Barrygate

[OldE]

I'm not suggesting that he will do that, but administrative bodies of sporting organisations are not immune from that sort of thing happening. It's happened in the past, it will happen in the future. Just like other companies. And like other companies, chances are we'll never know.

The IOC is an incredibly corrupt organisation. Rarely, if ever, do we hear about it.

That being said, I hope Hall gets off for the right reason, that the incident occured in play, not behind the play. That would be the best decision for all involved.

[TheHood]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
Once it WAS Barry Hall who did it, it was open-season for the whole AFL community. Barry Hall did nothing more than what happens 20 or 30 times in the game. We've seen clear footage of Archer doing it, Voss doing it, Kosi doing it, Judd doing it, etc.

SPOT ON!

Des, I agree that the process has to remain pure, however I am upset that these tummy taps are causing any player in any game through the season to miss one or two games.

To the letter of the ill-conceived law, they are rightfully being suspended, but the whole philosophy on which our game is based is under question this season.

They haven't got it right, have acknowledged that they haven't got it right and Barry Hall is potentially the next victim of a blind points system where 3 ex-footy players are to interpret the words "reckless" and "negligent" and this is not the dictionary version, this is the legal interpretation. It's like upholding an agreement to "utmost good faith". Drive that one around the block and tell me if you can find the brakes!

What a farce. Here we are now on the eve of the biggest game in 2005 and they have not got it right. Infuriating!

[boroboy]

Tribunal time confirmed - 6pm tonight. Barry's first up, followed by Gaspar.

[Go Swannies]

Baz: should know by . . .

ABC News says he has appealed and he will be on first at 6pm and we should know by 7pm.

[Schneiderman]

Re: Baz: should know by . . .

Originally posted by Go Swannies
ABC News says he has appealed and he will be on first at 6pm and we should know by 7pm.

What was the appeal based on?

[giant]

Originally posted by boroboy
Tribunal time confirmed - 6pm tonight. Barry's first up, followed by Gaspar.

Who's Gaspar?

[BarneyG]

Hall will argue that his clash with Maguire was 'negligent' rather than reckless and 'in play' rather than behind play. A successful challenge on either front will leave him free to play on Saturday.

The hearing will start at 6pm on Tuesday with the Sydney skipper appearing first.

from sportal!

[Tilt]

Shouldn't be hard to work out.

[dann]

Originally posted by giant
Dear oh dear - how can you possibly compare the two?

One is the father of his tribe, a fighter from the ghetto who fought tirelessly against an oppressive regime to lead his people to a glorious triumph.

The other one is just a politician!

Nice tho....

Agreed - GOLD!!

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by BarneyG
Hall will argue that his clash with Maguire was 'negligent' rather than reckless and 'in play' rather than behind play. A successful challenge on either front will leave him free to play on Saturday.

Thanks Barney!

There was still the option of pleading Not Guilty and it was floating around last night that he would. I am glad he has taken the safer route, but its all eggs in the Tribunal basket now!

[dimelb]

According to The Age, he will plead guilty to a reduced charge: (1) downgrading 'reckless' to 'negligent' and (2) 'behind play' to 'in play'.
Either one would bring him back to a reprimand instead of a ban.

[boroboy]

Originally posted by giant
Who's Gaspar?

Travis - the Weagles player who's also been cited...

[Dave]

The Australian is going along the "In play" defence.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16659728%255E601,00.html

"Hall was about 40m from the ball when he hit Maguire. Traditionally, this has been considered behind play.

But because Sydney had possession of the ball up the field and Hall was making position to lead, he can argue that he was in the next passage of play.

That would mean one point, rather than two points for an incident behind play. And that would leave Hall guilty, but not too guilty to play on Saturday. "

[NMWBloods]

Wayne Campbell made an excellent point on this. The Swans had the ball and given Hall is the main target up forward, if the ball is within 50-60m of goal, Hall has to be in play as he is probably a target most of the time.

[Charlie]

That new angle really is gold.

Feeling quite confident now that he will play.