Hall Quits

[SwansFan1972]

Just a tragedy for all concerned. Footy show interview seemed to indicate he will consider playing on next year. The big question then has to be what can happen between now and draft time to change what all concerned (including the man himself) have admitted they are at a loss to work out.

If he does play on next year, and stays in control, then some validity will be added to the view that he has been forced out, and his talk about worrying whether he can control himself will be exposed as bogus.

If we are to take him at his word and believe what he is saying now about his own doubts on his self control, then he can't seriously consider playing on next year.

Will be particularly galling if he puts in a halo capped season elsewhere next year!

[BSA5]

The three breaches of the rules were all different. The Staker punch was violent and dangerous. The Wakelin swing was an act of frustration which the Collingwood player milked. The Rutten "punch"was actually pulled. Hall has not been on some uncontrolled psychopathic rampage. He has on occassions been frustrated and he has overstepped the line badly on one occasion, pulled a punch on another and marginally trangressed on another. Hall has never played with calculated aggression. He has always played on the borderline with a barely restrained aggression. That is what made him such an intimidating footballer. Thats why we recruited him.
Are suggesting that the McGuire punch was a calculated "love tap" in the match before a Grand Final? Some calculation. The point i was making was the hypocracy of the club. The attitude towards the McGuire punch and the Rutten "jab"was completely different. Lets do a hypothetical. If Hall had hit Rutten the week before a Grand Final would the attitude of the club been different? If you say it would have been the same you are having a laugh.

I never said the Maguire love tap wasn't stupid. Within the context of the season, it was incredibly stupid. But it was still controlled. It, to Hall, served a purpose in the context of the game (getting the ball). It wasn't an act of raw frustration, it was a way of physically overpowering his opponent. The Staker incident, on the other hand, WAS an act of raw frustration, and served no purpose in the context of the game. It was a fundamentally selfish, self-indulgent act. The Wakelin miss would have been just as bad as the Staker hit if he'd connected. He didn't, which was bloody lucky for him. The Rutten one was soft, I completely agree, but it served no purpose. Like the Staker and Wakelin incidents, it served no purpose in the context of the game, and was a fundamentally selfish and self-indulgent act. It doesn't matter that it wasn't a forceful punch. He shouldn't have done it in the first place.

And if the Rutten hit had been before the Grand Final, I, and I'm sure everybody else, would be absolutely livid. Unlike the Maguire hit, which was a cheap shot, yes, but merely a spillover of Hall's competitive aggression being focused on performing for his team, this was a selfish act of retaliation, and his selfishness would have cost his team their most important forward in a grand final.

[Doctor J.]

All the way through his trials and tribulations, the first to speak for him have been the likes of Paul Roos and Brett Kirk? whether it be in front of the media, to the AFL or to that @@@@wit who, IMHO, can possibly claim the greatest responsibility for Hall?s demise, Jeff Gieschen.

?

Exactly.
If this germ had instructed his foot soldiers to apply the rules of the game to Hall in the same manner as all others, Baz would not have been so frustrated.

[Primmy]

Well that was almost good stuff. Sammy sitting as far back in his chair without actually tipping it over as possible. Hally relaxed and happy to allow Newman to be uncomfortable, without actually doing anything to provoke it. The players and panel voicing their approval. Crowd behind him. Says it all. It says BB is ok with his decision even if it not one he on one level wanted to make, but on the other knows it was the only one he could make. He took charge of his future, and did the best with what he had. He has made a dignified exit from the Club. He could have gone on, but he decided he loved the club and you and me too much to potentially drag himself and us through the mud. Class act.

I hope he coaches.

I hope he stays in the media, he is an easy speaker and he writes well. As Sam said he is an intelligent man, and quite frankly I enjoy his "company".

I more than hope he runs for us next year. Can you image it!

[Bear]

Exactly.
If this germ had instructed his foot soldiers to apply the rules of the game to Hall in the same manner as all others, Baz would not have been so frustrated.

If Hall didn't constantly offend the umpires with verbal abuse and attempted physical intimidation, we would not have a problem.

You can bring up the chicken/egg argument, but name another player who gives umpires abuse the way Hall does. Maybe one or two like Mooney go over the top, but Hall is in a league of his own.

He just needs a mirror to find the culprit. There is no excuse for letting the the SSFC and all associated down, time and time again.

Bring on White and Johnston.

[DST]

The club won a premiership because of his aggression, strength and intimidation of the opposition. I haven't the time to check the posts in 2005 but did you support his disqualification when he punched McGuire in the guts? No the club paid a QC to argue that he should playWhat about when he coat hangered Wirrapunda in the Grand Final? Did you condemn that aggression? Made a number of the Eagles have a look for the rest of the game. This club has double standards. OK to keep playing after belting a bloke when he can win us a Grand Final but not OK when we are out of the hunt. Stinking hypocracy.

The McGuire incident was in play (according to the AFL's own video interpretation) and was argued succesfully that way.

I loved Barry's aggression, strength and intimidation but none of the Staker, Wakelin or Rutten incidents comes under any of those adjectives to describe how I loved the way he played.

DST

[Blood]

If Hall didn't constantly offend the umpires with verbal abuse and attempted physical intimidation, we would not have a problem.

You can bring up the chicken/egg argument, but name another player who gives umpires abuse the way Hall does. Maybe one or two like Mooney go over the top, but Hall is in a league of his own.

He just needs a mirror to find the culprit. There is no excuse for letting the the SSFC and all associated down, time and time again.

Bring on White and Johnston.

What a load of rubbish!!

"Abuse of umpires"? - sure, he disagreed with them from time to time, but if that is abuse then i'm a child molester for hugging my nephew...

"attempted physical intimidation" - of umpires you say? FFS, what planet did you fall from?

