Barry Hall gets 7

[plugger66]

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.

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.

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.

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!)

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.

[Buckets]

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.

[Otiman]

Plus apart from the raciscm, Dermie had him in a headlock and was choking him.
He had little option but to try and kick his way out !

It brings up a good point, that in todays tribunal system, you get some level of leniency if you're fighting back, or retaliating.

[Shaggy]

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.

The major difference between Hall and Bakes is that Hall is a man mountain who was a top under age boxer.

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.

[joffaboy]

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.

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.

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.

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!)

25% for pleading guilty FFS????

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.

[Dan Warna]

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.

for pretty much what happened to xavier...

[Mr Magic]

[
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)

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'?

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?

[plugger66]

[
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)

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'?

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.

[vacuous space]

Are you comfortable that what Baker did is comparable with what Hall did?

Baker's suspension was actually three charges though, wasn't it?

[Mr Magic]

[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.

[yipper]

[
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)

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'?

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.

MM already answered you - 10 weeks!!

[saint patrick]

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.

for pretty much what happened to xavier...

Pretty much Dan but Xaviers was caught on camera....

Go figure

[Mr Magic]

[?

How many weeks MM.[/quote]

MM already answered you - 10 weeks!![/quote]

Well I'm glad someone else managed to see that. I was starting to think that I was hallucinating that I ahd actually posted that answer!

[barks4eva]

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.

[plugger66]

[quote="plugger66 How many weeks MM. Please advise instead of comparing to Bakes.

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.[/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.

[plugger66]

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.

It didnt last long did it.

[Mr Magic]

Are you comfortable that what Baker did is comparable with what Hall did?

Baker's suspension was actually three charges though, wasn't it?

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.

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.

[joffaboy]

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.

[True Blue Sainter]

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?

[joffaboy]

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.

Stewart Loewe should be ashamed.

[Mr Magic]

So Plugger, still avoiding answering any direct questions I see.

[plugger66]

heard a gut from the NRL today on SEN and he said Hall might get about 8 weeks in the NRL. He mentioned the Williams incident but said that was much worse as he ran after the guy and kept hitting him. Compared it to another incident which I forget and that guy got 6 weeks.

[Grimfang]

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.

[plugger66]

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.

Stewart Loewe should be ashamed.

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.

[Mr Magic]

Does anybody besides me want an answer from Plugger?
If no=one else does than I'll stop asking.