Barrygate

[DST]

Another helpful peice of information:

I attended a lunch before the Geelong v Melbourne game and who else but Peter Schwab was guest speaker.

The question was raised during the talk "what decesion would you do differently over the year". Schwab replied "without hesitation the Gehrig love tap". He went on to say that since the point they have looked at those incidents differently as witnessed by the Kosi case.

I just get the feeling he will cite him, but down grade the charge below the one week penalty after early plea and good behviour.

DST

[BonBon]

People this arvo called up 3AW and talked about Barry Hall and his suspension. Andrew Dunkley was great to listen to. I keep watching the replay and there was nothing in that stomach punch. John Longmire said not to worry and soldier on - we can't let the players feel that we can't win a Grand Final just because Barry Hall might not be playing.

[Matt79]

Originally posted by BonBon
People this arvo called up 3AW and talked about Barry Hall and his suspension. Andrew Dunkley was great to listen to. I keep watching the replay and there was nothing in that stomach punch. John Longmire said not to worry and soldier on - we can't let the players feel that we can't win a Grand Final just because Barry Hall might not be playing.

Good point. This incident will take care of itself, for better or for worse. BUT I am not going to let this ruin what will be the best week of our lives. We can win with or without the big unit.

FWIW - Providing no other angle comes up of the incident, he will get off.

[liz]

Originally posted by dann
Is it possible that if BBBH is found guilty, that the Swans will just appeal and reappeal to higher panels to get the whole thing stuck in bogged in legals ala '96 or has the AFL shut down that loophole.

In 1996 the Swans did not appeal to the courts on Dunkley's suspension. They took out an injunction against the tribunal sitting to consider the case on the grounds that, by not bring the charge until late on the Wednesday afternoon and that this was based on new video evidence that had "just appeared", they did not have a reasonable time to prepare a defence.

This one will be done and dusted early in the week, probably by tomorrow night once the Match Review Committee has pontificated. At least by then we'll know what he faces, and it will be up to the club to go to the tribunal to fight it if the news is not what we want to hear.

Given the nature of the incident and the coverage of it, I have a feeling that whatever the MRC comes up with will stand. There is no doubt that he did the act. It just comes down to how it is assessed.

[Matt79]

Originally posted by liz


This one will be done and dusted early in the week, probably by tomorrow night once the Match Review Committee has pontificated. At least by then we'll know what he faces, and it will be up to the club to go to the tribunal to fight it if the news is not what we want to hear.
.

I really hope this is right. I was saying to a friend last night, that surely in Grand Final week any incidents potentially involving either competing club shold be dealt with ASAP. I hope there would be an answer tomorrow morning and if worse case happens, off to appeals on Monday night. It needs to be done and dusted with early.

The whole Dunkly thing was a farce, leaving until late to charge him and I believe the Swans were in their rights to appeal and indeed gain an injunction.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by liz
There is no doubt that he did the act. It just comes down to how it is assessed.

With all due respect, its a good thing you are not a lawyer for the defence Liz.

There is plenty of doubt he did the "act". Because for a start, we cant actually see the "act". And then what is the "act" anyway? Was it a slap, punch or push? Did it connect with the arm, side, chest or stomach? How much force was actually used anyway(and note its easy to argue that a players reaction, without sufficient evidence of injury to support it, is irrelevant in this example)?

There is ample opportunity to just rule the incident insignificant. And plenty to "make an example" or "appease the masses" by activating only enough points to ensure he only gets a reprimand. And plenty more to have the whole thing thrown out by the Tribunal. There has been so much inconsistency with the whole process this year, a good QC would be able to ensure he gets off.

[liz]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
With all due respect, its a good thing you are not a lawyer for the defence Liz.

There is plenty of doubt he did the "act". Because for a start, we cant actually see the "act". And then what is the "act" anyway?

I'm not disputing that it's unclear what "the act" was. But even the most one-eyed supporter would find it hard to argue that Hall didn't make some contact.

[NMWBloods]

As I said elsewhere, I'm pretty sure they can't lay a charge unless they know the form of contact. In this case they don't.

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
As I said elsewhere, I'm pretty sure they can't lay a charge unless they know the form of contact. In this case they don't.

They make take a victim's statement. Can they actually do that?

[moccha]

Congratulations from a Saints fan. Your team ran the Saints ragged in the last quarter. Live up this week and hope for the best next week, but unfortunately Barry Hall won't play in the Grand Final. What he did was reckless and stupid. No one here can deny that. A precedent has been set and as such he should suffer the consequences. That is the harsh reality of the tribunal. The faster you get over the fact that Hall won't play the better the Swans can plan for next week

[Charlie]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
They make take a victim's statement. Can they actually do that?

Maguire will be required to testify, if Hall is cited.

Much will depend on whether he decides to break the code.

[Provost]

Originally posted by moccha
Congratulations from a Saints fan. Your team ran the Saints ragged in the last quarter. Live up this week and hope for the best next week, but unfortunately Barry Hall won't play in the Grand Final. What he did was reckless and stupid. No one here can deny that. A precedent has been set and as such he should suffer the consequences. That is the harsh reality of the tribunal. The faster you get over the fact that Hall won't play the better the Swans can plan for next week

[moccha]

Originally posted by Charlie
Maguire will be required to testify, if Hall is cited.

Much will depend on whether he decides to break the code.

I really don't think Maguire will have much influence. The video is damning enough.

What's he gonna say "I was just taking a breather"?

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by moccha
I really don't think Maguire will have much influence. The video is damning enough.

What's he gonna say "I was just taking a breather"?

No. "I was diving."

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by Charlie
Maguire will be required to testify, if Hall is cited.

But in terms of gathering evidence in order to lay a charge - can they ask the alleged victim?