge altogether which seems unlikely
OR
2) Plead guilty to the offence but contest the classification which would, if upheld, mean he would get the 25% discount. If however the challenge to the classification was dismissed, he would lose that 25% discount.

Can they have a crack at all 3???

Argue the force was too small to be a strike.
Was in play not behind.
Was incidental rather than reckless

[Refried Noodle]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
I think it was in play.

What the criteria for in or out of play?

[Frog]

Looks like the AFL web site knows more than we do. I have requested a link to the article that tells us this, but they are pre-empting the Swans will contest the charge at a hearing Tuesday.

Finals Blog here

which makes Tuesday?s hearing about the biggest thing going around.

[BonBon]

This might be the one night of the year that Fox Footy wishes that it did have the rights to televise the tribunal live.

Is it announced Thursday?

[Frog]

Originally posted by BonBon
Is it announced Thursday?

Great thread ... Hope you are all right, correct etc that he will get off ...

But has anyone considered that the Swans may NOT contest the suspension, plead guilty and cop the week ?

No, I don't want to see that happen either. Doesn't mean the option isn't there.