Patiently waiting for MRP details...

[Mike_B]

IMHO the umpire was to blame in the instance involving Hanners. When the ball is in play, the onus should be on the umps to keep out of the way of the players. In the case of Fyfe it was at a stoppage, where the umps must be given access to exit the contest after restarting play

[Jesse Richards]

I got the impression that the umpire was saying to Hanners "Play on, play on" .

Three cheers for the umps, MRP or whoever decides, for not collaring us this week.

[cruiser]

Guess I have to watch the replay now.

Why put yourself through that game again?

[Trickster]

My opinion is that he should be suspended for 3 weeks.






Not sure what Dan should get though.

A shiny medal

[old blood]

IMHO the umpire was to blame in the instance involving Hanners. When the ball is in play, the onus should be on the umps to keep out of the way of the players. In the case of Fyfe it was at a stoppage, where the umps must be given access to exit the contest after restarting play

In fairness to the umpires, we want them to be keeping their eye on the play, not looking over their shoulders to see who's behind them.

[i'm-uninformed2]

Can someone explain this to me?

Now, by and large I think part of the reason for Hall's frustrations over the years has a lot to do with poor umpiring, both decisions against him and non-decisions for him, and no doubt he was provoked the other day but . . .

He made a conscious decision to put a bloke in a choke hold, vice like, around the neck - a very dangerous thing to do if you are taking a pure view of things given the potential for something to go seriously wrong if the neck is wrenched the wrong way . . . and he got a fine.

Mummy, on the other hand, tackled a bloke hard, but fair. The relative technical danger of the two acts is not comparable.

If the AFL is as concerned about the protection of players as it says it is, where is the relative logic in the two sets of punishment?

The MRP has just told the entire competition you can't tackle blokes vigorously, but you can try to strangle them to sleep. Odd

[CJK]

It's not odd, it's some kind of bad joke.

[stellation]

Can someone explain this to me?

Now, by and large I think part of the reason for Hall's frustrations over the years has a lot to do with poor umpiring, both decisions against him and non-decisions for him, and no doubt he was provoked the other day but . . .

He made a conscious decision to put a bloke in a choke hold, vice like, around the neck - a very dangerous thing to do if you are taking a pure view of things given the potential for something to go seriously wrong if the neck is wrenched the wrong way . . . and he got a fine.

Mummy, on the other hand, tackled a bloke hard, but fair. The relative technical danger of the two acts is not comparable.

If the AFL is as concerned about the protection of players as it says it is, where is the relative logic in the two sets of punishment?

The MRP has just told the entire competition you can't tackle blokes vigorously, but you can try to strangle them to sleep. Odd

My thoughts exactly, whilst I thought the headlock was obviously out of line (particuarly with how long it went on for) I didn't want to see Barry get suspended for it; considering Mummy's suspension, and particuarly that the same body (the MRP) initially said he deserved 3 weeks, I'm completely blown away by it.

[dimelb]

I don't think they treated Hall leniently, and I don't see the headlock as a choke hold. I'm aware of what Thompson said about passing out, but why would you believe anything he said after the way he acted? For more detail I've posted a link to Greg Baum's Age article in the Hall Watch thread.
On the other hand I think the reaction to Mummy's tackle was way disproportionate, and I agree with the posters who have said the law needs revising, or to be made more specific. Mummy's penalty was preposterous in the light of the inaction to the bump on Rohan.

[Peace]

i thought it was awesome and every scumbag defender who pushes over their opponent while they are doing up their laces, should receive a 30second headlock.

btw it wasn't a choke hold, his elbow and forearm was around the back of the neck, not the front... not very dangerous and would take a while to put someone to sleep.

[Jewels]

Can someone explain this to me?

Now, by and large I think part of the reason for Hall's frustrations over the years has a lot to do with poor umpiring, both decisions against him and non-decisions for him, and no doubt he was provoked the other day but . . .

He made a conscious decision to put a bloke in a choke hold, vice like, around the neck - a very dangerous thing to do if you are taking a pure view of things given the potential for something to go seriously wrong if the neck is wrenched the wrong way . . . and he got a fine.

Mummy, on the other hand, tackled a bloke hard, but fair. The relative technical danger of the two acts is not comparable.

If the AFL is as concerned about the protection of players as it says it is, where is the relative logic in the two sets of punishment?

The MRP has just told the entire competition you can't tackle blokes vigorously, but you can try to strangle them to sleep. Odd

I am so with you here IU2.
Whether or not people agree with Halls punishment (or lack thereof) it is the lack of logic in the punishments metered out in the two instances that is so damned frustrating and infuriating.
I wonder if Hall had put a head lock on Gary Ablett if the punishment would still have been the same.
The inconsistancies in both the umpiring and MRP decisions is beginning to ruin this game for me.

[KirkysSocks]

Makes you wonder if there really is an agenda to assist vic clubs atm..as every round goes by the AFL are making it more obvious. They leave me with no choice than to think they are up to something that is against the spirit of the code.

I was gobsmacked as well regarding Hall. Mummy is not even a violent person with a very short fuse and he got more than Hall, regardless of provocation. To me a lot of the MRP decisions are being influenced by media. Had there not been this whole outcry of poor barry i think the MRP would have suspended hall.

As it stands the melbournecentric AFL media again asserting their massive influence on anything victorian.

[Margie]

Makes you wonder if there really is an agenda to assist vic clubs atm..as every round goes by the AFL are making it more obvious. They leave me with no choice than to think they are up to something that is against the spirit of the code.

I was gobsmacked as well regarding Hall. Mummy is not even a violent person with a very short fuse and he got more than Hall, regardless of provocation. To me a lot of the MRP decisions are being influenced by media. Had there not been this whole outcry of poor barry i think the MRP would have suspended hall.

As it stands the melbournecentric AFL media again asserting their massive influence on anything victorian.

Where was the pro-Hall outcry in the media when he was wearing Swans colours?

Players know Barry has a short fuse and in the past (when playing for us) suspension usually followed his retaliation. I believed then and now, that his anger needed to be controlled more but where is the "thug" tag he was labelled with back then?

The Mumford analogy is a perfect one. Three weeks for something far more innocuous than a headlock. Perhaps, as someone suggested previously, if Barry Hall had Garry Jnr around the neck instead of Thompson, the result might have been different.

The whole thing smacks of inconsistency.

[RogueSwan]

.... To me a lot of the MRP decisions are being influenced by media. Had there not been this whole outcry of poor barry i think the MRP would have suspended hall.

As it stands the melbournecentric AFL media again asserting their massive influence on anything victorian.

I thought their was a lot of media comment about Mummy's tackle, the majority of it saying that it was a nothing event and should have been rejected outright.

[Glenn]

Seems like Hall has gone from thug to innocent victim...