Hall cleared - twice

[connolly]

dictate not diktat.

Ach mein gott!!!

[connolly]

Poor Bazza. He always seems like such a nice guy outside footy (sport does that to a lot of people).

He didn't swear at the umpire. He just dissented. Unfortunately that often results in 50m now.

He said technically the 50m was probably there.
He didn't say he was out of line or that he deserved the 50m for abuse.
But he did agree that it changed momentum.

He's a thickhead. Bevo's free changed the momentum. The media got it so wrong this week. The focus should have been on Bevo. Lost the game for us

[Melbournehammer]

Ach mein gott!!!

canterbury race 2 No. 1

if there was an omen bet...

[connolly]

He actually said he didn't swear - and I don't recall him saying he was out of line. In any event, if he did, he was in damage control mode, so be a bit discerning and take it all with a grain of salt. He would have been expected to suck eggs, offer a mea culpa of sorts, and try to move on. Bill Clinton only ever said he had coffee with Monica Lewinsky, but we know he knew differently.

In a perfect world he'd have been able to ask why he has a different set of rules to work under than others - when we all know the answer is that precious umpires don't like a few harsh words and would prefer all the players to bow, scrape and smile at them all the time!

As for "the umpire is always right", then penalise every player who remonstrates with them - not just one. You might need to up their medical insurance though - it would only be a matter of time before we see an umpire burst a lung from blowing his whistle so much!

And they would certainly get the amount of game time some of them obviously crave!

If being animated and yelling - when for the umpteenth time you've been umpired differently to everyone else - can lead to what happened on Sunday, then Hally might as well just pack it in and leave the game to the sissies and autobots. The AFL and the "we hate Barry Hall" set will have gotten what it wants (Hall out of the game), but I for one prefer to see him out there, warts and all.

Despite the AFL's best efforts to rule change and umpire them out of the game, the players most fans want to see are the big strong forwards - Buddy, Mooney, Brown, Fev, Hall - and before them Lockett, Dunstall, Lynch etc. The current set all battle the umpies week in and week out and it is just plain wrong that they need to.

And the overriding question still has to be - where in the rule book does it say that a particular player will get treated differently based on their history, looks, personality and/or how animated or aggressive they are on the park? As long as he doesn't whack anyone, he should be protected by the rules just as much as anyone else.

Sitting back and saying "oh well, it's just how it is" is just such a cop out - why shouldn't we expect the rules to be interpreted consistently, and therefore retain the right to keep banging on about it until something happens?

It may be of interest that Craig "Monica Lewinsky" Hendrie (blows big men out of the game) is a:
1. west australian
2. call centre manager for Telstra. Ever tried to make a complaint to Telstra?

[Wardy]

It may be of interest that Craig "Monica Lewinsky" Hendrie (blows big men out of the game) is a:
1. west australian
2. call centre manager for Telstra. Ever tried to make a complaint to Telstra?

Hey I know its a long shot (and a silly one at that!) - but couldn't being pushed around and antagonised by an opponenet or colleague in the work place (ie on the field) be considered as "bullying in the workplace"? just a thought!

[Bear]

He actually said he didn't swear - and I don't recall him saying he was out of line.

I know he said he didn't swear.
You don't have to swear to be threatening or abusive... you absolute moron. See?

He admitted it was abusive and deserved a 50.