Match Review Panel...Goddard fined

[RoseInOz]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

[kosifantutti23]

Fair enough on Goddard.

The match day report laid against the Western Bulldogs’ Barry Hall for engaging in rough conduct against North Melbourne’s Scott Thompson during the second quarter of Saturday’s match was assessed. The panel said that the force involved did not constitute a report for rough conduct.

NORTH Melbourne defender Scott Thompson confided in teammates yesterday he felt he was seconds away from losing consciousness after he was put in a headlock by Western Bulldog Barry Hall during a fiery clash at Etihad Stadium on Saturday.

[St Fidelius]

Fair enough on Goddard.

The match day report laid against the Western Bulldogs’ Barry Hall for engaging in rough conduct against North Melbourne’s Scott Thompson during the second quarter of Saturday’s match was assessed. The panel said that the force involved did not constitute a report for rough conduct.

NORTH Melbourne defender Scott Thompson confided in teammates yesterday he felt he was seconds away from losing consciousness after he was put in a headlock by Western Bulldog Barry Hall during a fiery clash at Etihad Stadium on Saturday.

Hall should not be playing football after the Staker incident IMO

It was a gutless effort for a player that is not expecting it.

The problem lies when he got off for the punch in the stomach (another gutless effort) and was allowed to play in the GF.

Does anyone remember the robbery at McDonalds recently where one of the offenders placed a hold on one of the staff and he lost consciousness?

That person now has permanent brain damage.

Flowing weak as IMO.

A couple of weeks ago a player did the same thing to Lenny Hayes at the start of the 3rd quarter and used his knee to off balance Hayes while he was doing his laces.

Hayes did not retaliate at all.

[Zippy]

I think poor Barry was dealt with very harshly. Defenders shouldn't be mean to the poor guy.

And the conduct was so much worse than all the off-the-ball treatment Eade asked Lake & co to dish out to Reiwoldt in last years prelim that it's not at all hypocritical for him to complain about it.

If they passed the hat around for donations to pay Barry's fine, I'd contribute.

[SainterX1]

Don't forget the dogs attacking Gardiner in one of his first few games. If Barry's as big and bad as they say he is, why do the media thinks he should get more protection than others?

[True Blue Sainter]

I think poor Barry was dealt with very harshly. Defenders shouldn't be mean to the poor guy.

And the conduct was so much worse than all the off-the-ball treatment Eade asked Lake & co to dish out to Reiwoldt in last years prelim that it's not at all hypocritical for him to complain about it.

If they passed the hat around for donations to pay Barry's fine, I'd contribute.

^^^

This sums it up.

[desertsaint]

bulldogs long ago turned from good natured losers into a pack of whinging sooks - i think it started around the time of harvey's first brownlow

[quidnunc]

Hall - not enough force - FFS.

Didn't Baker get rubbed out for "attempting" to strike?

Credibility of tribunal = SFA!

[saintspremiers]

This is all big cover up by the AFL.

Hall got off for two reasons:

(1) We all know the umpires got it wrong by not awarding Hall a free kick or two for his treatment by Thompson

(2) In light of (1), the soft crock Journo's weren't calling for Hall's head, suspension wise.

The bloody AFL decided that feel sorry for Hall because of their incompetent umpires.

The farkwits used a technicality ONCE AGAIN to let Hall off.

This is CORRUPT and stinks to high heaven.

I bet if Hall ever does the same thing again (ie headlock), he will get rubbed out.

A fine, what a joke!

Why not just bloody well clear him and not insult the football public with a fine.

Extended headlocks are NOT the same as a wrestle (which is what you normally get a fine for).

Had Hall headlocked Thompson for just a few seconds, then a fine would've been a fair call, but be didn't - it lasted for a decent period of time.

[plugger66]

This is all big cover up by the AFL.

Hall got off for two reasons:

(1) We all know the umpires got it wrong by not awarding Hall a free kick or two for his treatment by Thompson

(2) In light of (1), the soft crock Journo's weren't calling for Hall's head, suspension wise.

The bloody AFL decided that feel sorry for Hall because of their incompetent umpires.

The farkwits used a technicality ONCE AGAIN to let Hall off.

This is CORRUPT and stinks to high heaven.

I bet if Hall ever does the same thing again (ie headlock), he will get rubbed out.

A fine, what a joke!

Why not just bloody well clear him and not insult the football public with a fine.

Extended headlocks are NOT the same as a wrestle (which is what you normally get a fine for).

