Barrygate Ep II: Return of the Verdict

[timbo]

got out of dukes of hazzard about 930. had to wait till 10 when idiot mark doran on sen had finished interviewing shaun tait about mentioning anything about barry.


pretty pumped now. The best thing is that it was done in over a day and it is still 4 days away from the game so barry can still enjoy the week with no criticising mentality of front page headlines (hopefully).

dont know how gaspar got off, an elbow to the face. wheras didak got 2 weeks for an elbow to the gut. it wasnt negligent it was reckless for sure. It wasnt in play because the ball wasnt even bounced.

the MRP had to give it a level 2 just because everyone would be furious if no action was taken. it was, just not enough to rule him out.

the points system makes things clearer. I had no idea what the points system meant originally, now i feel like a pro.

[Foreign Legion]

Originally posted by sydfan83
I guess the difference between this and Dunkley in 1996 is -

in 2005, Hall gets off arguably because of the current system (here, the AFL's 'flexible' definition of 'in play')

while in 1996, when there was a Supreme Court challenge, don't know the details, but I'd assume Dunkley would have gotten off by challenging the validity of the tribunal system at the time!

But thrilled that this whole thing is resolved already.

Oh, and Barry - you owe us a big game on Saturday to make up for the trouble you got yourself into and the angst caused for all us RWO-ers!

There was no appeals process in '96 that is why we were able to go to the higher court and ask for it to be looked at. Much harder now apparently.

[BonBon]

Hall free to play in GF

http://sydneyswans.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=230634

"It seemed to me that at all times Hall was looking towards the ball," Jones said.

That was so true. He had his eye on the ball the whole time while changing direction. He never looked at Matt Maguire when striking him.

[Schneiderman]

Firstly, I must congratulate all of the RWO fraternity/sorority for their dedication in the grave face of such tension. Reaching almost twenty pages in just on 4 hours is an admirable effort.

Secondly, well done Baz. Your stoic efforts to lift the team and then to remain calm whilst this farce played out keep me believing that you deserve the captaincy next year. Unlike some people, I know everything you have done has been for the team - the clean sheet for three years, the hard edge for the PF, the cool nerves when these trumped up charges were laid. And for those who forget... just how many Brownlow votes did you get last night??

Lastly, thank you AFL. You have created a fantastic little sideshow. I stick to my original theory: you created a storm to deflect attention, and then gave yourself a way out to save face. Maybe you could have asked the panel to take a little longer than 4min to decide? It all looks a little pre-meditated.

[liz]

Originally posted by Foreign Legion
There was no appeals process in '96 that is why we were able to go to the higher court and ask for it to be looked at. Much harder now apparently.

Not correct.

The lack of an appeals process was not an issue in the Dunks case. It was a case in a subsequent year that led to the introduction of an appeals board - maybe the Greg Williams case???

The issue with Dunkley surrounded the time of the week that charges were laid and the time given to the club to prepare a defence. The case was not heard by the tribunal in the week preceeding the GF so there was never any conviction to appeal against.

The club took out an injunction against the tribunal sitting to hear the case pre GF on the grounds that they did not have a reasonable time to prepare a defence.

[BayesysLeftBoot]

Originally posted by liz
Not correct.

The lack of an appeals process was not an issue in the Dunks case. It was a case in a subsequent year that led to the introduction of an appeals board - maybe the Greg Williams case???

The issue with Dunkley surrounded the time of the week that charges were laid and the time given to the club to prepare a defence. The case was not heard by the tribunal in the week preceeding the GF so there was never any conviction to appeal against.

The club took out an injunction against the tribunal sitting to hear the case pre GF on the grounds that they did not have a reasonable time to prepare a defence.

Thanks liz, I've lost count of the times I have explained this to people this week. I think I'll just print this out in case anyone else asks me about it

[Albert Park]

Originally posted by cruiser
That was too perfect. I think ugg is actually Roos!

Wait a minute; where were the two "Probablys"

[Charlie]

Don't like this new title. Here's hoping that Ep III: The Tribunal Strikes Back is canned during production.

BTW - isn't Return of the Jedi Ep III?

[ScottH]

Originally posted by Charlie
Don't like this new title. Here's hoping that Ep III: The Tribunal Strikes Back is canned during production.

BTW - isn't Return of the Jedi Ep III?

EP. VI

[Charlie]

Oh yeah, I forgot that Lucas did things backwards.

I think I'll stick to Stargate.

[Bunyip]

Wow, I am so glad that it is over.

Grand Final week had been a real bummer before last night, a real claytons affair.

It's game on now!

There is a vibe in the air here at work today (UNSW). I have my jumper on and am getting lots of positive responses from people (a lot about BBB). I've seen flags, streamers and other jumpers around campus too. I am excited!

[Rizzo]

http://tinyurl.com/9v8x6

Greg Baum on SMH writing from inside the Tribunal.

[SwallowdaFonz]

Ben Mathews does his bit for the cause:

"After all the speculation, it proved a straightforward case. Hall's defence used footage from two iso-cams spliced with broadcast footage to demonstrate that Hall was positioning himself to make a lead for teammate Ben Mathews when he struck Maguire.

Mathews fumbled once, then was tackled and dispossessed by Luke Ball, so forcing Hall to check his lead, then make another in the opposite direction."

(From Greg Baum in today's Age).

[Albert Park]

Originally posted by SwallowdaFonz
Ben Mathews does his bit for the cause:

"After all the speculation, it proved a straightforward case. Hall's defence used footage from two iso-cams spliced with broadcast footage to demonstrate that Hall was positioning himself to make a lead for teammate Ben Mathews when he struck Maguire.

Mathews fumbled once, then was tackled and dispossessed by Luke Ball, so forcing Hall to check his lead, then make another in the opposite direction."

(From Greg Baum in today's Age).

So it was Mathews fault all along!
I knew it. The Swans carried him all year and now he nearly robbed us of the flag!! Put him up for trade bait

Seriously, Ben kept Son of God quiet during the Geelong game and he did a great job in helping to nulifyi the Saints attack.
We should keep him to pester the show ponies in the Weagles midfield