I still respect ya Skip!
In fact, I'd almost consider you my evil twin!
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Hall cleared...
- Thread starter CharlieG
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I still respect ya Skip!
In fact, I'd almost consider you my evil twin!
Originally posted by Syd
I still respect ya Skip!
In fact, I'd almost consider you my evil twin!
you are me.
I am just getting cranky in my old age. You know its time for a holiday when you start arguing on the internet.
Where is the British Open this year???
Cool.
I just think its time the AFL made the move to rid us of this code of silence, so fair players such as Chris Grant are not put in a lose/lose situation.
BTW. Did Campbell put someone in?
Sometimes.
Yes.
Originally posted by skipper kelly
You know its time for a holiday when you start arguing on the internet.
Better than arguing with yourself (me??
) in the mirror.France.
Hope all the above helps!
Thanks Mate
BTW. Do they play golf in France.
BTW. Do they play golf in France.
Originally posted by skipper kelly
Thanks Mate
BTW. Do they play golf in France.
I was there once and got one in a hole.... I mean ....
- Banned
- #133
Originally posted by grayham
Grant must be suspended or fined for either over-acting or lying to the tribunal. He looked more like Jurgen Klinsman than an AFL player.
Shame, Grant, Shame. You have followed libba into dark side in your latter years.
BTW, where's MGREG QC ?
I was going to ask a similar question
Where is Grayham D.I.L.L.
SC is the term now you dill. YOu think you would have known that from your sentencing hearing.
As for the result, the Tribunal believed what Grant said. Nothing to do with Hall.
If Grant had said Hall hit me and Hall said he didnt, Hall would have been suspended.
Happens every day in the Magistrates Court. Opposing views, no other evidence, Magistrate "prefers" one version of events to the other. Meaning he doesnt believe one person. Sometimes the Plaintiff wins. sometimes he/she/it doesnt.
To accept CharlileG's approach a Plaintiff would never win in such a situation. But they do.
- Banned
- #134
I know Charlie. Even Frosties disowns him. I have had pms previously from 2 other Swans fans here telling me the same thing.
Unfortunately you are judged collectively by this one arseclown.
Apparently GRAGRA wasnt adopted until he was 17 and his lobotomy didnt work!
Did you used to do debt collection work in Melbourne MGREG?
All clubs are judged collectively by their "Arseclowns"......
Food for thought.
[Edit] TY Greggie
magpiestevo
Debutant
- Feb 10, 2004
- 116
- 0
- Other Teams
- collingwood
i knew that would bite me.
i aint questioning old chrissy boy,just havin a bit o' fun.
rhyce shaw will fix barry up in a couple of weeks.
Gonna drop Barry's balls too????
- Banned
- #139
Would the right honourable MGREG please approach the bar.
It is my duty to inform you that you have been charged with impersonating a member of the law fraternity, and as such will be banned from all judicial proceedings in this land whether that be for council, as a witness, on jury, or as a member of the gallery, except in the case where charges are being brought against you.
Your licience to perform part time conveyency work, and debt collection is hereby revoked.
It has been shown in the Barry Hall case that you have ignored compelling evidence, falsefied new evidence, held personal grevancies which influenced your decision, did not act impartially, and pre-empted proper judicial procedure, and as a consequence was made to look a fool. Any chance you had of redeming your reputation was lost when you failed to accept the verdict in due manner.
I hearby call this matter to end.
- Banned
- #140
I was right, you were wrong. Build a bridge and get over it.
Good Grief Charlie Brown!
Do not quote me...... EVER!!!!!!
- Banned
- #142
And then Grayham wakes up and looks at the four grey walls that surround him and then he realises, ah yes he was only dreaming.
How is metalshop going?
Originally posted by skipper kelly
Sleep well Skip..............
(I owe you one).
My old man went up to Sydney for business last night, and who should he happen to be sitting next to on the plane but BBBB himself.
My old man asked me what happend, and BBBB said "I got off - thank God Foxtel was televising the game!"
Also claimed he was lucky and sick of been niggled all game.
Sydney can count themselves very lucky it seems.
