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

[Jumpin' Jimmy]

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

How do you accidently punch some one in the gut?

When you meant to hit him in the head.

 

[TheBloods]

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

Um, you're not serious are you?

Quite.

It could just as easily been the flat of his palm.

No different to a forward pushing off his opponent aggressively, except it happened to hit him somewhere vulnerable.

Where that somewhere is we don't know as there is no footage and when Maguire went to ground he didn't really clutch at any specific area.

 

[jcraw1]

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

Quite.

It could just as easily been the flat of his palm.

No different to a forward pushing off his opponent aggressively, except it happened to hit him somewhere vulnerable.

Where that somewhere is we don't know as there is no footage and when Maguire went to ground he didn't really clutch at any specific area.

Clutching at straws mate...

 

[TheBloods]

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

Clutching at straws mate...

The footage is not entirely clear.

Additionally, it should have been classified as in-play given the definitional example in the AFL pre-season DVD.

Furthermore, how could it be classed as 'reckless' when Gaspar's elbow to the head was only 'negligent'.

 

[jcraw1]

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

The footage is not entirely clear.

Additionally, it should have been classified as in-play given the definitional example in the AFL pre-season DVD.

Furthermore, how could it be classed as 'reckless' when Gaspar's elbow to the head was only 'negligent'.

Everything changes with rose colored glasses mate. It has been alledged that St. Kilda had the ball going the other way, so there is doubt it was in play. Mike Sheehan wrote in the Herald Sun today that Hall marked the ball in the OPPOSITE pocket some 20 seconds later. Doesn't really sound like in play, does it?

 

[Refried Noodle]

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

Furthermore, how could it be classed as 'reckless' when Gaspar's elbow to the head was only 'negligent'.

Can someone explain the AFL's definition of 'reckless' and 'negligent' please?

 

[TheBloods]

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

Everything changes with rose colored glasses mate. It has been alledged that St. Kilda had the ball going the other way, so there is doubt it was in play. Mike Sheehan wrote in the Herald Sun today that Hall marked the ball in the OPPOSITE pocket some 20 seconds later. Doesn't really sound like in play, does it?

Nothing to do with rose-coloured glasses.

The Swans had the ball but it was turned over.

Certainly more 'in-play' than the Rioli incident in the AFL DVD example.

 

[campbell]

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

Can someone explain the AFL's definition of 'reckless' and 'negligent' please?

I think that definition changes from game review to game review, from week to week.

its a lottery.

 

[babydoll]

Re: Hall offered 2 Weeks

The only coward here is McGuire falling to the ground rolling around like a little girl while he watches his opponent kick another goal. Yes it was stupid by Hall but the fact he has got a week here is because one of your players was over reacting.

over reacting, you are pathetic.

I bet you have never been hit in the guts before. Hall is a coward and deserves this suspension. Hall is the dumbest fook to ever play the game...

 

[Flightleader]

I don't know about many here but I don't know you could say he's the grandest f..u..c...,k to play the game but he did land a punch and well if it is behind the play then it's even more reason to suspend him. I did see it and well he just pulled the punch and then ran off to get the ball.

He should be suspended. and will get one week. Unless everyone wants him to play just so Sydney can win or attempt to win. Its indescribable and is pretty ugly for those who will vote on this. You can't let it happen just so Sydney could possibly win the grand final. It would be a travesty.

They wouldn't do it for anyone else and I mean Victoriain teams. So why Sydney. They aren't the heart of football and never will be.

 

[TheBloods]

Re: Hall offered 2 Weeks

over reacting, you are pathetic.

and

Hall is a coward and deserves this suspension. Hall is the dumbest fook to ever play the game...

LOL!

Tool...

 

[plugger47]

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....