Had Hall headlocked Thompson for just a few seconds, then a fine would've been a fair call, but be didn't - it lasted for a decent period of time.

Yep the word corrupt makes sense. Good decision but that is my opinion. Plenty others disagree but plenty also agree. Probably 50 50 so of course it is corrupt. Yes the journos some of who wanted him suspended but if you only have one eye you only see the ones who dont. Anyway what have they to do with this.

[ace]

This is all big cover up by the AFL.

Hall got off for two reasons:

(1) We all know the umpires got it wrong by not awarding Hall a free kick or two for his treatment by Thompson

(2) In light of (1), the soft crock Journo's weren't calling for Hall's head, suspension wise.

The bloody AFL decided that feel sorry for Hall because of their incompetent umpires.

The farkwits used a technicality ONCE AGAIN to let Hall off.

This is CORRUPT and stinks to high heaven.

I bet if Hall ever does the same thing again (ie headlock), he will get rubbed out.

A fine, what a joke!

Why not just bloody well clear him and not insult the football public with a fine.

Extended headlocks are NOT the same as a wrestle (which is what you normally get a fine for).

Had Hall headlocked Thompson for just a few seconds, then a fine would've been a fair call, but be didn't - it lasted for a decent period of time.

Yep the word corrupt makes sense. Good decision but that is my opinion. Plenty others disagree but plenty also agree. Probably 50 50 so of course it is corrupt. Yes the journos some of who wanted him suspended but if you only have one eye you only see the ones who dont. Anyway what have they to do with this.

Plugger66 I though you were my friend.
But now I realise you are not.

How could you possibly let another poster get away with calling the AFL corrupt when you know that it is my exclusive right to do so.
If you were my friend you should have told him he was naughty.

The AFL is CORRUPT

[ace]

Of course this is a corrupt decision.

Adrian Anderson set up a RULE OF LAW that deliberately ignored justice in an effort to produce consistent penalties, and a system that discounted for early guilty pleas at the expense of justice so as to save AFL money.

This time the AFL was confronted with effectively terminating a provoked players career unjustly.
The AFL chose the corrupt route to solve the problem that they had created.

The MRP threw out the rule of law to create a just outcome for Hall.
A just outcome where had they applied the rules, Hall would have been rubbed out for at least 6 to 8 weeks for a 4 week offence due to prior indiscretions, probably terminating his career.
AND an outcome where the instigator Thompson and his director Brad Scott would have walked away without suspension.

This is a decision that sets a precedent.

Now when an unprovoked player puts an opponent in a death headlock, the Match Review Panel will have to make a similar finding.

Now we have 2 possible outcomes for many cases that should result in suspension under the rules.
A player who justly should be let off due to provocation gets rubbed out due to lack of media support.
AND a player who justly should be let off due to provocation gets let off due to media support.

Of course in St Kilda's case the former will only apply.
AND in the case of the Bulldogs the latter will only apply, as the AFL tries to increase interest in aussie football among the migrant communities of the western suburbs of Melbourne through Bulldog success.

[gringo]

I was never one for the what about the children whiners, but now I have kids that Barry Hall choker hold really upset my kids. Now I am one of the those annoying people that doesn't want to have to spend 15 minutes debriefing my kids about dumb players going over the top.

Hall has been protected more than any other footballer with a hair trigger in history, D. Rhys jones, Robbie Muir, Stevie baker would love the kind of protection Hall gets. I used to think it was an AFL directive to keep Sydney competitive but now I dont know what to think.

And good call on Eades record of off the ball niggling to put players off. And Hall shoving the ball in the face and putting Zac on the ground in the NAB cup was ok? Eade should get the Mick Malthouse d**khead of the week award.

[plugger66]

I was never one for the what about the children whiners, but now I have kids that Barry Hall choker hold really upset my kids. Now I am one of the those annoying people that doesn't want to have to spend 15 minutes debriefing my kids about dumb players going over the top.

Hall has been protected more than any other footballer with a hair trigger in history, D. Rhys jones, Robbie Muir, Stevie baker would love the kind of protection Hall gets. I used to think it was an AFL directive to keep Sydney competitive but now I dont know what to think.

And good call on Eades record of off the ball niggling to put players off. And Hall shoving the ball in the face and putting Zac on the ground in the NAB cup was ok? Eade should get the Mick Malthouse d**khead of the week award.

Why is that? Because he tried to protect his player. Surely that is very smart.

