Barrygate

[THERBS]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by timthefish
agree, but too high. 300 points can allow some pretty serious behaviour through.

i think "intentional" should still disqualify from a grand final as should anything reckless to the head. however, because the stakes are higher in a prelim, i think there should be understanding that things can get a little reckless below the neck quite easily.

other finals should be the same as h+a.

The points should also include some count for team disruption during GF week. It isn't the Swans fault that Hall's case couldn't be heard until now and its affecting our preparation. Similarly If we then take it to the Supreme Court then that's down to us.

I really find it difficult to see that what Barry did justifies the AFL's brouhaha. No direct visual evidence of a closed fist coming into contact with Maguire. There was a blatant piece of theatrics by Maguire. Now there's a voracious media worrying it like a dog with a bone.

Hall will play in the GF.

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by j s
IMHO because finals and the GF are so much more important than H&A games their suspension point value should be higher.

For example, a non GF should need 200 points for a suspension to apply and a GF 300 points. Any lesser point value would carry through to the first game where it is sufficient to apply (ie Baz could accept the current penalty but it would not cause a suspension till the next 100 point game - Round 1 next year).

With this in place major offences could still cause missed finals but minor ones would not! It would also remove the pressure for match review and tribunals to "let them play" in the finals.

These point values are wrong. Consider - incidents in the Grand Final attract double points.

If the Grand Final is a double point game, it follows that the Grand Final should require 200 points.

But that could mean players can whack others in finals and get off when they would otherwise be suspended. The game before the Grand Final is another final, so it follows that finals should attract a greater penalty than H&A but less than the GF. I suggest 150 for finals, 200 for the Grand Final.

How this works:
Level 2 offence: 125 points.
If occuring in the Grand Final: 250 points.
If occuring in another final: 187.5 points.

Points needed for suspension in H&A: 100
Grand Final: 200
Other final: 150

It gets interesting if these points carry over. What do we do?

[desredandwhite]

I think different point values for finals is a lousy idea. You should be judged equally no matter what game it is that you're missing. If the grand final is that important to you, then you should have been EXTRA careful not to put yourself in that position in prelim final week.

The stakes are higher in finals - this applies to highs AND lows.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by desredandwhite
I think different point values for finals is a lousy idea. You should be judged equally no matter what game it is that you're missing. If the grand final is that important to you, then you should have been EXTRA careful not to put yourself in that position in prelim final week.

The stakes are higher in finals - this applies to highs AND lows.

Yes but its all very unfair when in the previous six weeks you have seen lots of other players do the same thing and get NOTHING.

Let's remember that he didn't face off with Maguire and clock him to the head. It was a "regulation" forearm swing in the general direction of Maguire (note he was not looking at him or the point of contact) that made "perfect" contact. We may well have done it two or three times earlier with no ill effect.

[desredandwhite]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
Yes but its all very unfair when in the previous six weeks you have seen lots of other players do the same thing and get NOTHING.

Let's remember that he didn't face off with Maguire and clock him to the head. It was a "regulation" forearm swing in the general direction of Maguire (note he was not looking at him or the point of contact) that made "perfect" contact. We may well have done it two or three times earlier with no ill effect.

Oh, I'm not suggesting for a minute that Barry deserves to go based on recent precedent/events - I am quite confident that we can argue one of both of the charges down to let him off.

What I am saying is that it is totally irrelevant whether the player in question is playing in a reserves game, a pre-season game, a H&A game or a final. Even whether his tremendously sick grandmother is dying and desperately wants to see him play in a match - that has nothing to do with the ruling on the incident.

What the tribunal needs to do is decide "did player x do {offence)? If so, then the penalty is {blah}".

[Xie Shan]

Could it be the much-maligned points system that actually gets Barry off if he manages to argue that it was 'in play'?

Based on what I've read here, this would actually be the fairest result - we all know he hit Maguire one way or another, but the AFL still has to be bound to its own guidelines as to what constitutes 'in play'. From what I've read I can't see how Barry's incident doesn't fall under the AFL's definition of in play.

I am still confident of a win on Saturday regardless of what happens tonight - but whether Hall plays (as looks more likely now) or not, I'm still angry that this has been allowed to overshadow what should be the best week of the season for the players. And Hall has to take part of the blame for that as well.

[timthefish]

Originally posted by desredandwhite
Oh, I'm not suggesting for a minute that Barry deserves to go based on recent precedent/events - I am quite confident that we can argue one of both of the charges down to let him off.

