-
LIVE: Sydney v Brisbane Lions - 2:30PM AEST Sat
Squiggle tips Lions at 61% chance -- What's your tip? -- Ticketing Buy, Sell -- Teams on Thurs »
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Hall offered 2 Weeks (1 week with a guilty plea)
- Thread starter BrownDog2
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Ed_Gein
Very good. But brick not hit back!
- Dec 17, 2003
- 17,815
- 11,841
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Glasgow Rangers, Liverpool, Storm.
Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)
They will appeal and reduce it to a level 5 and get off eventually.
They will appeal and reduce it to a level 5 and get off eventually.
Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)
was it really behind play?
was it really behind play?
Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)
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
what a load of crap.campbell said:
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
Re: Hall offered 2 Weeks
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.
Roonaldo! said:
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.
Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)
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.
campbell said:
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.
- Banned
- #332
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.
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.
Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)
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?
arrowman said:
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
Brownlow Medallist
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!
jcraw1 said:
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!
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.
Forzaport said:
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.
- Banned
- #337
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.
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
Brownlow Medallist
Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)
True - but it's the only way hall will get off.
jcraw1 said:
True - but it's the only way hall will get off.
- Dec 7, 2001
- 23,290
- 8,203
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
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.
Embers said:
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.
- Banned
- #342
Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)
Is that realistic campbell??
Its Beyond Reasonable Doubt, what you are saying is not reasonable at all.
campbell said:
Is that realistic campbell??
Its Beyond Reasonable Doubt, what you are saying is not reasonable at all.
Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)
"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.
Embers said:
"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.
Re: Hall offered 2 Weeks
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
Diego said:
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
Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)
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.
Schneiderman said:
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.
- Banned
- #347
Re: %$!
Saw it on the News. Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke. Ha, ha! Always one prize plonker gets himself in trouble.
94_Eagles said:
Saw it on the News. Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke. Ha, ha! Always one prize plonker gets himself in trouble.
- Banned
- #348
Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)
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 .....
campbell said:
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
Brownlow Medallist
Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)
How do you accidently punch some one in the gut?
Embers said:
How do you accidently punch some one in the gut?
- Banned
- #350
Re: Hall offered 1 Weeks (Thread Title edited for accuracy)
Actually i got it wrong, there arguing it down to negligent, there is a bit of scope there for them to work with.
Forzaport said:
Actually i got it wrong, there arguing it down to negligent, there is a bit of scope there for them to work with.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
