Barrygate

[stellation]

Andrew Schauble will be our Grand Final CHF.

[Reggi]

I would have thought to get reported for striking, you would have to see a fist or something. Having seen the the footage 10 of 10,000 times, it's impossible to tell whther Hall just thrust his hand into his chest in the course of grappling with him, or punched him.

To charge him the panel would have to guess that he punched him, which wouldn't seem right. Hall wasn't looking at him when he did it, was just grappling as he tried to get away.

The Vic media and footy public will blow it out of all proportion out of bittereness, I would be surprised if he went out.

Especially when there has been many cases of clear jumper punches not being reported.

But then again when it comes to umpires and us, there is one rule for everyone else, and one for us.

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by midaro
It was embarassing then.
Dunkley shouldn't have played in 96.

If a person can be tried for murder without the corpse, I don't think anyone will have trouble inferring that Hall struck Maguire with a clenched fist.

He's guilty. We all know it.
Gehrig got one for much less.
Gardiner got two for about the same.
Forget Hall, we can win it without him.

Kosi was let off after a worse offence.

[Legs Akimbo]

Check out this article. Seems like we are looking at the wrong incident...

The only thing marring the win was a nasty incident involving the Swans captain, Barry Hall, pictured hugging Ryan O'Keefe and Luke Ablett.

Hugging

He could get rubbed out for a month!

[Thunder Shaker]

I asked before if anyone has a link to the points tables for the tribunal system and nobody has helped out so far. It would be a useful exercise to attempt to grade the incident ourselves. All that is in this thread at present is unsubstantiated rubbish like "he'll get a week" "he'll get off" without anyone taking the trouble to work out a likely penalty from the actual tables.

I tried finding it on the AFL website but the link to the PDF file is broken.

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker
I asked before if anyone has a link to the points tables for the tribunal system and nobody has helped out so far. It would be a useful exercise to attempt to grade the incident ourselves. All that is in this thread at present is unsubstantiated rubbish like "he'll get a week" "he'll get off" without anyone taking the trouble to work out a likely penalty from the actual tables.

I tried finding it on the AFL website but the link to the PDF file is broken.

From the corresponding thread on BF:

Conduct: Intentional (3)
Impact : Low (1)
Location: Behind Play (2)
Contact: Body (1)

Total of 7 activation points = Level 3 offence = 325 points

Doesn't get any discount for good record. Would get 25% for taking an early plea = 243.75 = 2 weeks and 43.75 points carry over.

[SXP]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
From the corresponding thread on BF:

Conduct: Intentional (3)
Impact : Low (1)
Location: Behind Play (2)
Contact: Body (1)

Total of 7 activation points = Level 3 offence = 325 points

Doesn't get any discount for good record. Would get 25% for taking an early plea = 243.75 = 2 weeks and 43.75 points carry over.

Agree, I saw it in replay myself and I believe that he won't play in GF. Swans will have to find others to fire in forward line in order to win the premiership.

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
From the corresponding thread on BF:

Conduct: Intentional (3)
Impact : Low (1)
Location: Behind Play (2)
Contact: Body (1)

Total of 7 activation points = Level 3 offence = 325 points

Doesn't get any discount for good record. Would get 25% for taking an early plea = 243.75 = 2 weeks and 43.75 points carry over.

Intentional? How do they justify that? Bazza wasn't even watching Maguire, his eyes were on the play. At best I feel it's reckless. The MRP won't rule that as Intentional, the Swans would tear them to shreds in the defence.

No discount for good record? Are they sure it's five years?

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by SXP
Agree, I saw it in replay myself and I believe that he won't play in GF. Swans will have to find others to fire in forward line in order to win the premiership.

If he goes, and I reckon it doesn't 'deserve' to go but precedents have been set this season, it will be a personal travesty for the big fella. How hard has the poor bloke worked to clean up his game? How maligned has he been by umpires.? How far has he gone to keep a lid on his frustration and anger? To miss a GF for that, after all he has done, would be criminal.

[Legs Akimbo]

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker
Intentional? How do they justify that? Bazza wasn't even watching Maguire, his eyes were on the play. At best I feel it's reckless. The MRP won't rule that as Intentional, the Swans would tear them to shreds in the defence.

No discount for good record? Are they sure it's five years?

Maybe he has a slight chance because the actual contact was not captured on film, but I should think Res Ipsa Loquitor - unless McGuire explains he was staging for a free, then Bazza is in deep poo poo. Even then, McGuire would struggle to explain why he stayed down when Hall went on to kick the goal.

Maybe Roos master plan with Schauble has been teaching him how to be a full forward in the ressies in preparation for our hour of need.

[Newbie]

Lack of evidence would mean the case to be thrown out. The Melbourne media is trying its best to get Hall suspended. Should not fall for this trap.

Still, I dont think the absence of Hall would be a significant loss for us. Glass or Rutten are both not Hall's easiest matchups. We might play better against the Eagles or the Crows with a multiple options than a focal point.

[Young Blood]

If he is suspended, he'll cop a lot of flak, and deservedly so. But we have to also remember that he played a great game last night and of course had a superb season. If it weren't for Bazza, we wouldn't be in the GF in the first place.

[ScottH]

I haven't seen it, but it doesn't sound good.

[sharp9]

Originally posted by legaff
Scott Gullan...im not sure who he supports but he is a tipster for the Sun, and often tips against the swans. Don't underestimate the influence that the media can have on this incident....

Totally disagree. the media have had no influence at the tribunal all year. On the contrary there have benn quite a few when the media have brayed for blood or leniancy (Gehrig, for example) and the tribunal have not listened.

I have seen the one angle from behind Hall and the equation is simple.

If the review panel deem the contact strong enough to be called "low" as opposed to "worth a free" he is gone. It's as simple as that.

In a couple of occasions over the past couple of years these relatively low impact things (Lloyd, Gehrig, Jolly!!!!!!) have been sent up and on others they haven't .Can't recall the names but there have been 3 in the second half of this season where the media have said "that's as bad or worse than Gehrig's..." but the level of contact has been deemed not enough.

The match review panel have indicated that they made an error by sending Gehrig up for his "love tap"

There is, IMO about a 25% chance that he will not be cited.

[sharp9]

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker
I asked before if anyone has a link to the points tables for the tribunal system and nobody has helped out so far. It would be a useful exercise to attempt to grade the incident ourselves. All that is in this thread at present is unsubstantiated rubbish like "he'll get a week" "he'll get off" without anyone taking the trouble to work out a likely penalty from the actual tables.

I tried finding it on the AFL website but the link to the PDF file is broken.

Peteer Scwab did it on radio....smallest possible (low impact, reckless, behind play, to the body) equals 225 points...early plea 25 % equals 182 points, one match.

Suspended within the last five years (or is it three? Doesn't matter anyway he isn't eligible I can tell you that) means no extra 25%off like Ricciuto.

So it's simple....aree match review panel convinced that there is striking of level strong enough to be called "low" or not?