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

[Death]

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.

Next time Gardiner wants to dish out a punch, Cousins should round up the backline to "impede" the camera view.

 

[Ed_Gein]

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

They will appeal and reduce it to a level 5 and get off eventually.

 

[skipper kelly]

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

was it really behind play?

 

[zero]

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.

what a load of crap.

it wouldnt be thrown out, it would be entered as evidence

the judge, jury or magistrate would use their judgment as to whether an illegal strike was made

only an idiot would think barry hall didnt punch maguire in the stomach. the tribunal arent idiots

 

[Seth]

Re: Hall offered 2 Weeks

Supreme court, you are on notice.

Would not get near it even if they tried. You need to seek leave to take it to the supreme court and because there is already in place 3 different triers of fact (match review panel, tribunal, appeal tribunal) it would not even be entertained. That is the reason why the appeal process was brought in.

 

[jcraw1]

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.

Great philosophy.

So if I had a video of someone with a knife, see them swing their arm towards another person in a stabbing motion, dont actually see the knife go in but afterwards the person is laying there dead at their feet, they'd walk free in a court of law? Pa-lease.

 

[Embers]

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

Considering I have done Criminal Law for 2 and a half years at Uni i can say with the utmost confidence if that was put infront of a real court it would be found guilty. The medical evidence would be more then enough. If i bash ya do i need video evidence to be convicted guilty....

I think Sydney will try to say it was accidental, rather then reckless, The fact he didnt look at Maguire wen he punched him will be the only thing that may save him, although the fact he stopped pivoted then through a fist will be the thing that is gonna hurt him. This one really is a 50/50, depends on alot of factors, although because it is a GF id have to say he will get off.

 

[Schneiderman]

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

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.

That IS supposition. Punching motion + collapse = ??

How do you know the fist was clenched? That there was actual contact? Where the contact was? How much force was imparted?

 

[Forzaport]

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

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

Refer to the triunal definition of "In play" and "behind play" -

"An incident is determined to be either in-play or behind-play. The AFL takes a very serious view of behind the play incidents and accordingly, strict sanctions apply to that type of unacceptable conduct. An incident will be regarded as in play if it is in proximity to the ball or the next passage of play. All other incidents including those occurring during times when play has stopped ie. breaks between quarters or before or after the final siren, shall be categorised as behind-play."

So while the ball was not in the vicinity, the definition given by the AFL allows for Sydney to argue that it was "In Play" - since hall was making a lead then it can be argued that his actions occured as part of the next passage of play and therefore "in play". If it works, good for Sydney!

 

[Embers]

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

How was Gaspars behind play, play hadnt even began yet...

 

[jcraw1]

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

Refer to the triunal definition of "In play" and "behind play" -

"An incident is determined to be either in-play or behind-play. The AFL takes a very serious view of behind the play incidents and accordingly, strict sanctions apply to that type of unacceptable conduct. An incident will be regarded as in play if it is in proximity to the ball or the next passage of play. All other incidents including those occurring during times when play has stopped ie. breaks between quarters or before or after the final siren, shall be categorised as behind-play."

So while the ball was not in the vicinity, the definition given by the AFL allows for Sydney to argue that it was "In Play" - since hall was making a lead then it can be argued that his actions occured as part of the next passage of play and therefore "in play". If it works, good for Sydney!

Many have also said that St. Kilda had the ball at the time of the incident, so the ball was going the other way. If true then Sydney may have a hard time getting this one to stick.

 

[Embers]

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

Dal Santo did have the ball at the time from a turnover, Hall received the ball and marked it about 20+ seconds later, they will be going for accidental.

 

[Forzaport]

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

Many have also said that St. Kilda had the ball at the time of the incident, so the ball was going the other way. If true then Sydney may have a hard time getting this one to stick.

True - but it's the only way hall will get off.

 

[campbell]

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

Considering I have done Criminal Law for 2 and a half years at Uni i can say with the utmost confidence if that was put infront of a real court it would be found guilty. The medical evidence would be more then enough. If i bash ya do i need video evidence to be convicted guilty....

I think Sydney will try to say it was accidental, rather then reckless, The fact he didnt look at Maguire wen he punched him will be the only thing that may save him, although the fact he stopped pivoted then through a fist will be the thing that is gonna hurt him. This one really is a 50/50, depends on alot of factors, although because it is a GF id have to say he will get off.

But
If their is video evidence and that evidence shows no impact,the playing running forward, could have fallen over, and hurt themselves in the fall.All the medical, biomechanics people etc.No clenched fist can be seen.

 

[Schneiderman]

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

Many have also said that St. Kilda had the ball at the time of the incident, so the ball was going the other way. If true then Sydney may have a hard time getting this one to stick.

Judge for yourself

 

[Embers]

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

True - but it's the only way hall will get off.

Accidental, Hunter got off for accidental and so will Barry Hall in my opinion.

 

[Embers]

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

But
If their is video evidence and that evidence shows no impact,the playing running forward, could have fallen over, and hurt themselves in the fall.All the medical, biomechanics people etc.No clenched fist can be seen.

Is that realistic campbell??

Its Beyond Reasonable Doubt, what you are saying is not reasonable at all.

 

[RizzoTheRat]

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

How was Gaspars behind play, play hadnt even began yet...

"All other incidents including those occurring during times when play has stopped ie. breaks between quarters or before or after the final siren, shall be categorised as behind-play."

I haven't done any analysis of where the ball was at the time of the 'incident' however there has been a call (by a Swans fan admittedly) that Ben Mathews had it then fumbled (a likely scenario)....if so it will be the most important fumble in finals history.

 

[Death]

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

Judge for yourself

Was that a joke or the lamest form of advertising I have ever seen?

 

[BakesFan]

Re: Hall offered 2 Weeks

Come on swans take the tribunals sorry arses to court.

YEAH!!!!! Come on, Swans!!! Make some noise.. Get out there and defend the rights of every braindead thug that wants to put a player down behind the play. HAHAHAHA

 

[floppinab]

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

Judge for yourself

Impossible to tell from that, they'll need to sync up the live broadcast vision and that from the incident camera. A few have said that Matthews had the footy and was heading into the Swans forward line (hence the backward lead and the other players heading back into the forward line in the vision) but turned it over before it rebounded back again. According to the AFL's defn. of in play will depend if Hall has hit him when Matthews had possesion or after he's turned it over.

 

[dee_molisher]

Re: %$!

Sauce please.

Saw it on the News. Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke. Ha, ha! Always one prize plonker gets himself in trouble.

 

[Eagle87]

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.

So in criminal law terms, if I hit you and no-one sees me do it there is zero chance of being found guilty?

Thats just crap... and also wrong.

If a guy clenches his fist (which is visible), swings his arm in a punching motion (which is visible), hits the other guy (point of impact not visible) and then as arm comes back into view, fist is still clenched and then bloke who appears (agree not visible) to have been hit, slumps to ground, rolls about in pain, can't regain his feet and pukes (all consistent with being punched in the stomach/solar plexus), I suspect that there is the occasional court who may find that he has been hit and they may find that the bloke swinging his arm with fist clenched did it. They may also find this beyond reasonable doubt.

Thus endeth the lesson .....

 

[Forzaport]

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

Accidental, Hunter got off for accidental and so will Barry Hall in my opinion.

How do you accidently punch some one in the gut?

 

[Embers]

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

How do you accidently punch some one in the gut?

Actually i got it wrong, there arguing it down to negligent, there is a bit of scope there for them to work with.