He got 7.9 weeks so that would be the extra carry over. I apologise. How many weeks MM. Please advise instead of comparing to Bakes.Mr Magic wrote:Yes he does - he has carry over points from teh Maguire incident in 2005 Prelim Final - the 3 year anniversary has not happened for those points to be expunged yet.plugger66 wrote:But as MM says you cannot use how the tribunal was run to how it is now. He doesnt have priors under the new system.Behind Play wrote:Really what suspension did he get? He is out for probably 7 anyway. This was a perfect opportunity for the tribunal to get it right. Nothing to do with any prior sentences they have set in the past.
This block has priors with similar offenses.
For those who don't remember, Hall wasn't found not-guilty. He managed to have the charge downgraded so the points were less than 100 and that allowed him to play in the GF.
I haven't seen the official transcript of tonight's decision. Did Hall's 7 include any carry over points? If so, then he only got 6 + 1 for the carryover.
Unless of course the Tribunal once again forgot to include his carryover (like the AFL conveniently did in 2005!)
Barry Hall gets 7
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Minimum that he needed to receive was 9 weeks IMO
If the injury he has keeps him out for seven then he really doesnt have to face any real consequence for the hit. If he is fit to play after 4 weeks then he really only faces 3 weeks on the sideline for the hit.
It was a dog act and deserved more! Would have been saying the same thing if it was one of our guys, this sort of act does not belong in the game it is nowhere near 'flying the flag or being tough' it was cowardice and the fact that he tried to turn to the umpire and claim 'What? I didn't do it!' look upon his face.
If the injury he has keeps him out for seven then he really doesnt have to face any real consequence for the hit. If he is fit to play after 4 weeks then he really only faces 3 weeks on the sideline for the hit.
It was a dog act and deserved more! Would have been saying the same thing if it was one of our guys, this sort of act does not belong in the game it is nowhere near 'flying the flag or being tough' it was cowardice and the fact that he tried to turn to the umpire and claim 'What? I didn't do it!' look upon his face.
Thats Mr. Smartarse to you
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Fri 26 May 2006 4:29pm
- Has thanked: 31 times
- Been thanked: 132 times
The major difference between Hall and Bakes is that Hall is a man mountain who was a top under age boxer.plugger66 wrote:They only go back 3 years actually. It is 5 years for a good record. Alright we need to say from now on the Bakes case is the case that all reports are compared to. By the way what should Hall have got.
I hope Hall gets charged by police.
Darcy is looking at missing the Olympics and getting jail time. Hall needs to go as well (IMO). 7 weeks is not long enough. Carmen got 21 weeks for a slight head butt to an umpire. What Hall did was far worse because he knew he would smack him out being the boxer he is.
25% for pleading guilty FFS????Mr Magic wrote:Yes he does - he has carry over points from teh Maguire incident in 2005 Prelim Final - the 3 year anniversary has not happened for those points to be expunged yet.plugger66 wrote:But as MM says you cannot use how the tribunal was run to how it is now. He doesnt have priors under the new system.Behind Play wrote:Really what suspension did he get? He is out for probably 7 anyway. This was a perfect opportunity for the tribunal to get it right. Nothing to do with any prior sentences they have set in the past.
This block has priors with similar offenses.
For those who don't remember, Hall wasn't found not-guilty. He managed to have the charge downgraded so the points were less than 100 and that allowed him to play in the GF.
I haven't seen the official transcript of tonight's decision. Did Hall's 7 include any carry over points? If so, then he only got 6 + 1 for the carryover.
Unless of course the Tribunal once again forgot to include his carryover (like the AFL conveniently did in 2005!)
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Took it down to 790 points so 90 points carry over. No mention of the previous points. What happened to them I wonder?????/
Let me guess, the AFL wouldn't have forgotten to apply them would they?
No couldn't happen.
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
for pretty much what happened to xavier...plugger66 wrote:Baker got 4 weeks. When will people realise this.midas_touch wrote:Same as Steven Baker - an absolute farce.
Also makes his return game against none other than us.
Bewaire krime, da krimson bolt is comeing to yure nayborhood to smach krime
SHUT UP KRIME!
