Barry Hall gets 7

[saint patrick]

Just announced on 3AW...

Bullshyt

[plugger66]

Just announced on 3AW...

Bullshyt

Why. Sounds right to me. Thought he would get around 6-8 weeks.

[saintDal]

Guess which game he comes back for if he is right to play

[True Blue Sainter]

I'm having a lot of trouble comprehending our Barry gets 7 for that..it's not only a reprehensible incident, but it's portrays a SHOCKING image of the game and i'm sure will decrease grass-roots junior participation from parents who don't want their kids exposed to that sort of risk...

[Rooy_coin]

good....

[saint patrick]

Just announced on 3AW...

Bullshyt

Why. Sounds right to me. Thought he would get around 6-8 weeks.

Had to get 8 to 10 to stamp it out forever IMO

How many more would he have got if just by luck he had hit the temple and brain damage or death resulted...

That staker was lucky is irrelevant.

[plugger66]

Just announced on 3AW...

Bullshyt

Why. Sounds right to me. Thought he would get around 6-8 weeks.

Had to get 8 to 10 to stamp it out forever IMO

So when you are about to do something stupid you think I might get 8-10 I better stop but I will do it if I only get 7.

[midas_touch]

Same as Steven Baker - an absolute farce.

Also makes his return game against none other than us.

[plugger66]

Same as Steven Baker - an absolute farce.

Also makes his return game against none other than us.

Baker got 4 weeks. When will people realise this.

[Rooy_coin]

but bakes got 7 for something no-one had video footage of...
hall king hit someone in the face surely should get more than 7

[vacuous space]

Conspiracy theorists on alert: have a look who his comeback game is against!

[saint patrick]

Just announced on 3AW...

Bullshyt

Why. Sounds right to me. Thought he would get around 6-8 weeks.

Had to get 8 to 10 to stamp it out forever IMO

So when you are about to do something stupid you think I might get 8-10 I better stop but I will do it if I only get 7.

He will be out with his broken wrist for 6 to 8 so he may not cop any in a sense...was worth more than 7

[plugger66]

but bakes got 7 for something no-one had video footage of...
hall king hit someone in the face surely should get more than 7

You said he should get between 6-8. Now you want more.

[Richter]

Good on the AFL I suppose. I personally think it's been overdramatised - I mean, getting a professor of medicine on to say he could have killed him! For goodness sake.

I thought that it was worth about 4-5 with priors to 7. Given that he doesn't have "priors" that count i.e. more than 2 years ago seems like a fair punishment to me.

Anyone could see he had a brain fade and that it was not premeditated so the lynch mob baying for 8-10+ a bit OTT in my view.

[Sainter_Boy]

Okay - I will say it! - Hall comes back to be smashed by Baker - or anyone from St Kilda who has the hardness to sit him on his butt!

Sainters - Grow some - Your supporters need it!

How the heck can a flat out punch like that only get 7.90 weeks

[Rooy_coin]

but bakes got 7 for something no-one had video footage of...
hall king hit someone in the face surely should get more than 7

You said he should get between 6-8. Now you want more.

yeah what happened with baker wasnt in my mind then

[Mr Magic]

Just announced on 3AW...

Bullshyt

Why. Sounds right to me. Thought he would get around 6-8 weeks.

So how would you compare this with Baker's 4 + 2 (hanging over him in penalty points) + 1 extra for ?

One is a deliberate 'KingHit' (as deemed by the MRP by referring it to the tribunal)

The other was, at best, a player stopping suddenly and allowing another player to 'cannon' in to him. (No other evidence was tendered at theat tribunal case to support any alternative to this description of the case against Baker)

[Cairnsman]

Jeez!

Baker must of done something really shocking.

I just wish there was some video footage of it so it could be compared to the Hall king hit.

I would have thought Hall would have got at least 10 weeks for something that was so plainly caught on video. The Baker incident wasn't even caught on video and I am still unclear as to what his crime was. He must of king hit Farmer.

[BelfastSaint]

When Barry Hall returns after suspension it will be against the Saints...
I hope the boys really get into him ...niggle him ...bump him...scrag him .. and dare him to react ....

[joffaboy]

Same as Steven Baker - an absolute farce.

Also makes his return game against none other than us.

Baker got 4 weeks. When will people realise this.

So he has been back the past two weeks has he?