QUOTE]

1.Criminal Law is a one semester subject over here on the east coast
2. Neither you nor anyone saw a "punch" - definition is a closed fist. You could have seen a slap. Your assumption is not evidence
3. There is no "medical evidence" - no medical expert has provided any assessment of any physical damage or effect. What you saw was someone rolling on the ground. You have assumed cause and effect
4. The AFL disciplinary system is a shambles. If Hall is outed for one week it will be subjected to judicial examination and will fail. It is riddled with uncertainty, inconsistency and incoherence. Go the NSW Bar. Those clowns Andy and Ando will be exposed for the incompetents they are. Bazz will play, Swans will get the flag and Andy/Ando will be booted. Win win

 

[plugger47]

They wouldn't do it for anyone else and I mean Victoriain teams. So why Sydney. They aren't the heart of football and never will be.

Unlike your mob who occupy that part of the AFL anatomy that everyone sits on

 

[Murray]

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....

QUOTE]

1.Criminal Law is a one semester subject over here on the east coast
2. Neither you nor anyone saw a "punch" - definition is a closed fist. You could have seen a slap. Your assumption is not evidence
3. There is no "medical evidence" - no medical expert has provided any assessment of any physical damage or effect. What you saw was someone rolling on the ground. You have assumed cause and effect
4. The AFL disciplinary system is a shambles. If Hall is outed for one week it will be subjected to judicial examination and will fail. It is riddled with uncertainty, inconsistency and incoherence. Go the NSW Bar. Those clowns Andy and Ando will be exposed for the incompetents they are. Bazz will play, Swans will get the flag and Andy/Ando will be booted. Win win

He was charged with 'striking' not punching.

There is clear prima-facie evidence that Hall struck McGuire.
On that basis the MRP offered him one week (2 with discount).

Hall can take the matter to the Tribunal and argue he did not strike, that then opens up the full set of evidence including calling witnesses.
McGuire will then be asked "Were you struck by player Hall" His answer may well sink or save Hall.

To say there is no evidence is incorrect.
Hall must argue on the evidence, I doubt he will.

IMO he will argue 'behind play' or 'in play' thus hoping for a lesser charge to which he will plead guilty.

 

[mocaholic]

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

....there has been a call (by a Swans fan admittedly) that Ben Mathews had it then fumbled (a likely scenario).....

Who is surprised?

 

[TheBloods]

Swans to fight for Hall with top brief

THE most anticipated tribunal case of the year will turn on one of the more peculiar anomalies in the AFL's judicial system, with Sydney expected to argue its captain Barry Hall was "in play" when he struck St Kilda's Matt Maguire approximately 40 metres away from the ball.

The precedent for Sydney's defence was provided by Collingwood six weeks ago, when it successfully downgraded a charge against forward Chris Tarrant resulting from a similar incident. In that case, Tarrant backhanded Fremantle's Matthew Carr as he tried to make a lead.

Not by coincidence, Sydney yesterday briefed Terry Forrest QC, the same barrister who led Tarrant's defence, to present Hall's case against a striking charge tonight.

Forrest, an experienced criminal lawyer, is no stranger to high-profile acquittals. His most recent client was Zdravko Micevic, the Melbourne bouncer found not guilty of the manslaughter of cricketer David Hookes.

The key to Hall's case is the tribunal's definition of "in play" provided to the clubs at the start of the season, which reads: "An incident will be regarded as in play if it is in proximity to the ball or the next passage of play".

In Tarrant's case, Forrest convinced tribunal chairman David Jones that because Collingwood was in possession and Tarrant within a kick of the ball-carrier, he was in the next passage of play and therefore should be deemed in play. This was despite the incident occurring approximately 30m away from the ball.

In Hall's case, to be heard before Jones and a three-man panel of former players, the argument will swing on which team had possession when he punched Maguire in the solar plexus.

If the opposition had the ball and was running away from Hall, it would be difficult for Sydney to claim he was in play. Video footage viewed by The Australian yesterday and available to the tribunal tonight shows conclusively that at the time of Hall's strike, Sydney's Ben Matthews had the ball and was running towards the Swans' forward line.