SHUT UP KRIME!
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12754
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 764 times
- Been thanked: 423 times
Spyglass, Do you hoinestly believe that the Tribunal in handing Baker 4 weeks penalty for the Farmer incident didn't know that Baker had 3 weeks already 'hanging over him'?spyglass wrote:[
not well before....it happened in April 2004 and was one of the reasons Baker got 7 weeks rather than 4 (and yes I know he shouldn't have got any), but because Baker has priors (and that is a very frustrating thing as he never seems to learn) once he was found guilty (sorry, once he told them he was guilty) he ended up with 7 weeks.
My thoughts about Hall getting 7 is that is about right (I thought he would get 8)
Of course they did. They gave him a 4 week penalty knowing it would translate to 7 weeks.
If they felty his penalty should have been 4 weeks in total they would have given him 1 week plus the 3 'hanging over'.
They decide that his penalty should be 7 games in total.
Tonight the same Tribunal decided that Hall should get & games in total for what he did.
Are you comfortable that what Baker did is comparable with what Hall did?
How many weeks MM.Mr Magic wrote:Spyglass, Do you hoinestly believe that the Tribunal in handing Baker 4 weeks penalty for the Farmer incident didn't know that Baker had 3 weeks already 'hanging over him'?spyglass wrote:[
not well before....it happened in April 2004 and was one of the reasons Baker got 7 weeks rather than 4 (and yes I know he shouldn't have got any), but because Baker has priors (and that is a very frustrating thing as he never seems to learn) once he was found guilty (sorry, once he told them he was guilty) he ended up with 7 weeks.
My thoughts about Hall getting 7 is that is about right (I thought he would get 8)
Of course they did. They gave him a 4 week penalty knowing it would translate to 7 weeks.
If they felty his penalty should have been 4 weeks in total they would have given him 1 week plus the 3 'hanging over'.
They decide that his penalty should be 7 games in total.
Tonight the same Tribunal decided that Hall should get & games in total for what he did.
Are you comfortable that what Baker did is comparable with what Hall did?
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3465
- Joined: Fri 29 Oct 2004 1:01pm
- Has thanked: 91 times
- Been thanked: 162 times
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12754
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 764 times
- Been thanked: 423 times
[quote="plugger66 How many weeks MM. Please advise instead of comparing to Bakes.[/quote]
I've got absolutely no idea what you are asking. If you're asking me what I think Hall should have got - I already answered that I think he should have gotten a minimum of 10.
But you have been so studious in avoiding answering the direct question posed to you that you probably missed that answer?
Why the difficulty in answering the direct simple question?
If 7 is correct for Hall then do you agree that 7 (in total) was correct for Baker.
I've got absolutely no idea what you are asking. If you're asking me what I think Hall should have got - I already answered that I think he should have gotten a minimum of 10.
But you have been so studious in avoiding answering the direct question posed to you that you probably missed that answer?
Why the difficulty in answering the direct simple question?
If 7 is correct for Hall then do you agree that 7 (in total) was correct for Baker.
Last edited by Mr Magic on Tue 15 Apr 2008 9:47pm, edited 1 time in total.
- yipper
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 8:18am
- Location: Gippsland
- Been thanked: 10 times
MM already answered you - 10 weeks!!plugger66 wrote:How many weeks MM.Mr Magic wrote:Spyglass, Do you hoinestly believe that the Tribunal in handing Baker 4 weeks penalty for the Farmer incident didn't know that Baker had 3 weeks already 'hanging over him'?spyglass wrote:[
not well before....it happened in April 2004 and was one of the reasons Baker got 7 weeks rather than 4 (and yes I know he shouldn't have got any), but because Baker has priors (and that is a very frustrating thing as he never seems to learn) once he was found guilty (sorry, once he told them he was guilty) he ended up with 7 weeks.
My thoughts about Hall getting 7 is that is about right (I thought he would get 8)
Of course they did. They gave him a 4 week penalty knowing it would translate to 7 weeks.
If they felty his penalty should have been 4 weeks in total they would have given him 1 week plus the 3 'hanging over'.
They decide that his penalty should be 7 games in total.
