Hall offered 2 Weeks (1 week with a guilty plea)

[TheGhostOfJohnBelushi]

Re: Hall offered 2 Weeks

I'm just pointing out that you don't understand the procedure.

Thanks for pointing it out. I had no idea I didn't understand the procedure... oh hang on...

I admit to having no idea how this stupid tribunal system works, so I can't comment on the "grading".

You don't seem to understand what the Swans will need to prove in order to get Hall off, and you don't seem to understand that Hall's record is of zero relevance. Zero!

Didn't say anything about what the Swans will need to prove. Since I don't understand the system, I cannot comment on that. I did think that record was of relevance in this tribunal system, though.

You made a stupid comparison with Ricciuto's suspension and claimed that as a reason Hall should get off.

Putting the tribunal aside, as a logical person, wouldn't you agree that if I said a person who jumps off the ground and elbows a player in the head (same player ruled out from playing the following week) gets a one week suspension, then a person who hits someone in the guts and winds him, whilst being a suspension-worthy incident, should receive a lesser penalty?

You've got no idea.

Again, a personal attack. To quote Eddie Murphy, "F*** you, I'm offended you called." -*Click*-

Express all the opinions you like. Just don't pretend that they match up with reality.

My opinions match up with logical reality. Just because my logic does not match up with the tribunal rules, does not make it any less real. Look, we all know the Ricciuto incident plays no bearing on the Hall decision, but as an observer, can you not see how logic comes into it? You seem to know every little nuance of the tribunal system, but a great deal of football fans do not. They're gonna use their logic when judging these incidents, give their opinion and then give the finger to b*stards like you (which I'm doing right now, BTW)who feel the need to put people down because they don't know all the things you know.

I have no problem with you expressing your opinion on the Hall incident, but there's no need to personally attack me for my opinion. Get off your f'in high horse and show a little respect for people's views before degrading them for it.

 

[davey_magik]

Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)

Personally I think he will get off. The penalty only needs to be reduced by 5 points then a guilty plea brought into play and Hall gets off. Sorry if this has already been said but they need to prove the incident was in play or the contact was neglible and not reckless. I think they will say it was in play as Hall took the next kick and was about to lead and he will get off.
Stupid act, but the GF will be better with him in it.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Re: Hall offered 2 Weeks

I did think that record was of relevance in this tribunal system, though.

Well you were wrong. Hall's record is neither here nor there. It's not bad enough enough to count against him, but it's not good enough to work in his favour either.

Putting the tribunal aside, as a logical person, wouldn't you agree that if I said a person who jumps off the ground and elbows a player in the head (same player ruled out from playing the following week) gets a one week suspension, then a person who hits someone in the guts and winds him, whilst being a suspension-worthy incident, should receive a lesser penalty?

What kind of a comment is that?

We're talking about whether Hall will be suspended by the tribunal and your argument starts with "putting the tribunal aside".

How can you put the tribunal aside when the nuances of this system are the only things that count, and then claim to be a logical person?

You're in fantasy land.

My opinions match up with logical reality. Just because my logic does not match up with the tribunal rules, does not make it any less real.

In the context of this discussion, it makes your opinions irrelevant.

Why don't you do some reading and get back to me with an analysis that makes more sense?

 

[TheGhostOfJohnBelushi]

Re: Hall offered 2 Weeks

Well you were wrong. Hall's record is neither here nor there. It's not bad enough enough to count against him, but it's not good enough to work in his favour either.

What is his record then? He has either been found guilty of something or he hasn't.

We're talking about whether Hall will be suspended by the tribunal and your argument starts with "putting the tribunal aside".

How can you put the tribunal aside when the nuances of this system are the only things that count, and then claim to be a logical person?

No, that's my OPINION. Something everyone on here states. You've turned it into an argument by ridiculing me for having one. The argument is no longer about whether Hall is being suspended, but of my right to have an opinion. I can have my own logic regardless of what kind of tribunal system there is.

You're in fantasy land.

Rubbish. I have explained that my logic has nothing to do with the tribunal's decision.

In the context of this discussion, it makes your opinions irrelevant.

Why don't you do some reading and get back to me with an analysis that makes more sense?

Opinions are not irrelevant. We're not having a debate here. I was not saying "Everyone is wrong. Hall will get off". I stated my OPINION. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion.

Get that through your thick skull and perhaps it will make sense.

 

[Forzaport]

Re: Hall offered 2 Weeks

I stated my OPINION. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion.

Sorry you're gonna have to repeat that, i missed it...

 

[jcraw1]

Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)

but was it behind the play?

Yes. Ball not in the vicinity = behind the play. All the double talk in the world will not change that.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Re: Hall offered 2 Weeks

Rubbish. I have explained that my logic has nothing to do with the tribunal's decision.

So it has nothing to do with the topic being discussed in this thread?

Is that about right?

You could almost say it was irrelevant.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Re: Hall offered 2 Weeks

Opinions are not irrelevant. We're not having a debate here. I was not saying "Everyone is wrong. Hall will get off". I stated my OPINION. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion.

Your opinion is completely misinformed and utterly ignores the basic premises of the broader discussion.

In other words, it's irrelevant.

 

[Stumpy Pete]

Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)

but was it behind the play?