Sydney will argue that as the ball comes forward, Hall runs to meet it. Then, when St Kilda's Brett Voss bats the ball back towards the wing, Hall doubles back towards goal. Once Matthews regains possession, Hall punches Maguire in an attempt to free himself for a second lead. If the defence is successful, he will still plead guilty to striking but will be free to play on Saturday.

The irony of Collingwood assisting Sydney to have a key player available for a grand final would not be lost on Magpies coach Mick Malthouse, who was forced to prepare for successive grand finals without defender Jason Cloke in 2002 and forward Anthony Rocca in 2003.

More pertinently, Sydney should be grateful to the AFL's match review panel, which laid the groundwork for Hall's acquittal by judging his actions reckless rather than intentional and the force of his blow at the low end of the scale. Maguire may beg to differ on this last assessment, given he spent the next 30 seconds doubled over on the MCG. He is not expected to be called to give evidence.

The match review panel's assessment delivered Hall six activation points under the AFL's complex sentencing matrix. Once remissions for a guilty plea are taken into account, Hall needs only to shave one point off that total to be available for Saturday's grand final against the West Coast. This will be done by convincing the tribunal the incident occurred in play. "The argument they ran in Tarrant is that they were running to the next contest," a legal source said. "That will be Barry's leg-in."

The outlook is less positive for West Coast defender Travis Gaspar, who was yesterday given little room to manoeuvre by the match review panel. Gaspar was cited for striking Adelaide's Ken McGregor with an elbow to the face before last Saturday's opening bounce. The panel assessed the incident as negligent, low impact, high and behind play, giving Gaspar a total of six activation points and, with remissions, a one-week suspension.

Unlike Hall, Gaspar cannot argue he was "in play". This is despite the fact that Gaspar and McGregor were actually closer to the ball than Hall was at the time of their respective incidents.

Under its definition of in play, the AFL tribunal guidelines also state: "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".

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16656800%5E36035,00.html

 

[Minkus_Swan]

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

Who is surprised?

 

[arrowman]

Can someone explain the AFL's definition of 'reckless' and 'negligent' please?

Certainly.

I think that definition changes from game review to game review, from week to week.

its a lottery.

Are you the last person on this thread to be unaware that all of this is actually documented on the AFL website?

“Intentional” requires a fixed and settled purpose. The outcome must stem from an act deliberately done.

“Reckless” exists when a person deliberately does an act which involves an obvious risk of illegal contact and that person acts, either not giving any thought to the possibility of such contact, or recognising that there was some risk involved and nonetheless goes on to do the act.

“Negligent” means the failure to exercise due care which the circumstances demand. A person must take due care to avoid acts or omissions which can be reasonably foreseen to be likely to cause a Reportable Offence. Negligence is more than mere carelessness or inadvertence. Negligence is the omission to do, or the doing of something, which a reasonable person would not regard as prudent in the circumstances.

 

[floppinab]

I've looked at this a thousand times, and I reckon he is unlucky to have it graded reckless. I reckon he is aware Maquire is there and his intent is to shoulder him and then lead to left. Trouble is he is watching the ball and doesn't know exactly where Maquire is. He swings his body slightly anti-clockwise to put the shoulder in, trouble is Maquire is not close enough and when the shoulder doesn't connect the arm follows through. He tries to pull the arm out at the last moment (flexes the the arm to try and stop), but is too late.

Looking at the Gaspar thing I reckon a similar thing happened, Gaspar sees McGregor coming but totally mistimes the bump. When he doesn't connect the elbow follows through and collects McGregor who has leaned in expecting a bump.

 

[plugger47]

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

He was charged with 'striking' not punching.

There is clear prima-facie evidence that Hall struck McGuire.
On that basis the MRP offered him one week (2 with discount).

Hall can take the matter to the Tribunal and argue he did not strike, that then opens up the full set of evidence including calling witnesses.
McGuire will then be asked "Were you struck by player Hall" His answer may well sink or save Hall.

To say there is no evidence is incorrect.
Hall must argue on the evidence, I doubt he will.

IMO he will argue 'behind play' or 'in play' thus hoping for a lesser charge to which he will plead guilty.

