Barrygate

[Dave]

Good on you Archer. A true hard man of the game.

Nice to see Plugger has come out and gievn his 2 cents worth too.
From the SMH:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/afl/lockett-slams-decision-on-hall/2005/09/19/1126982000521.html

"Tony Lockett has broken his lengthy, self-imposed media exile to hit out at the decision to suspend Barry Hall from the grand final. Lockett labelled the decision "ridiculous" and bad for football."

[Bart]

Quote from today's Australian


"Video footage viewed by The Australian yesterday and available to the tribunal tonight shows conclusively that at the time of Hall's strike, Sydney's Ben Matthews had the ball and was running towards the Swans' forward line.

Sydney will argue that as the ball comes forward, Hall runs to meet it. Then, when St Kilda's Brett Voss bats the ball back towards the wing, Hall doubles back towards goal. Once Matthews regains possession, Hall punches Maguire in an attempt to free himself for a second lead."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16656800%255E36035,00.html

Mod edit: fixed link

[cruiser]

"Barrygate"!? What's Leo done?

[Rizzo]

Originally posted by Bart
Quote from today's Australian


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.a...5E36035,00.html

Link doesn't seem to work. Try this -

http://tinyurl.com/7ox7g

Also from the same -

"Sydney yesterday briefed Terry Forrest QC, the same barrister who led Tarrant's defence, to present Hall's case against a striking charge tonight.

Forrest, an experienced criminal lawyer, is no stranger to high-profile acquittals. His most recent client was Zdravko Micevic, the Melbourne bouncer found not guilty of the manslaughter of cricketer David Hookes."

So will the plea be made public before tonight?

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by Bart
Quote from today's Australian

Link is broken.

EDIT: This thread is so hot that it's necessary to refresh before posting.

[TheHood]

Who Will Pay The Real Price for Baz?

IMO Baz will play on Saturday but the charade is playing out till later tonight at least.

Hypothetically speaking, what would be the referred effects if Baz was rubbed out for this minor minor incident?

Probably outrage, then silence till the game was played out and then outrage again if Sydney lost.

The AFL would be branded a joke in the eyes of the Sydney market (rugby league and union centric) who think it's soft as it is.

The tribunal would be completely overhauled as a result, probably scrapping the points system completely.

The cost to the game and the AFL as I see it, would be gigantic. It would be a catastrophic outcome for the AFL.

Suspending Barry for this incident just won't be worth the oncost that will set the Sydney market back years.

I am sounding a bit alarmist I know, only because I have faith Baz will play, but the charade points to facing the worst case scenario and for the AFL it doesn't stop with just a couple of hundred Sydney whingers. Forget the Sydney ratings, forget the junior developement in traditional League or Union schools in NSW.

This weekend is costing most of us $1,000 and to put our Captain and best player on trial and potentially rubbed out is un-nerving to say the least. I want to wake up tomorrow morning and talk about game day tactics for the first time.

[giant]

Originally posted by liz
The Tribunal Guidelines have a section on grading of behind the play incidents, which states that

"It will be presumed that incidents behind the play...are more likely to be intentional or possibly reckless."

Putting aside the fact that Gaspar's has been assessed as being behind the play and negligent, this sentence suggests that getting the charge downgraded to negligent is unlikely to happen if they can't get it graded as in play.

Having now seen the Pickett illustration on the AFL's own DVD, I can't see how Hall's incident cannot be deemed to be in play. And while it looks dubious whether the Pickett one actually was, despite the DVD, in Hall's case the players were clearly jostling for position and trying to make space, especially if you look at the few seconds before the incident where Hall was clearly on the move, with his eyes up the ground.

The DVD example I've seen is Rioli (v Bulldogs) - is the Pickett one a different example again or is there confusion?

[NMWBloods]

I assumed Liz meant the Rioli one (which I can't possibly see as being in-play, but that's the precedent set by the tribunal!).

[giant]

Originally posted by Rizzo


Also from the same -

"Sydney yesterday briefed Terry Forrest QC, the same barrister who led Tarrant's defence, to present Hall's case against a striking charge tonight.

Forrest? But that bloke can't see the wood for the trees?

[hammo]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I assumed Liz meant the Rioli one (which I can't possibly see as being in-play, but that's the precedent set by the tribunal!).

At least at the end of Barrygate the AFL will have a new example for next year's DVD

[OldE]

Surely the AFL isn't stupid enough to suspend him. They'll lose millions. Viewing rates for the GF would be lower, which will mean less to bargain with in the next TV rights deal.

Surely even Demetriou isn't stupid enough to allow Hall to be suspended.

[NMWBloods]

How can Demetriou stop it?

[OldE]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
How can Demetriou stop it?

He could stop it with a quiet word to the right person.

[giant]

Don't dispute what you're saying Hood but it won't make a jot of difference to the Tribunal - and nor should it.

I'm afraid the villain here is our beloved captain & not the AFL. That said, I am quietly confident we'll see him line up.

[OldE]

The VFL/AFL have spend a century investing in the growth of football in New South Wales. Other than the 96 GF, this weekend is their greatest ever opportunity, and the culmination of much hard work. To throw all that away, or even to jeapardize it, for the sake of a dubious punch is daft.