In defense of Hall

[connolly]

If he had any balls he would have done this a couple of years ago.

Spot on. And our fearless leader Dick has said nothing. Could you imagine the verbal barrage from Eddie at the maggots or motor mouth at the mayblooms if one of their power forwards was being crucified? Get off your arse Dick and say something

[giant]

Even the Hawks fans on BF have come out in defence of him.

Nevertheless, he should know better than most that they ARE in fact after him and needs to modify his behaviour accordingly.

In the meantime, Colless should support Kennett and the 95% of AFL fans that are sick of umps that think we've paid money to watch them perform. Take the mikes off them immediately.

[Lohengrin]

I wasn't too happy with him at the game but I think he was pretty stiff after watching the replay. He probably should've been having a shot at goal, when Cambell held onto him.

He was hanging onto Campbell's jumper first.

[ScottH]

He was hanging onto Campbell's jumper first.

I noticed that. He and other fwds do that a lot, then complain they are being held.

(Oops, 1 behind)

[Lohengrin]

I don't really understand why they do it.

[ROK Lobster]

He was hanging onto Campbell's jumper first.

I thought he had his arm held first.

[Lohengrin]

I thought he had his arm held first.

You can see from one angle that Hall has reached back to grab Campbell's jumper and then Campbell grabs onto his arm.

Hall does that a lot. Strange technique.

[ROK Lobster]

You can see from one angle that Hall has reached back to grab Campbell's jumper and then Campbell grabs onto his arm.

Hall does that a lot. Strange technique.

Maybe he's not grabbing. There is no "hands in the chest" rule is there?

[Lohengrin]

Maybe he's not grabbing. There is no "hands in the chest" rule is there?

There is for Hall.

[Lohengrin]

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/9635/hallawl.jpg

[hot potato]

Hall gets a bad deal from the umpires because of his histrionics in your face reaction to their whistle when it's a free against, he has massive anger management accepting it and the umps simply detest him for it. Onyone would. If he can beat it, even modify it, he will be paid more free and legitimate free kicks. And he ain't got long left to do it.

[liz]

It is one of the strange anomolies of the apparent rules of our game. Tug a jumper, even if the ball is 100m away and if an umpie sees it, he'll more than likely play a free, especially in front of goal, regardless of whether the effect is to retard a player trying to lead or is in more of a wrestle situation (If it happens around the ground it seems to be 50/50 pot luck whether a free will be paid.)

On the other hand, tug an arm so securely that the player trying to get the ball only has one arm available to either mark or gather the ball, and the chances of getting a free seem to drop to about 1 in 10. Wrap the arms securely around the waist? Chances of a free against seem to dive even further.

Now I realise that as a woman whose sole experience of actually playing AFL comprises one training session with the ENSW women's team where the coach didn't even turn up and at which I realised I was far too old, unfit and fond of full use of all my joints (not to mention becoming aware of how painful a chest mark could be!) I realise I am completely unqualified to comment on most aspects of football.

But putting that aside, and putting my imagination into gear, if I were a 194cm, 100kg male in peak physical condition, I reckon a minor tug on my ever-so-snug guernsey wouldn't impede me nearly so much as having someone hanging grimly onto my wrist for dear life as they trailed behind me, or as having someone dish out an affection bearhug around my waist or chest.

[ROK Lobster]

putting my imagination into gear, if I were a 194cm, 100kg male in peak physical condition

I wish I could confirm your theory from first hand experience.

I just might add that jumper holding in this instance seems absurd. A jumper is tugged from behind to stop a player running away. There is no need for a handful of jumper in this instance. If Hall held him back open-palmed would it result in a free? (Though in this instance the mark was paid to Roughead wasn't it?)

[Lohengrin]

It is one of the strange anomolies of the apparent rules of our game. Tug a jumper, even if the ball is 100m away and if an umpie sees it, he'll more than likely play a free, especially in front of goal, regardless of whether the effect is to retard a player trying to lead or is in more of a wrestle situation (If it happens around the ground it seems to be 50/50 pot luck whether a free will be paid.)

On the other hand, tug an arm so securely that the player trying to get the ball only has one arm available to either mark or gather the ball, and the chances of getting a free seem to drop to about 1 in 10. Wrap the arms securely around the waist? Chances of a free against seem to dive even further.

Now I realise that as a woman whose sole experience of actually playing AFL comprises one training session with the ENSW women's team where the coach didn't even turn up and at which I realised I was far too old, unfit and fond of full use of all my joints (not to mention becoming aware of how painful a chest mark could be!) I realise I am completely unqualified to comment on most aspects of football.

But putting that aside, and putting my imagination into gear, if I were a 194cm, 100kg male in peak physical condition, I reckon a minor tug on my ever-so-snug guernsey wouldn't impede me nearly so much as having someone hanging grimly onto my wrist for dear life as they trailed behind me, or as having someone dish out an affection bearhug around my waist or chest.

You're exactly right, but unfortunately the umpiring interpretations are very inconsistent.

[Cardinal]

Just to go on about the 2nd 50 that was paid for Hall knocking over Roughhead, the unfortunate thing is that Barry will never ever fall over when being bumped like that to milk a free kick out of the umps, its not in his demeanor, he would rather take the hit and make sure the other fellow is the one who goes down, not himself. It really doesn't make a difference though, even if he did go down(to milk a free kick), the umps would never ever give him one.

Hawthorn are smart unlike Hall when it comes to earning free kicks. They drop their heads, feign contact, collapse and generally play-act with the best. Williams must be the most hit in the head player going round (probably hurts sometimes though). When I got back to the hotel I seem to recall the commentators picking up this point about players dropping to the ground for the free. It's unbecoming and makes me hates the Hawks almost as much as the Pies