This is getting interesting:
1. Are you suggesting that it makes no difference that Hall made contact with an open hand or a fist. If that is the case the AFL law is an ass
2. I would suggest the very experience silk representing Bustling will ask more than "were you struck". Its a fair bet he will ask him how firm the contact was and how the contact was made.
3. The definition of "strike" is forceful contact. It is ludicrous to suggest that l contact with an open hand to the body of a footballer could be forceful enough to constitute "striking". Slapping across the face may be different. Its unclear from the video what hit McGuire, where and how hard the contact was. This does not constitute prima facie evidence of "striking'. I think you mean circumstantial.
4. On appeal there may be an issue of apprehension of bias. Your post shopuld be an exhibit
4. As for McGuire's reaction, he did a slow roll over. He does not appear to be distressed. But however his reaction appears it is not "medical evidence" which was my point.
5. Incredibly Hall was charged without any statement from McGuire forming part of the decision to cite - so much for the prima facie evidence
6. The reversing of the onus of proof in the hearing does not augur well for the afl in the inevitable appeal to the supreme court

 

[campbell]

I wonder if his Osteitis Pubis has anything to him rolling around, he didn't appear to be breathless or anything.

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2004/07/13/1089694363867.html?from=storyrhs

I thought it odd as well, that they asked McGuire for his opinion prior to looking at the video.I thought they had said earlier in the season, that other players were not to be trusted with their evidence.let alone use that playes evidence to acutally charge someone.New set of standards there.

 

[campbell]

Certainly.
Are you the last person on this thread to be unaware that all of this is actually documented on the AFL website?

“Intentional” requires a fixed and settled purpose. The outcome must stem from an act deliberately done.

“Reckless” exists when a person deliberately does an act which involves an obvious risk of illegal contact and that person acts, either not giving any thought to the possibility of such contact, or recognising that there was some risk involved and nonetheless goes on to do the act.

“Negligent” means the failure to exercise due care which the circumstances demand. A person must take due care to avoid acts or omissions which can be reasonably foreseen to be likely to cause a Reportable Offence. Negligence is more than mere carelessness or inadvertence. Negligence is the omission to do, or the doing of something, which a reasonable person would not regard as prudent in the circumstances.

I know the gradings, but why do the review committiee seem to change thier interpretation from game to game.

 

[plugger47]

Certainly.
Are you the last person on this thread to be unaware that all of this is actually documented on the AFL website?

.[/i]

I know things are quiet in Cappuchino City this weekend but we do know what the definitions are. Its the interpretation that confuses, confounds and makes the AFL a laughing stock

 

[bloodsports]

Swans to fight for Hall with top brief

THE most anticipated tribunal case of the year will turn on one of the more peculiar anomalies in the AFL's judicial system, with Sydney expected to argue its captain Barry Hall was "in play" when he struck St Kilda's Matt Maguire approximately 40 metres away from the ball.

The precedent for Sydney's defence was provided by Collingwood six weeks ago, when it successfully downgraded a charge against forward Chris Tarrant resulting from a similar incident. In that case, Tarrant backhanded Fremantle's Matthew Carr as he tried to make a lead.

Not by coincidence, Sydney yesterday briefed Terry Forrest QC, the same barrister who led Tarrant's defence, to present Hall's case against a striking charge tonight.

Forrest, an experienced criminal lawyer, is no stranger to high-profile acquittals. His most recent client was Zdravko Micevic, the Melbourne bouncer found not guilty of the manslaughter of cricketer David Hookes.

The key to Hall's case is the tribunal's definition of "in play" provided to the clubs at the start of the season, which reads: "An incident will be regarded as in play if it is in proximity to the ball or the next passage of play".

In Tarrant's case, Forrest convinced tribunal chairman David Jones that because Collingwood was in possession and Tarrant within a kick of the ball-carrier, he was in the next passage of play and therefore should be deemed in play. This was despite the incident occurring approximately 30m away from the ball.

