Hall: Suspended Indefinitely by the Swans

[connolly]

Didn't move on Pratt, took it easy on the Eagles and puts money in front of all else every time. Towering hypocrite with zero credibility on the issue of ethics.

[Lucky Knickers]

I agree DST, given the criminal ruling (appeal pending) for a similar offence, wise for the club to exercise caution.

[CureTheSane]

I don't agee with that, despite what many people say on here this is a serious issue.

Clearly the club beleives that they can not allow Hall to take the field in his current state as they feel he could be a danger to other players. He is also a danger to himself at present, because if he hits someone else like he did with Staker and almost Wakelin, I would bet my last dollar that legal action and criminal proceedings would then be involved.

The club owes a duty of care to the compertition and a far greater duty of care to make sure they don't allow him to play again until both parties feel he has got his temper under control, which is clearly not the case at present.

DST

I do agree with the comment.
If Hall had kicked 8 in each of the last 5 games do you think he'd be made an example of in this way?
It was FRUSTRATION.
And it wasn't an attempted strike.
It was a push that was to high IMO
But regardless of what I think about this incident in particular, there has been a MASSIVE over reaction in the media, amongst supporters and also here.

To me most of the posts made here are intended to show everyone that people here are rational, fair and unaccepting of percieved poor behavior on the field.
But it doesn't come accross that way.
I'm sure there are a lot of supporters from other club using the word 'bandwagoner' about many of the posters here right now.
And it's a pretty apt description, with all the "sack him" and "trade him" posts being made.

I'll stand by him and even feel sorry for him that whatever personal issues he has seem to be giving him a shorter fuse than usual.
He was a premiership captain for the Swans and he'll have to do a lot worse than this for me to even think about removing him from the club.

I hope he's back soon.

[ScottH]

Contradictions everywhere!

The same people who wanted Cousins hung, drawn and quartered and banned for life are now saying Hall is being harshly treated and should be allowed to play next week. The Eagles were too soft while the Swans are too harsh.

And vice versa.

[annew]

I do agree with the comment.
If Hall had kicked 8 in each of the last 5 games do you think he'd be made an example of in this way?
It was FRUSTRATION.
And it wasn't an attempted strike.
It was a push that was to high IMO
But regardless of what I think about this incident in particular, there has been a MASSIVE over reaction in the media, amongst supporters and also here.

To me most of the posts made here are intended to show everyone that people here are rational, fair and unaccepting of percieved poor behavior on the field.
But it doesn't come accross that way.
I'm sure there are a lot of supporters from other club using the word 'bandwagoner' about many of the posters here right now.
And it's a pretty apt description, with all the "sack him" and "trade him" posts being made.

I'll stand by him and even feel sorry for him that whatever personal issues he has seem to be giving him a shorter fuse than usual.
He was a premiership captain for the Swans and he'll have to do a lot worse than this for me to even think about removing him from the club.

I hope he's back soon.

Yep!!!

[AnnieH]

Contradictions everywhere!

The same people who wanted Cousins hung, drawn and quartered and banned for life are now saying Hall is being harshly treated and should be allowed to play next week. The Eagles were too soft while the Swans are too harsh.

There's a HUGE difference between being a junkie and being a thug.
In my books, being a junkie is worse.

[hammo]

There's a HUGE difference between being a junkie and being a thug.
In my books, being a junkie is worse.

Worse for who? Cousins posed no danger to anyone playing against him.

[AnnieH]

Worse for who? Cousins posed no danger to anyone playing against him.

What if the junkie had one of those drug induced "rages". He would have been a danger to someone playing against him.

(Yes, I'm clutching at straws, but junkie is still worse that thug.)

[connolly]

Worse for who? Cousins posed no danger to anyone playing against him.

In a duty of care obligation, a competitor using amphetimines to the point of addiction certainly does pose a risk to himself (or herself), competitors and the sport. The medical risks of heart failure, risks to opponents through heightened agression and to the code (obvious) make the decision not to suspend him when Worsfield became aware of his drug use prior to the 06 Grand Final simply disgraceful. Demetrious comments today are sickening and an insult our intelligence (as usual). The Victorian government could have and should have charged the WC under their Occupational Health and Safety Act for breach of duty of care in allowing a player who posed a risk to work at the MCG. Interestingly the Bloods could theoretically be charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 (NSW) if Barry snaps and breaks an opponents jaw after they have received a psych asessment of his risk. i concede that government that can't run a train would probably find this a stretch.

[NMWBloods]

What if the junkie had one of those drug induced "rages". He would have been a danger to someone playing against him.

(Yes, I'm clutching at straws, but junkie is still worse that thug.)

You are certainly right - you are clutching at straws!

[connolly]

You are certainly right - you are clutching at straws!

Pretty substantial straw. (Speaking as a Straw Man of course)

[NMWBloods]

Pretty substantial straw. (Speaking as a Straw Man of course)

The chances and consequences of Hall hitting someone and causing serious damage were greater than the chances and consequences that Cousins was going to have a drug-induced rage and hurt someone.

Being a thug is far worse than being a drug addict.

[hammo]

Will be interesting to see if Roos responds.

It's worth revisting what Roos had to say in 2006:

"Yeah, I've read how he went in Wagga, having seen that he's given another interview," Roos said. "I'm reading a lot about Davo in the papers this week.

"I think given his actions of last week, he's probably declared that he doesn't want to play with us at the moment."

Roos refuses to pick Davis - AFL - Sport - smh.com.au

[Mike_B]

At halftime on Saturday, I said to a few people that with Hall having given away so many free kicks inside our forward 50, hence letting the pressure off the Magpies coming out of defence, that he should just have been benched for the rest of the game - his frustration made him more of a liability than an asset on the field.

So, call me cynical, but how much of this reaction from the club is really about "player welfare" "duty of care" etc vs the simple call that with his current level of ill-discipline, he is costing the team more than he is providing it on field, and this decision has been made with the aim of improving the chances of winning football games and nothing more?

[Lucky Knickers]

I think it's the whole box and dice Mike. We need 22 players committed and available and not having to dragged because of discipline issues on the field.

(I would be ok with 21 and Nick Davis when fit )