Tonight the same Tribunal decided that Hall should get & games in total for what he did.
Are you comfortable that what Baker did is comparable with what Hall did?
I want to stand for something. I'm a loyal person and I think at the end of my career it will be great to look back and know that I'm a St Kilda person for life.
- Nick Riewoldt. May 19th 2009.
- Nick Riewoldt. May 19th 2009.
- saint patrick
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4338
- Joined: Sun 14 Mar 2004 5:20pm
- Location: mt.martha
Pretty much Dan but Xaviers was caught on camera....Dan Warna wrote:for pretty much what happened to xavier...plugger66 wrote:Baker got 4 weeks. When will people realise this.midas_touch wrote:Same as Steven Baker - an absolute farce.
Also makes his return game against none other than us.
Go figure
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Never take a backward step even to gain momentum.....
'It's OK to have the capabilities and abilities, but you've got to get it done." Terry Daniher 05
"We have beauty in our captain and we have a true leader in our coach. Our time will come"
Thinline.Post 09 Grand final.
'It's OK to have the capabilities and abilities, but you've got to get it done." Terry Daniher 05
"We have beauty in our captain and we have a true leader in our coach. Our time will come"
Thinline.Post 09 Grand final.
- barks4eva
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:39pm
- Has thanked: 190 times
- Been thanked: 92 times
What a FAIR DINKUM DISGRACE
Hall should have got at least 14 weeks, 12 if they were being lenient
7 weeks, what a farce, wouldn't surprise me if they looked at the fixture and for marketing purposes thought, wow give him 7 and he comes back against St.Kilda and Maguire, we can really build this up, so the message/penalty was sent from the AFL
Seriously though, isn't the AFL supposedly trying to clean up the game for kids playing at junior level?
I seriously believe that this demanded a 14 week sentence, 7 weeks is outrageous.
10 weeks would have been letting this prick of lightly.
No prizes for guessing why Chris Grant was left lying on the ground holding his head 50 metres behind the play, FAIR DINKUM
0 weeks, no video footage
7 weeks to Baker, no video footage
7 weeks for absolutely deliberately punching someone very forcibly in the head behind play, you have got to be FAIR DINKUM joking.
This prick has been let off his hit on Maguire, let off from a similar incident because there was no video footage available, funny about that
and now given a hit over the wrist with a wet lettuce for what potentially could and has killed people before.
Staker is still having headaches and people have died from brain heamorages weeks after being king hit and remembering this was from a trained boxer/thug.
Hopefully Staker will be ok, long term.
FAIR DINKUM
The AFL is an absolute joke, this is an outrage
What were the odds for him coming back in round 12 for St.Kilda
14 weeks this deserved at least, 12 if they were going easy on this pig and he gets 7
You have fair dinkum got to be kidding me.
![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
Hall should have got at least 14 weeks, 12 if they were being lenient
7 weeks, what a farce, wouldn't surprise me if they looked at the fixture and for marketing purposes thought, wow give him 7 and he comes back against St.Kilda and Maguire, we can really build this up, so the message/penalty was sent from the AFL
Seriously though, isn't the AFL supposedly trying to clean up the game for kids playing at junior level?
I seriously believe that this demanded a 14 week sentence, 7 weeks is outrageous.
10 weeks would have been letting this prick of lightly.
No prizes for guessing why Chris Grant was left lying on the ground holding his head 50 metres behind the play, FAIR DINKUM
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
0 weeks, no video footage
7 weeks to Baker, no video footage
7 weeks for absolutely deliberately punching someone very forcibly in the head behind play, you have got to be FAIR DINKUM joking.
This prick has been let off his hit on Maguire, let off from a similar incident because there was no video footage available, funny about that
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Staker is still having headaches and people have died from brain heamorages weeks after being king hit and remembering this was from a trained boxer/thug.
Hopefully Staker will be ok, long term.
FAIR DINKUM
The AFL is an absolute joke, this is an outrage
What were the odds for him coming back in round 12 for St.Kilda
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
14 weeks this deserved at least, 12 if they were going easy on this pig and he gets 7
You have fair dinkum got to be kidding me.