My old man asked me what happend, and BBBB said "I got off - thank God Foxtel was televising the game!"
Also claimed he was lucky and sick of been niggled all game.
Sydney can count themselves very lucky it seems.
I don't know how I can make it any clearer. I have absolutely no problem with footballers lying at the tribunal to get themselves or opponents off. None whatsoever. If that's living in the 70's to you then fine. The fact is that the 70's have nothing to do with it. It happened in the 19th century, the 20th century and the 21st century. Go hard at it on the field and shake hands at the end. No need for grudges. This so called player’s code is not about concealing violence it is an Australian cultural thing and I have no issue with it. To criticise Grant for upholding it is pretty ordinary IMO but the answer to your question is because they don't see it as a bad thing for Grant to lie to a tribunal.
But then the natural inference is that if he lies to a tribunal, to protect another player, who can believe him when he finally tells the truth?
Mark T. I dont know how I can make my point any clearer.
For starters I didnt criticise Grant, I asked 1 poster why he called his Captain a liar, of which the poster has responded.
I expressed my opinion on the issue of players lying at the tribunal, of which you challenged my opinion. As you also made comment about my standards in life I chose to respond.
I couldnt give a damn about what your opinion is on this matter, as I did not direct any question towards you, prior to my response.
Before I go any further I am not talking about players lying to get themselves off. In this situation, when they are found guilty, the admissions of guilt etc are often taken into account when giving the penalty. I am referring to player witnesses.
I gave you an example of a situation where the player Code of Silence can be unfair, of which you chose not to respond. I further stated in another post that players such as Grant are put in a lose/lose situation because of some outdated code of silence. This is something the AFL can easily fix. As soon as the AFL sets the standard, then the players have an out, and as such can tell the truth with the result being a fair decision for all.
You say go hard on the field and shake hands after the game, with no need for grudges. That is obvious. I never said otherwise. Telling the truth at the tribunal does not equate to holding a grudge.
You say that the player code of silence is not about concealing violence on the field, but a cultural thing. It was also a cultural thing to give someone a smack in the mouth on the football field. This has changed, why? Not because the players dont like it. It has changed because the governing bodies dont like, because of the violence and an image that supposedly reflects poorly on the game.
A player suffers serious injuries as a result of a behind the play incident that is not caught on video. Should the players then stick to the code of silence, or should the offending player be punished. I think you will find that most players would just as prefer to get up at the tribunal and tell the truth. The reason they dont is because of this cultural crap, that it is OK to be seen as a liar, but not OK to be seen as a dobber or lagger. The players can change it, but they wont. Why should they. Why should one player make a stand, which is going to effect him personally, although some have tried and have been roundly criticised. It is not up to the players, it is solely in the hand of the governing bodies.
IMO the player code of silence does conceal violent acts which occur on the field. Why should some clubs be penalised because of a better TV coverage than others?
Why should St. Kilda be disadvantaged this week because a player may have chose to stick to some cultural code rather than tellling what happened.
Didn't think I needed to respond directly given my clearly expressed view on the issue. If a player gets off and plays against Collingwood in the GF then so be it. It's the least of my tribunal concerns.
I posted earlier how they could fix it and do it in this case. If they really want it fixed they tell both player they will suspend them both if they are not 100% happy with their evidence. Then interview both seperataly and get their version of events. Ask Grant if he couldn't explain contact what he was on about on the field. I don't remeber = 4 weeks. It's a crap excuse and no one believs it. Grant knows exactly what happened and if he can't explain and gets weeks he'll suddenly be able to explain it and if it's truue it will accord with what Hall says. That's all IF you really want the code to die. Personally I don't feel that strongly about it. If Grant was badly hurt I would ahve a different opinion in this case. I'm also happy to move the line at times.
I am talking about Australian culture not football culture. We don't tolerate belting people in the street. The culture surrounding violence has changed but the culture surrounding dobbing hasn't moved much IMO.
Why can't we distinguish with common sense? O'Dea gets dobbed on and Hall gets off. The incidents are different. We distinguish in society between murder, manslaughter, assault culpable driving and accidents. Intent, results and a many other things are the decisive factors.
Similar threads
- Poll