Blind Freddy could see that Barry was getting a raw deal from the umps and that there was never any real justification for it.

[Blood]

If the Rutten incident had been within three of weeks of a Swans final 09, he would not have been under any pressure to bow out in this fashion.

I tend to share this opinion.

[Mr Magoo]

This situation just doesnt sit well with me. I dont know whether to be angry at Hall or the club as this whole situation has been blow way out of proportion in my opinion. Yes he did the wrong thing but to suggest and almost demnad that he should leave the club (but not necessarily the game is a farce).

I am angry at the club for not supporting him and bowing to the rubbish put out by the melbourne centric media (which mind you since he has now said he may play on next year and probably for a melbourne based club seem almost apathetic to the suggestion).

I am angry at Hall for leaving the club without any recompense by way of draft picks or another player which would almost be guaranteed if he was traded. If he goes on to play next year without incident and helps someone to a premiership I will be even more filthy on the situation.

[pinkemu]

From Halls latest article

"The question I've been asked most is "why now?"

It was after a lot of thought, and speaking with the coaches and guys like "Kirky" (Brett Kirk), and realising how big the situation was, not just from my perspective, but the football club's as well, and what if I did run out again and something happened."

Sounds a little like he was talked into leaving.

[Plugger46]

This situation just doesnt sit well with me. I dont know whether to be angry at Hall or the club as this whole situation has been blow way out of proportion in my opinion. Yes he did the wrong thing but to suggest and almost demnad that he should leave the club (but not necessarily the game is a farce).

I am angry at the club for not supporting him and bowing to the rubbish put out by the melbourne centric media (which mind you since he has now said he may play on next year and probably for a melbourne based club seem almost apathetic to the suggestion).

I am angry at Hall for leaving the club without any recompense by way of draft picks or another player which would almost be guaranteed if he was traded. If he goes on to play next year without incident and helps someone to a premiership I will be even more filthy on the situation.

Agree 100%. Didn't need to happen.

[CureTheSane]

This situation just doesnt sit well with me. I dont know whether to be angry at Hall or the club as this whole situation has been blow way out of proportion in my opinion. Yes he did the wrong thing but to suggest and almost demnad that he should leave the club (but not necessarily the game is a farce).

I am angry at the club for not supporting him and bowing to the rubbish put out by the melbourne centric media (which mind you since he has now said he may play on next year and probably for a melbourne based club seem almost apathetic to the suggestion).

I am angry at Hall for leaving the club without any recompense by way of draft picks or another player which would almost be guaranteed if he was traded. If he goes on to play next year without incident and helps someone to a premiership I will be even more filthy on the situation.

He is out of contract, so we won't get anything for him anyway. Take your dribble and go elsewhere.

DST

...

[CureTheSane]

This situation just doesnt sit well with me. I dont know whether to be angry at Hall or the club as this whole situation has been blow way out of proportion in my opinion. Yes he did the wrong thing but to suggest and almost demnad that he should leave the club (but not necessarily the game is a farce).

I am angry at the club for not supporting him and bowing to the rubbish put out by the melbourne centric media (which mind you since he has now said he may play on next year and probably for a melbourne based club seem almost apathetic to the suggestion).

I am angry at Hall for leaving the club without any recompense by way of draft picks or another player which would almost be guaranteed if he was traded. If he goes on to play next year without incident and helps someone to a premiership I will be even more filthy on the situation.

Agree 100% also - obviously....

[DST]

I am angry at Hall for leaving the club without any recompense by way of draft picks or another player which would almost be guaranteed if he was traded. If he goes on to play next year without incident and helps someone to a premiership I will be even more filthy on the situation.

He was out of contract at years end, there is no way a club would have traded with us for a 33 year old forward with anger management problems when they simply could have picked him up for free in the pre-season draft.

We wouldn't do it.

Are you for real?

DST

[connolly]

The McGuire incident was in play (according to the AFL's own video interpretation) and was argued succesfully that way.

I loved Barry's aggression, strength and intimidation but none of the Staker, Wakelin or Rutten incidents comes under any of those adjectives to describe how I loved the way he played.

DST

The McGuire hit was as much in play as the Staker hit. As an afficionado of the sweet sport of blokes belting other blokes i fail to see the difference in principle (not degree) between the two punches. One was to the jaw, the other to the guts. Both kind of punches disable. One turns the lights off and the other turns the gas off. Both were violent and both were infringements of the rule. I realise the club argued differently in regard to both punches. That is the point. The two punches were the result of lack of control. But the club chose to defend the McGuire punch not just because it did less damage but because a Grand Final was at stake (pun intended). If the club is against uncontrolled aggression only one of two conclusions are possible:

Halls hit on McGuire was a "controlled" premeditated act of aggression which the club, despite its rhetoric at the time, condoned and that is a disgrace. Was there any psych ops in regtard to Hall after the McGuire hit and before the GF? If there was it was behind closed doors where the Rutten hit should have remained. Were there any calls for "retirement"by coaches and captains? What was Kirk's views on the McGuire hit and why didn't he make them known at the time. Obviously there was a GF to be won and we needed a big strong forward that terrified the bejeezus out of the opposition.

Or the hit on McGuire was an uncontrolled unpremeditated aggression which if the club is being consistent it should have argued before the Tribunal warranted a suspension. Where was the call for duty of care with Terry Forrest QC address to the regulator? Why didn't the club suspend Hall itself as reinforcement of its high player standards? Was Hall any less of a risk of an uncontrolled act of agression in September 2005 than July 2009? He coat hangered Wirrapinda in the very next game. The fact is Hall has had outburst of punching aggression all through his career. The club knew this when he was recruited, used it when it suited us and condemned it when it wanted to offload him. A lot to be proud of in this.