Yes Skipper - it was.

I think the Tribunal would be very careful about the whole, in play, behind the play argument after the Jonathan Brown fiasco.

Hall will not play and has only himself to blame.

The "Anti-Sydney Conspiracy" is a nice little line for the Swans to generate excitement and support, but at the end of the day the AFL has absolutely no reason to have a conspiracy against the Swans. And anyone who suggests such a conpiracy exists reads too many news limited newspapers and watches a little too much breakfast television.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[Terry's Tigers]

Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)

Originally Posted by skipper kelly
but was it behind the play?
So next time the ball is in the vicinity of me I can belt my man, but argue that I shouldn't be suspended because it was in play.

 

[Schneiderman]

Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)

Originally Posted by skipper kelly
but was it behind the play?
So next time the ball is in the vicinity of me I can belt my man, but argue that I shouldn't be suspended because it was in play.

Yeah thats the rules. Worked for Glenn Archer about 4 times this year.

 

[Quinz]

Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)

Realistically they have to contest the charge, but they won't be able to get him off. The only thing they could really charge is the conduct from reckless to negligent, and I doubt that will happen.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)

I would like every wannabe tough guy who's mentioned "love tap" or "netball" to experience a punch in the guts from Barry Hall, just once.

Two weeks reduced to one - with some slim prospect of slipping it under the 1 match level at the tribunal - looks fair enough, given the way the AFL assesses these things under the current system. I don't really understand why some other punches - Judd, Archer, Kositschke - did not get penalised, as the rules seem pretty clear about punching someone on purpose. You'd be prettty dumb to think you could do it on PF night and either not be noticed or think no-one would mind.

I'm sorry if Hall misses the big game. But I was sorrier for Cloke and McCartney for example, who were clumsy but actually attempting to play the ball at the time of their offences. A competely unnecessary punch away from the ball is sad in a different way because it could and should not have happened. But it's far less excusable, no matter how well you've played all year and how much the next game means to you. Hall has been so great playing hard at the ball, why could he not have just stuck to it?

 

[Terry's Tigers]

Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)

What did mccartney get done for?

 

[arrowman]

Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)

Originally Posted by skipper kelly
but was it behind the play?
So next time the ball is in the vicinity of me I can belt my man, but argue that I shouldn't be suspended because it was in play.

No, it just reduces the severity of the penalty. The rules are structured to penalise behind the play incidents more than in play incidents.

 

[TheBloods]

Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)

I would like every wannabe tough guy who's mentioned "love tap" or "netball" to experience a punch in the guts from Barry Hall, just once.

There is no evidence to suggest it was a punch or that it was in the guts.

 

[arrowman]

Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)

There is no evidence to suggest it was a punch or that it was in the guts.

Um, you're not serious are you?

 

[sedders]

Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)

yep, and there's no evidence that you have a brain

 

[waspy]

Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)

So next time the ball is in the vicinity of me I can belt my man, but argue that I shouldn't be suspended because it was in play.

No, whether or not it was behind play or not is only one of the four criteria that the activation points are based on. It makes sense that penalties are less if the incident happened in play. It does not always decide the case, it might for Barry though because if they can prove that it was "in play" then he is free to play.

 

[Schneiderman]

Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)

Um, you're not serious are you?

From a Criminal Law perspective he is actually correct. Suposition only.

However, I believe the Tribunal uses the civil law statute.

 

[lazy]

Re: Hall offered 2 Weeks

What is his record then? He has either been found guilty of something or he hasn't.



No, that's my OPINION. Something everyone on here states. You've turned it into an argument by ridiculing me for having one. The argument is no longer about whether Hall is being suspended, but of my right to have an opinion. I can have my own logic regardless of what kind of tribunal system there is.



Rubbish. I have explained that my logic has nothing to do with the tribunal's decision.



Opinions are not irrelevant. We're not having a debate here. I was not saying "Everyone is wrong. Hall will get off". I stated my OPINION. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion.

Get that through your thick skull and perhaps it will make sense.

Will you guys be hooking up for a drink to celebrate your victory?

 

[Roonaldo!]

Re: Hall offered 2 Weeks

Supreme court, you are on notice.

 

[campbell]

Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)

There is no evidence to suggest it was a punch or that it was in the guts.

Exactly.No video vision of point of impact.

If using criminal law,then it would be thrown out, as there is no proof to sustain a charge.

 

[arrowman]

Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)

From a Criminal Law perspective he is actually correct. Suposition only.

However, I believe the Tribunal uses the civil law statute.

I don't know that the tribunal formally uses one or the other; if anything, I'd say they would surely be obliged to use "beyond reasonable doubt" (criminal) rather than "balance of probabilities".

And I don't think it is "supposition only". There is video of Hall making a punching motion to Maguire's abdomen, and of Maguire collapsing. The only thing that's different (from, say, a criminal assault case) is that the "court" is not interested in the victim's testimony.

I'd say the evidence is pretty good, and would be more than enough to convict in a criminal case, assuming that Maguire didn't testify that he was faking.

 

[hotpie]

Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)

Exactly.No video vision of point of impact.

If using criminal law,then it would be thrown out, as there is no proof to sustain a charge.

Nobody saw Osama Bin Laden plan the World Trade Centre Bombings - is he guilty or innocent?