Barrygate

[Xie Shan]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
Here's the definition of the "in-play" rule:

'An incident will be regarded as in play if it is in proximity to the ball or the next passage of play."

I guess if he was on a lead (which seems pretty clear), that would be the next passage of play, doesn't matter where the ball is. You'd think so, anyway. Fingers and toes! Would make it easier to get him off, if the 25% discount does still apply.

[dann]

I suppose I am more upset with the consistency of the tribunal. If thats the way it had been all year, then fine - its pretty soft, but thats the way its been.

But we have seen 3 seperate incidents that have been more reckless, more intentional, and more away from a contest than the Hall one - and nothing has been done nor even cited...

I understand the AFL doesn't want to be seen as going soft - hence why i thought he would get the early plea and play. But its almost as if they have overreacted and ruled tough. The implications of this in a NRL/RU area huge - on 2GB last night - many of the callers were perplexed with the charges, reinforcing that AFL is airy fairy stuff played by wimps. Again I don't understand that a player who breaks another guy's jaw with the point of this elbow can get the same penatly as this incident.

I also don't see why this can't have happened a few days previous. Demetriou yesterday called for calm - and that all of the hyphothesis should stop - but he fails to see that its the cumbersome timetable of the whole situation that allows it. If the review had happened Saturday evening they could have the issue being sorted right now. But its still at least 36 hours away from being resolved, which as has been said, totally stuffs the preparation of the sides. Its not player focussed at all - moreover it seems like the AFL would rather it be drawn out.

We seem to be a longway from BBBH playing on the last day in September now....

[Schneiderman]

The positive person that I am, makes me think there may well be a weird conspiracy here that achieves everything all at once:

1. Get him cited, and shut the media up.
2. Dont look to go soft, to shut the media up and send the message to players that this behaviour is not condoned.
3. Let him play after an appeal, because it really didn't deserve a suspension.

My question is: Why was it ruled "reckless"? Since when has a "punch", if thats what it was, ever been reckless? Very strange. Similarly, the one thing almost everyone agreed on was that it was not "behind the play". In fact, the biggest complaint Saints fans and the like have had, was that he used the opportunity to mark a ball uncontested and kick a goal. Clearly, it was in play.

Hence the crack is opened. The review panel says: "They can get off now, because fighting an 'intentional' charge would have been impossible, but the 'in-play' one is winnable"

Well tomorrow will tell, and here's hoping.

[Diego]

Have a look at this picture.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...5049790,00.jpg

He didnt even get to go visit the tribunial. This is what I am so annoyed at.

[Blackers]

Re: Could this be used in Hall's defence?

Originally posted by Matt79
I was trolling over at Saintsational to see their reactions to the loss and came across this!

If this is indeed true about Barry Stoneham and what he said, surely he would NOT be allowed to comment on possible incidents before the match review committee views it and makes their decision. **For those that don't know, Stoneham is a panel member on the tribunal**

Any lawyers out there who could state whether he is allowed to say this type of thing (of course it may not be true)..BUT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the half time break Barry Stoneham stated Hall was in trouble if the Swans got through to the GF.

He made the comment after stating he felt the Saints would run over the Swans in the second half.

He had seen the replay of the incident with Maguire and said it looked like a week at least.

He made the comment in front of 30 - 40 people.

Why is this info so interesting?

I asked him after the match if the quote was on the record.
He replied he was scheduled to sit on the tribunal this week and no it was not. ....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.saintsational.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15069

Any thoughts?

Well.... Is it time that every media outlet in the country knew about this?

[Charlie]

Re: Re: Could this be used in Hall's defence?

Originally posted by Blackers
Well.... Is it time that every media outlet in the country knew about this?

Yep.

[Syd Swan]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
The positive person that I am, makes me think there may well be a weird conspiracy here that achieves everything all at once:

1. Get him cited, and shut the media up.
2. Dont look to go soft, to shut the media up and send the message to players that this behaviour is not condoned.
3. Let him play after an appeal, because it really didn't deserve a suspension.

My question is: Why was it ruled "reckless"? Since when has a "punch", if thats what it was, ever been reckless? Very strange. Similarly, the one thing almost everyone agreed on was that it was not "behind the play". In fact, the biggest complaint Saints fans and the like have had, was that he used the opportunity to mark a ball uncontested and kick a goal. Clearly, it was in play.

Hence the crack is opened. The review panel says: "They can get off now, because fighting an 'intentional' charge would have been impossible, but the 'in-play' one is winnable"

Well tomorrow will tell, and here's hoping.

I agree with you Schneiderman, I think they are trying to make themselves look tough and be doing the right thing to shut everyone up, all the time knowing that he will probably get off on an appeal.

[monopoly19]

Originally posted by Rizzo
So, if behind play is knocked out, how many points are left? Can someone run through the points system? What's the threshold for 1 game?

If btp is downgraded to in play' then that's 5 activation points = level 1 offence = 125 demerits - 25% = 93.75 = reprimand.

This is what we're hoping for, I guess. UNlikely to get reckless downgraded to negligent

"Negligence requires that a person must take due care to avoid acts which can be reasonably seen to be likely to cause illegal contact."

Our only out there, I would suggest, would be to bring in the fact that Barry was hitting his arm, not his chest, and the video evidence does not suggest otherwise.

[BayesysLeftBoot]

Graham Bond was just on Fox News saying that if Hall gives an early plea and the AFL accept it was behind play he can get it reduced to 97.5 points. There is a reasonable chance of this happening as he was on a dummy lead at the time.

[no1swan]

Matt Maguire's nickname is "Goose". How appropriate is that? He must feel like a real goose now, after that shameful display that has cost Barry a Grand Final appearance.

How on earth can a player break another players jaw in a standing position and have nothing to answer for, and Barry get two weeks for that incident.

What a joke.

[BayesysLeftBoot]

Apparently you can plead guilty to a lesser charge and give evidence why it should be downgraded. This gives us a much better chance than an appeal. Theres hope yet

[Schneiderman]

Re: Re: Re: Could this be used in Hall's defence?

Originally posted by Charlie
Yep.

Cant see why its worth anything. So he made a judgement early. Its not like he had to hear anyone's side of the story. Every media commentator in the country gave their opinion too.

Now if he sits on the Tribunal....

[Charlie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Could this be used in Hall's defence?

Originally posted by Schneiderman

Now if he sits on the Tribunal....

Read the opening post again.

[Slick Swans]

The swans need to pull out the biggest QC's in the land to fight this, use some of the $3 million they are supposedly getting from the afl's richest jumper and splash it on getting Hally through.
How Glenn Archer can thump Tredrea while looking him directly in the eye, and they say the impact was not even high enough to register is effing rediculous!

Go Swans!!

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by BayseysLeftBoot
Apparently you can plead guilty to a lesser charge and give evidence why it should be downgraded. This gives us a much better chance than an appeal. Theres hope yet

Hence my post