In Hall's case, to be heard before Jones and a three-man panel of former players, the argument will swing on which team had possession when he punched Maguire in the solar plexus.

If the opposition had the ball and was running away from Hall, it would be difficult for Sydney to claim he was in play. Video footage viewed by The Australian yesterday and available to the tribunal tonight shows conclusively that at the time of Hall's strike, Sydney's Ben Matthews had the ball and was running towards the Swans' forward line.

Sydney will argue that as the ball comes forward, Hall runs to meet it. Then, when St Kilda's Brett Voss bats the ball back towards the wing, Hall doubles back towards goal. Once Matthews regains possession, Hall punches Maguire in an attempt to free himself for a second lead. If the defence is successful, he will still plead guilty to striking but will be free to play on Saturday.

The irony of Collingwood assisting Sydney to have a key player available for a grand final would not be lost on Magpies coach Mick Malthouse, who was forced to prepare for successive grand finals without defender Jason Cloke in 2002 and forward Anthony Rocca in 2003.

More pertinently, Sydney should be grateful to the AFL's match review panel, which laid the groundwork for Hall's acquittal by judging his actions reckless rather than intentional and the force of his blow at the low end of the scale. Maguire may beg to differ on this last assessment, given he spent the next 30 seconds doubled over on the MCG. He is not expected to be called to give evidence.

The match review panel's assessment delivered Hall six activation points under the AFL's complex sentencing matrix. Once remissions for a guilty plea are taken into account, Hall needs only to shave one point off that total to be available for Saturday's grand final against the West Coast. This will be done by convincing the tribunal the incident occurred in play. "The argument they ran in Tarrant is that they were running to the next contest," a legal source said. "That will be Barry's leg-in."

The outlook is less positive for West Coast defender Travis Gaspar, who was yesterday given little room to manoeuvre by the match review panel. Gaspar was cited for striking Adelaide's Ken McGregor with an elbow to the face before last Saturday's opening bounce. The panel assessed the incident as negligent, low impact, high and behind play, giving Gaspar a total of six activation points and, with remissions, a one-week suspension.

Unlike Hall, Gaspar cannot argue he was "in play". This is despite the fact that Gaspar and McGregor were actually closer to the ball than Hall was at the time of their respective incidents.

Under its definition of in play, the AFL tribunal guidelines also state: "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".

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16656800%5E36035,00.html

Hip Hip Hooray, Bazza's geting off, Bazza's getting off.... nah nah nee nah nah.

 

[Murray]

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

This is getting interesting:
1. Are you suggesting that it makes no difference that Hall made contact with an open hand or a fist. If that is the case the AFL law is an ass
2. I would suggest the very experience silk representing Bustling will ask more than "were you struck". Its a fair bet he will ask him how firm the contact was and how the contact was made.
3. The definition of "strike" is forceful contact. It is ludicrous to suggest that l contact with an open hand to the body of a footballer could be forceful enough to constitute "striking". Slapping across the face may be different. Its unclear from the video what hit McGuire, where and how hard the contact was. This does not constitute prima facie evidence of "striking'. I think you mean circumstantial.
4. On appeal there may be an issue of apprehension of bias. Your post shopuld be an exhibit
4. As for McGuire's reaction, he did a slow roll over. He does not appear to be distressed. But however his reaction appears it is not "medical evidence" which was my point.
5. Incredibly Hall was charged without any statement from McGuire forming part of the decision to cite - so much for the prima facie evidence
6. The reversing of the onus of proof in the hearing does not augur well for the afl in the inevitable appeal to the supreme court

1. No I am not suggesting that
2. Of course he will ask more questions but the key one is as I have explained
3 I made no such suggestion and no I mean prima-facie
4 Thank you
5 The video evidence (think committal hearings)
6. Not reversing the onus of proof (Hall was charged and dealt with. Should Hall decide to go the tribunal, the AFL will present its evidence, Hall can respond or remain mute it's up to him and his team)
7. The Supreme court may well decide to not to hear any appeal - in fact I doubt they would if all the AFL procedures are followed