FFS he got SEVEN WEEKS suspension. Doesn't matter how. He got four for a non incident that was a farce and then the malicious AFL whom he had made a fool of earlier in the year fixed him with the three suspended.

You reckon it was a fix? Of course not, you love everything AFL and they would never do anything wrong.

Baker got 7 for stopping, Hall got seven for a king hit, seven mind you that he couldn't play anyway.

In effect the AFL have let Hall off any suspension again.

Absolute criminal joke.

[plugger66]

Just announced on 3AW...

Bullshyt

Why. Sounds right to me. Thought he would get around 6-8 weeks.

So how would you compare this with Baker's 4 + 2 (hanging over him in penalty points) + 1 extra for ?

One is a deliberate 'KingHit' (as deemed by the MRP by referring it to the tribunal)

The other was, at best, a player stopping suddenly and allowing another player to 'cannon' in to him. (No other evidence was tendered at theat tribunal case to support any alternative to this description of the case against Baker)

Baker has nothing to do with this. What should he get. 20-30 matches. 7 matches is third of the season and if his contract says he doesnt get paid if he is suspended he also misses out on about $140,000.

[Grimfang]

I'd rather we follow the new interpretation of the shepherding rules and that the G-Train actually lands a huge bump for once. The number of times I've seen him line someone up and miss......

[Mr Magic]

Just announced on 3AW...

Bullshyt

Why. Sounds right to me. Thought he would get around 6-8 weeks.

So how would you compare this with Baker's 4 + 2 (hanging over him in penalty points) + 1 extra for ?

One is a deliberate 'KingHit' (as deemed by the MRP by referring it to the tribunal)

The other was, at best, a player stopping suddenly and allowing another player to 'cannon' in to him. (No other evidence was tendered at theat tribunal case to support any alternative to this description of the case against Baker)

Baker has nothing to do with this. What should he get. 20-30 matches. & matches is third of the season and if his contract says he doesnt get paid if he is suspended he also misses out on about $140,000.

Plugger I'm just trying to understand how you can rationalize Hall getting 7 and Baker getting 4 + 2 + 1.

I and many other think that Baker was despicably treated. You obviously don't (I don't recall you posting that his punishment was unfair?).

Now I would like to hear how you rationalize Baker's penalty for what he was found guilty of and Hall's penalty for which he plead guilty to?

[joffaboy]

Baker has nothing to do with this. What should he get. 20-30 matches. & matches is third of the season and if his contract says he doesnt get paid if he is suspended he also misses out on about $140,000.

should get the seven weeks suspended AFTER he is confimed fit to play.

The AFL has again effectively let him off scott free.

And Baker has EVERYTHING to do with this. He got the same suspension for something nobody saw, and not his fault (as the evidence).

I know you love the AFL and they can do no wrong, but cant you see the blatant hypocricy and total inconsistancy of this hopeless and tainted MRP tribunal process.

And absolute travesty, but you continue to defend the righteous bloody AFL, because they would never get anything wrong would they?

[plugger66]

Just announced on 3AW...

Bullshyt

Why. Sounds right to me. Thought he would get around 6-8 weeks.

So how would you compare this with Baker's 4 + 2 (hanging over him in penalty points) + 1 extra for ?

One is a deliberate 'KingHit' (as deemed by the MRP by referring it to the tribunal)

The other was, at best, a player stopping suddenly and allowing another player to 'cannon' in to him. (No other evidence was tendered at theat tribunal case to support any alternative to this description of the case against Baker)

Baker has nothing to do with this. What should he get. 20-30 matches. & matches is third of the season and if his contract says he doesnt get paid if he is suspended he also misses out on about $140,000.

Plugger I'm just trying to understand how you can rationalize Hall getting 7 and Baker getting 4 + 2 + 1.

I and many other think that Baker was despicably treated. You obviously don't (I don't recall you posting that his punishment was unfair?).

Now I would like to hear how you rationalize Baker's penalty for what he was found guilty of and Hall's penalty for which he plead guilty to?

I am not worried about comparing as they are separate cases. Bakes was badly advised and probably unlucky to get found guilty because of that bad advise. Hall has got pretty much what he deserved. From now on does every penalty have to be compared to Bakes to get a true amount of weeks. Maybe we should also compare what Pickett did and B johnson did and so on. That is why all cases are separate.