What I am saying is that it is totally irrelevant whether the player in question is playing in a reserves game, a pre-season game, a H&A game or a final. Even whether his tremendously sick grandmother is dying and desperately wants to see him play in a match - that has nothing to do with the ruling on the incident.

What the tribunal needs to do is decide "did player x do {offence)? If so, then the penalty is {blah}".

then perhaps the grand final should be the gold standard and the home and away penalties conform to it.

should someone miss a grand-final for reckless contact that neither is with the head nor causes any injury worse than winding that passes in three minutes?

i say not.

anything rated and found to be conclusively deliberate or intentional - gone.

[punter257]

Originally posted by hammo
It's a disgrace that Hall has to front the tribunal 5 days after the actual incident.

Sack Adrian Anderson!

[BonBon]

Originally posted by punter257
Sack Adrian Anderson!

Sack the lot of the Tribunal.

[THERBS]

Originally posted by timthefish
then perhaps the grand final should be the gold standard and the home and away penalties conform to it.

should someone miss a grand-final for reckless contact that neither is with the head nor causes any injury worse than winding that passes in three minutes?

i say not.

anything rated and found to be conclusively deliberate or intentional - gone.

Calling it winding is too generous! It was a great dive done in order to draw attention to Hall and get free kick(s). I don't think someone should miss a GF because of this and you will find that Barry won't. The judiciary will be rightly slammed from pillar to post if Hall is binned.

Its certainly given us something else to talk about and livened up the media. Can't wait, bring on Saturday!

[Schneiderman]

Which one was Bazza's incident do think really should be applied?:

• "Intentional" means deliberately done of a person?s own volition. Intention requires a fixed and settled purpose which is reasonably capable of being carried into effect. The outcome has to be more than just contemplated, it must stem from an act deliberately done.
  
• "Reckless" means an act stopping short of a deliberate intention but going beyond mere inadvertence. It exists when a person does an act which creates an obvious risk of injury and that person acts, either not giving any thought to the possibility of injury, or recognising that there was some risk involved and nonetheless goes on to do the act. Recklessness is often described as a high degree of carelessness or shutting one?s eyes to the consequences of an act.
  
• "Negligent" means the failure to exercise due care which the circumstances demand. A person must take due care to avoid acts or omissions which can be reasonably foreseen to be likely to cause injury. A negligent act is less than an intentional or reckless act but more than mere carelessness or inadvertence. Negligence is the omission to do, or the doing of something, which a reasonable person would not regard as prudent.

I still reckon the act was as much negligent as reckless. If he was looking at Maguire at the time, then its clearly reckless and borders on intentional. But without clear footage its a fist, and because he is looking away and can claim he just swung an arm in the general direction, I think we can get the grading lowered. And the definition of "injury" intrigues me. Could Barry real have assumed that an arm swing would cause such a long time on the ground for Maguire? Was it really an "injury" anyway? Its not like he suffered broken ribs like Hamill did.

[Schneiderman]

Barry Hall in Melbourne

[giant]

Originally posted by BonBon
Sack the lot of the Tribunal.

Actually, the MRP/Tribunal have done us an enormous favour. By finding the impact "low" (pretty amazing given Maguire's reaction - & there is no way he dived) they've opened up the opportunity for a successful appeal tonight.

If we were having to argue the low impact case as well as the other cases tonight we'd be in a world of trouble.

[BonBon]

Originally posted by giant
Actually, the MRP/Tribunal have done us an enormous favour.

Ah well. Whose idea was it to have a Tribunal in the first place, anyway!? Like, who invented it or came up with such a thing?

[BonBon]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
Barry Hall in Melbourne

Sydney coach Paul Roos says it's important that his players don't get too consumed by the drama surrounding their key forward.

That was along the lines of what John Longmire said on 3AW. It's really important for the players to focus. Barry Hall is not what makes up our entire team. When we played WCE in the Qualifying Final, he did jack all. We still managed, but obviously not enough to win.

Maybe the team will realise they have to put in that extra effort to make up for Barry Hall's disappearance and try alot harder, should he not play.

HALL is expected to plead guilty to striking St Kilda's Matt Maguire and then attempt to have the charge downgraded, which would free him to play in the premiership decider.

That's what we all hope for. I am getting all this bullcrap talk from people who are telling me that we'll completely lose without Barry Hall and that we have no chance. It's getting so dramatic! Is it being over exaggerated?

How brilliant would it be if we won without him - goes to show we are certainly not a one-man team. But still, how disappointing for Barry to miss out. Devastating for his mother, too.