Barry Hall gets 7

[vacuous space]

The tribunal went inexplicably overboard with the Baker and Johnson penalties. I think Hall got off light (could have easily been ten if the tribunal had stones), but I can contain my ourage.

[True Blue Sainter]

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.

But for there to be any form of consistency - there needs to be precedents set. This is what our courts of law have, similar cases are compared, and similar punishments can be put in place.

[spyglass]

Can anyone remember how many Baker got a few years back when he ran and whacked someone (a Tiger?)...I think GT said he was concussed at the time...similar incident (in a way anyway as it was punch to the head)

[Grimfang]

Kane Johnson I think it was. 4 weeks from memory.

[spyglass]

so if Baker got 4 for that then I can't complain with Hall getting 7 for this

[Spinner]

What a joke.

Should have been at least 8 at a minimum.

9 weeks would have been more appropriate.

[plugger66]

so if Baker got 4 for that then I can't complain with Hall getting 7 for this

Great example. Johnson wasnt expecting it but it was in Melee so Hall gets 3 more because it was behind play.

[Grimfang]

IIRC it was at the back of a stoppage. I think the incident caused a melee.

It was at least within 5 metres of the ball.

[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?

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.

Plugger you are missing the point either deliberately or accidentaly.

Baker was found guilty of doiung what.

STOPPING IN FRONT OF HIS OPPONENT AND ALLOWING HIS OPPONENT TO CANNON IN TO THE BACK OF HIM. (
I'm not arguing his guilt or innocence. That is for another time.

I'm asking how do you compare the penalty he received for his offence with the penalty the same Tribunal just gave to Hall for a KING HIT on an unsuspecting opponent.

DO you really believe that these 2 offences deserve the same penalty?

And please don't tell us that Baker only got 4 - the Tribunal knew exactly what was hanging over his head if found guilty. They only gave him 4 because they knew that it meant 7.

[Behind Play]

this why this game is going no where.

[jonesy]

The tribunal are beyond a joke much like the way the game has become,but they got this one about right. I thought 6-8 was fair enough. Just cos Bakes was fisted up the as$ doesn't mean Hall should get 18.

As for the entire tribunal set up,it's a joke. Activation points,wtf! A player has 200 activation points for attempting to strike,minus 46.3 because it was in play,plus 71.7 as it caused injury,minus 56 because the cause of injury wasn't intentional,and 126.564 carry over from last report...
FFS!!
How about common sense without all this BS! Just get someone in the game who has half a brain(might be a task),put them in charge,and give them weeks on the spot,without all this activation points gammon trash!

[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.

Plugger you are missing the point either deliberately or accidentaly.

Baker was found guilty of doiung what.

STOPPING IN FRONT OF HIS OPPONENT AND ALLOWING HIS OPPONENT TO CANNON IN TO THE BACK OF HIM. (
I'm not arguing his guilt or innocence. That is for another time.

I'm asking how do you compare the penalty he received for his offence with the penalty the same Tribunal just gave to Hall for a KING HIT on an unsuspecting opponent.

DO you really believe that these 2 offences deserve the same penalty?

And please don't tell us that Baker only got 4 - the Tribunal knew exactly what was hanging over his head if found guilty. They only gave him 4 because they knew that it meant 7.

I have said 3 times Bakes has nothing to do with the Hall penalty otherwise do we always now go back to the Bakes penalty for every report. Is that the starting point. If we compare it to baker and you think he shouldnt have even got rported does that mean Hall gets 40 weeks. What about comparing it to Bakes hit on Johnson or is that unfair.

[Mr Magic]

so if Baker got 4 for that then I can't complain with Hall getting 7 for this

Great example. Johnson wasnt expecting it but it was in Melee so Hall gets 3 more because it was behind play.

That incident was well before the Tribunal system/MRP was overhauled and penalties reviewed. That is why the MRP only goes back 5 years now to check a players' past history.

If you want other useless examples to further your argument why not use

Jim O'Dea on Greening - 10 weeks for kinghit behind play
Jimmy Read on Barry Davis - 10 weeks


We can all pluck examples out of history (and out of context).

Baker's case was only 6 matches ago and that is why his penalty is relevant.

[Otiman]

Winmar also got 10 for striking Brereton.

[Enrico_Misso]

It is effectively NO SUSPENSION.

If the penalty is to count then it should be served AFTER an independent doctor says he is fit to play.

Otherwise if someone does a major injury you might as well send them back out in a splint to whack someone cause the suspension will be less than their injury time !

[plugger66]

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.

[Richter]

Thankfully those responsible for fitting up Baker, albeit unwittingly, have now been moved on. Fairly or not it was the last nail in the Butters administration coffin for mine.

[Mr Magic]

Winmar also got 10 for striking Brereton.

I think that was kicking.

Brereton only came out in the last couple of years to say he regretted 'causing' the incident.

[Behind Play]

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.

[Enrico_Misso]

Winmar also got 10 for striking Brereton.

I think that was kicking.

Brereton only came out in the last couple of years to say he regretted 'causing' the incident.

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 !

[Mr Magic]

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 believe he should have gotten a minimum of 10

Here is a straight question to you.

DO you believe that Baker should have been suspended for 7 matches (no matter how they calculated it) for what he did when the same Tribunal has assessed Hall with a 7 match penalty for what he did?

[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.

[spyglass]

so if Baker got 4 for that then I can't complain with Hall getting 7 for this

Great example. Johnson wasnt expecting it but it was in Melee so Hall gets 3 more because it was behind play.

That incident was well before the Tribunal system/MRP was overhauled and penalties reviewed. That is why the MRP only goes back 5 years now to check a players' past history.

If you want other useless examples to further your argument why not use

Jim O'Dea on Greening - 10 weeks for kinghit behind play
Jimmy Read on Barry Davis - 10 weeks


We can all pluck examples out of history (and out of context).

Baker's case was only 6 matches ago and that is why his penalty is relevant.

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)

[Behind Play]

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.

True Plugger, my point though was that due to his injury, he really did not receive a penalty.

[Mr Magic]

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!)