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

[RizzoTheRat]

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.

Unfortunately Gaspar is down to “Negligent” already. What you say here will be Hall's second bite of the cherry.

 

[Murray]

Unfortunately Gaspar is down to “Negligent” already. What you say here will be Hall's second bite of the cherry.

Its not his second bite it is the process.
For him it is accept or defend - it is his choice.
Still the first round

 

[arrowman]

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

Shrug, I was responding to (1) someone who asked what the definitions were and (2) another person who said "the definitions change from week to week ... it's a lottery".

Sorry for contributing information to the thread.

 

[skipper kelly]

behind the play

 

[RizzoTheRat]

Its not his second bite it is the process.
For him it is accept or defend - it is his choice.
Still the first round

Gotta watch your nomenclature on this thread...

I mean't that they will probably plea guilty to a lesser charge - in play AND negligent with negligent/reckless being the second point of contention.

 

[plugger47]

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

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

I thought we might be making some progress - however. If you haven't seen a fist making contact, you can't assess how forceful the contact was because its not seen and it does make a difference to the force of the blow whether the hand was clenched or open and no statement from Goose forms the indictment HOW ON EARTH CAN YOU SAY THERE IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE???? We have not seen any evidence that is sufficient to discharge the persuasive burden of proof (by the way what it in this wonderful system) if no other evidence is tendered in rebuttal by Bustling.
Prima facie does not mean presumption. But as I said your reasoning is indicative bias of the AFL hirearchy. You aren't Ando by any chance are you?

 

[Murray]

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

I thought we might be making some progress - however. If you haven't seen a fist making contact, you can't assess how forceful the contact was because its not seen and it does make a difference to the force of the blow whether the hand was clenched or open and no statement from Goose forms the indictment HOW ON EARTH CAN YOU SAY THERE IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE???? We have not seen any evidence that is sufficient to discharge the persuasive burden of proof (by the way what it in this wonderful system) if no other evidence is tendered in rebuttal by Bustling.
Prima facie does not mean presumption. But as I said your reasoning is indicative bias of the AFL hirearchy. You aren't Ando by any chance are you?

Oh dear
Big Footy throws up another idiot.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt but now I find you boring- - just another 'oxygen thief'.

You are dismissed - off you go.
And keep away from the roads, you might hurt yourself.

 

[plugger47]

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

Oh dear
Big Footy throws up another idiot.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt but now I find you boring- - just another 'oxygen thief'.

You are dismissed - off you go.
And keep away from the roads, you might hurt yourself.

I'll accept that as a guilty plea for gross ignorance and pretentions to talking about things you know nothing about.

It was more reckless than intentional or negligent. Last comment definitely not in the play and given you follow collingwood there will be a 25% discount for stupidity. You have copped two weeks of sheer embarrasment and humiliation genius

 

[gadj1976]

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

So if the ball is on the wing you can whack someone anywhere on the ground and it's "in the play"?

That's ridiculous.

St. Kilda had possession and were pushing forward and Hall was moving in the opposite direction to the ball.

If that's "in play" then I don't know what "behind the play" means.

Gunnar, like I said, I didn't see it at the time. If he was doubling back to the square - on a lead, then it's in play. If you say St Kilda had the ball, then I agree, it's behind play.

So calm down, I'm in essence agreeing with you.

 

[Seth]

First of all I hope Hall plays as the footy needs him. But not for the below reasosn.

I disagree with it being downgraded to negligent! From now on you can belt someone whether in the guts or in the face and it will be downgraded to negligent. This is not a negligent act, it was an intentional punch, reckless at worst.
In criminal terms which seems to be what the AFL want to follow if you assault someone and cause an injury you get charged with intenionally cause injury or recklessly cause injury. The first charge is usually dropped to reckless this is because the person has to intend to cause the particular injury recieved. But reckless means the person is aware of the probable cause of his actions and proceeds regardless. Negligent is an objective view. It is whether a normal person would see that his actions was cause the injury or consequence and he went of regardless. This is not negligent. Negligent is when say a player blindly jumps into a pack and cathces someone with a high elbow in the contest knocking him out. That is negligent contact. This is not, this is why the AFL system is a farce. I guess all we need now is it to be 'in play' which I am sure it will be. Anderson you need a new job.