![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
DO THE MATHS AND THE SQUARES ARE ALL ROOTED.
I've got absolutely no idea what you are asking. If you're asking me what I think Hall should have got - I already answered that I think he should have gotten a minimum of 10.Mr Magic wrote:[quote="plugger66 How many weeks MM. Please advise instead of comparing to Bakes.
But you have been so studious in avoiding answering the direct question posed to you that you probably missed that answer?
Why the difficulty in answering the direct simple question?
If 7 is correct for Hall then do you agree that 7 (in total) was correct for Baker.[/quote]
Sorry I missed your answer but you also missed mine. I have told you that Bakes has nothing to do with the Hall incident so how can I compare. I also said he was very unlucky because he was badly advised. I would suggest that if you beleive Bakes should not have been suspended then you should think Hall should 25 if Bakes got 7.
MM will every case now be compared to Bakes because that is what you are asking me to do.
It didnt last long did it.barks4eva wrote:What a FAIR DINKUM DISGRACE
Hall should have got at least 14 weeks, 12 if they were being lenient
7 weeks, what a farce, wouldn't surprise me if they looked at the fixture and for marketing purposes thought, wow give him 7 and he comes back against St.Kilda and Maguire, we can really build this up, so the message/penalty was sent from the AFL
Seriously though, isn't the AFL supposedly trying to clean up the game for kids playing at junior level?
I seriously believe that this demanded a 14 week sentence, 7 weeks is outrageous.
10 weeks would have been letting this prick of lightly.
No prizes for guessing why Chris Grant was left lying on the ground holding his head 50 metres behind the play, FAIR DINKUM![]()
0 weeks, no video footage
7 weeks to Baker, no video footage
7 weeks for absolutely deliberately punching someone very forcibly in the head behind play, you have got to be FAIR DINKUM joking.
This prick has been let off his hit on Maguire, let off from a similar incident because there was no video footage available, funny about thatand now given a hit over the wrist with a wet lettuce for what potentially could and has killed people before.
Staker is still having headaches and people have died from brain heamorages weeks after being king hit and remembering this was from a trained boxer/thug.
Hopefully Staker will be ok, long term.
FAIR DINKUM
The AFL is an absolute joke, this is an outrage
What were the odds for him coming back in round 12 for St.Kilda![]()
14 weeks this deserved at least, 12 if they were going easy on this pig and he gets 7
You have fair dinkum got to be kidding me.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12754
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 764 times
- Been thanked: 423 times
I don't bleieve so. IIRC he was charged only for teh Farmer incident and his penalty of 7 included 200+ carryover points that had been avoided from an earlier case against Mark Murphy.vacuous space wrote:Baker's suspension was actually three charges though, wasn't it?Mr Magic wrote:Are you comfortable that what Baker did is comparable with what Hall did?
The point I am trying to make which Plugger seems to continually avoid is that the TRribunal was aware of the 200+ points hanging over Bakes and therefore deemed he should have a penalty of 7 games in total (including the 200+ hanging over points) for the Farmer charge.
In essence they penalized him 7 matches for 'stopping' in front of Farmer and causeing Famer to run into the back of him.
They have now assessed Hall with the same & game penalty for his King Hit on Staker.
I for one find it outrageous that the Tribunal could equate both incidents when it came to handing out penalties.
Why is everyone so suprised that the AFl effectively would let him off with no suspension?
How in gods name does he get 3 weeks off for an early plea?
Oh thats right it is the AFl love child Sydney.
Ten weeks minimum. that would mean three on the sidelines.
This way he gets nothing. Sydney must be pissing themselves laughing.
How in gods name does he get 3 weeks off for an early plea?
Oh thats right it is the AFl love child Sydney.
Ten weeks minimum. that would mean three on the sidelines.
This way he gets nothing. Sydney must be pissing themselves laughing.
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1906
- Joined: Fri 19 Mar 2004 5:47pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 17 times
Look, I'm studying a subject called "Sport and the Law" at the moment, so I thought I'd give some more perspective on this...