[saintspremiers]

so plugger, why do you think not suspending a player who engages a prolonged headlock is the correct decision?

Is it just to shyte stir as per normal?

[plugger66]

so plugger, why do you think not suspending a player who engages a prolonged headlock is the correct decision?

Is it just to shyte stir as per normal?

It certainly isnt to shyte stir as you call it. If you look at what I said on Sunday in a thread, cant remember the name, I was strong on a headlock just being like wrestling. Without remembering incidents I would be almost certain that previous wrestling charges which attracted fines would have had headlocks in them. It is only my opinion and like I said many agree and many disagree so how does that make the AFL corrupt for letting him off when it was probably 50/50.

Please go by this site as Hall is one of the most hated players on this site.

[Milan Faletic]

I guess BJ wasn't provoked by Ray Chamberlain?

Maybe he should have gone the headlock, we can afford $3000!

So no melee? Did Thompson get anything for kneeing Hall? I was sympathetic to Hall but does that warrant a headlock in this day and age. Good example for the junior players.

At least we can rely on the consistency of the MRP....not.

I know, I know, Ray is an umpire...but BJ accidentally bumped in to him so does that warrant a fine that is 60% of the penalty imposed on Barry Hall, considering the gravity of the incident, the publicity it got nationally, and $1,800 more than any penalty imposed on Scott Thompson.

They showed the AFL Rules DVD on "On the Couch" last night and it clearly illustrated examples of off the ball niggling and elbowing by defenders or taggers being penalised with a free kick to the forward or opponent.

[plugger66]

I guess BJ wasn't provoked by Ray Chamberlain?

Maybe he should have gone the headlock, we can afford $3000!

So no melee? Did Thompson get anything for kneeing Hall? I was sympathetic to Hall but does that warrant a headlock in this day and age. Good example for the junior players.

At least we can rely on the consistency of the MRP....not.

I know, I know, Ray is an umpire...but BJ accidentally bumped in to him so does that warrant a fine that is 60% of the penalty imposed on Barry Hall, considering the gravity of the incident, the publicity it got nationally, and $1,800 more than any penalty imposed on Scott Thompson.

They showed the AFL Rules DVD on "On the Couch" last night and it clearly illustrated examples of off the ball niggling and elbowing by defenders or taggers being penalised with a free kick to the forward or opponent.

Did BJ actually get fined $1800? Thought it was less. These penalites are set penalities and the players know the rules. An umpire always backs out the same way when bouncing in the centre. BJ tried to tackle Nat for some reason when he didnt even have the ball and flung off him and accidently hit the umpire. Every player know the ball up rule. The fine to Hall has nothing to do with the set fine for BJ. That is another discussion.

[Milan Faletic]

I guess BJ wasn't provoked by Ray Chamberlain?

Maybe he should have gone the headlock, we can afford $3000!

So no melee? Did Thompson get anything for kneeing Hall? I was sympathetic to Hall but does that warrant a headlock in this day and age. Good example for the junior players.

At least we can rely on the consistency of the MRP....not.

I know, I know, Ray is an umpire...but BJ accidentally bumped in to him so does that warrant a fine that is 60% of the penalty imposed on Barry Hall, considering the gravity of the incident, the publicity it got nationally, and $1,800 more than any penalty imposed on Scott Thompson.

They showed the AFL Rules DVD on "On the Couch" last night and it clearly illustrated examples of off the ball niggling and elbowing by defenders or taggers being penalised with a free kick to the forward or opponent.

Did BJ actually get fined $1800? Thought it was less. These penalites are set penalities and the players know the rules. An umpire always backs out the same way when bouncing in the centre. BJ tried to tackle Nat for some reason when he didnt even have the ball and flung off him and accidently hit the umpire. Every player know the ball up rule. The fine to Hall has nothing to do with the set fine for BJ. That is another discussion.

Was $1800 and we accepted it. Nothing wrong with accepting that but in comparison with Hall and Thompson.....

[saintbrat]

[Did BJ actually get fined $1800? Thought it was less. These penalites are set penalities and the players know the rules. An umpire always backs out the same way when bouncing in the centre. BJ tried to tackle Nat for some reason when he didnt even have the ball and flung off him and accidently hit the umpire. Every player know the ball up rule. The fine to Hall has nothing to do with the set fine for BJ. That is another discussion.

Was $1800 and we accepted it. Nothing wrong with accepting that but in comparison with Hall and Thompson.....

the $1800 was the early plea - down from $2,200 or $2,400