When you sign up to play ANY sport, particularly a contact sport such as footy or rugby, you are exposing yourself to certain risks of physical contact, that in a non-sport setting, would be classified as an ASSAULT. For example, you know that in the process of chasing a player, you may receive a shepherd, and get struck high. In the rules of the game, it constitutes a free kick, and maybe a report, but generally, these acts are considered the exception, and not the rule, and are a part of the game.
What Barry Hall did to Staker, however, is not a risk of harm you WILLINGLY expose yourself to when you play AFL. A straight-out left hook to the jaw is not even close to resembling any legal form of contact in AFL. If a bloke had a bit of a scuffle with someone in a pub, and laid out that left hook, leaving a bloke concussed and with a nearly broken jaw, then he would be convicted of assault. It's a serious offence.
From the moment Staker signed his contract with the Eagles, he was consenting himself to LEGAL forms of contact, that could potentially result in injury. The guidelines of contact that a player exposed himself to is defined in the rules. That is why a reprimand to a few weeks is generally a pretty fair penalty for an attempt at legal contact (high tackle, high shepherd, late contact, charging etc.), or something with minimal injury risk (maybe tripping, spitting etc.) What Hall did was totally beyond the spirit of the game, and a terrible advertisement for the game, and he should have received a much harsher penalty.
Remember Danny Williams from the Melbourne Storm in the NRL receiving I think 15 weeks for running over to someone who had dumped his teammate and clocking him?
When you sign up to play ANY sport, particularly a contact sport such as footy or rugby, you are exposing yourself to certain risks of physical contact, that in a non-sport setting, would be classified as an ASSAULT. For example, you know that in the process of chasing a player, you may receive a shepherd, and get struck high. In the rules of the game, it constitutes a free kick, and maybe a report, but generally, these acts are considered the exception, and not the rule, and are a part of the game.
What Barry Hall did to Staker, however, is not a risk of harm you WILLINGLY expose yourself to when you play AFL. A straight-out left hook to the jaw is not even close to resembling any legal form of contact in AFL. If a bloke had a bit of a scuffle with someone in a pub, and laid out that left hook, leaving a bloke concussed and with a nearly broken jaw, then he would be convicted of assault. It's a serious offence.
From the moment Staker signed his contract with the Eagles, he was consenting himself to LEGAL forms of contact, that could potentially result in injury. The guidelines of contact that a player exposed himself to is defined in the rules. That is why a reprimand to a few weeks is generally a pretty fair penalty for an attempt at legal contact (high tackle, high shepherd, late contact, charging etc.), or something with minimal injury risk (maybe tripping, spitting etc.) What Hall did was totally beyond the spirit of the game, and a terrible advertisement for the game, and he should have received a much harsher penalty.
Remember Danny Williams from the Melbourne Storm in the NRL receiving I think 15 weeks for running over to someone who had dumped his teammate and clocking him?
The Saints are coming!
Stewart Loewe should be ashamed.Mr Magic wrote:
In essence they penalized him 7 matches for 'stopping' in front of Farmer and causeing Famer to run into the back of him.
They have now assessed Hall with the same & game penalty for his King Hit on Staker.
I for one find it outrageous that the Tribunal could equate both incidents when it came to handing out penalties.
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
- Grimfang
- Club Player
- Posts: 1431
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 9:30am
- Location: Tecoma, Vic.
- Been thanked: 1 time
The problem is that they specifically state that there is no such thing as precedent when dealing with tribunal or MRP penalties. According to the AFL each penalty stands on its own and can't/shouldn't be compared.
The problem is that people will always compare incidents and it leaves the AFL, tribunal & MRP open to accusations of favouritism.
The problem is that people will always compare incidents and it leaves the AFL, tribunal & MRP open to accusations of favouritism.
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons; for you are a quick and tasty morsel.
joffaboy wrote:Stewart Loewe should be ashamed.Mr Magic wrote:
In essence they penalized him 7 matches for 'stopping' in front of Farmer and causeing Famer to run into the back of him.
They have now assessed Hall with the same & game penalty for his King Hit on Staker.
I for one find it outrageous that the Tribunal could equate both incidents when it came to handing out penalties.
He should and so should we supportors having a guy who we trusted just doing what the AFL tell him to do. I thought he was better than that.