Barry Hall gets 7

[saintspremiers]

OK, so the tribunal took into account that Staker didn't receive serious injury......so it seems that the fact that Hall could have caused serious injury isn't taken into account.

FFS that aspect is a joke......regardless of the injury received, the sentence should not be effected - it was head-high severe contact that could have caused severe concussion, or worse a broken jaw had he connected slightly differently......and then Staker would've also been out for 7 weeks!

The tribunal IMO must consider the injury to Hall.....perhaps 2 independant doctors could have assessed Hall's injury, and then the average weeks out could've been added (or maybe half) to the term.

For example: Doctors believe the broken wrist is a 6 week injury (one doctor thinks 5 weeks the other 7 weeks, take an average).

So the "extra" penalty is 3 weeks, on top a minimum 6 weeks out.

The tribunal hands down 7 weeks suspension - ie. the 6 weeks he's injured plus 1 "real" week of suspension. The "extra" penalty is 3 weeks, so you add another 2 to the 7 weeks to give in total 9 weeks suspension (ie. 3 "real" weeks out).

Pretty simple eh?

[plugger66]

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

I have answered it but as many times as I tell you Bakes has nothing to do with it you do not see it otherwise if we are comparing it to Bakes and you think he was not guilty and he got 7 then surely you think Hall should get 25 not the 10 you said or is it only me who needs to compare the cases.

[St. Luke]

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.

I think Baker has EVERYTHING to do with this! It's yet again another example of the AFL sticking up for a protected species!!

Baker has no video evidence and cops 7 for running into the back of a player who stops in front of him! His last conviction prior to that was a tummy tap to someone (can someone list Bakers priors??)

I was cheesed off when I heard Hall would get only 8 weeks! This is a disgrace! (but how typical!)

[True Blue Sainter]

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.

I think Baker has EVERYTHING to do with this! It's yet again another example of the AFL sticking up for a protected species!!

Baker has no video evidence and cops 7 for running into the back of a player who stops in front of him! His last conviction prior to that was a tummy tap to someone (can someone list Bakers priors??)

I was cheesed off when I heard Hall would get only 8 weeks! This is a disgrace!

Don't forget Baker's three weeks for "kicking" Alessio (twice his size) who was standing on his left ankle at the time.

[plugger66]

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.

I think Baker has EVERYTHING to do with this! It's yet again another example of the AFL sticking up for a protected species!!

Baker has no video evidence and cops 7 for running into the back of a player who stops in front of him! His last conviction prior to that was a tummy tap to someone (can someone list Bakers priors??)

I was cheesed off when I heard Hall would get only 8 weeks! This is a disgrace!

So as I suggested is every case compared to Bakes from now on. Is he the starting point. Fine if he is. Lats start a sticky about Bakes compared to whoever is reported.

[Mr Magic]

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

I have answered it but as many times as I tell you Bakes has nothing to do with it you do not see it otherwise if we are comparing it to Bakes and you think he was not guilty and he got 7 then surely you think Hall should get 25 not the 10 you said or is it only me who needs to compare the cases.

Very clever Plugger. I didn't realize you were a politician and only answered the questions you wanted asked and not the questions you were actually asked.

I'll ask it again.

How do you compare the 7 games Baker got with the 7 games Hall was given by the Tribunal with respect to their relative offences.

I have stated over ans over I'm not talking about whether Baker was guilty or not. He was found guilty and penalised.

[True Blue Sainter]

I think Mr. Magic and Luke are trying to give an example - not because of the similarities in incidents, rather, the severity of the penalty handed down in light of the actual offence.

[Lennon]

You realise that Hall's sentence was reduced by 25% due to an early guilty plea... so it was actually more like ten weeks, therefore rather more than Bakes got.

I don't think Bakes had a clean record either, did he?

(if this has already been pointed out, I'm sorry. CBF reading through 4 pages of arguing though)

[plugger66]

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

I have answered it but as many times as I tell you Bakes has nothing to do with it you do not see it otherwise if we are comparing it to Bakes and you think he was not guilty and he got 7 then surely you think Hall should get 25 not the 10 you said or is it only me who needs to compare the cases.

Very clever Plugger. I didn't realize you were a politician and only answered the questions you wanted asked and not the questions you were actually asked.

I'll ask it again.

How do you compare the 7 games Baker got with the 7 games Hall was given by the Tribunal with respect to their relative offences.

I have stated over ans over I'm not talking about whether Baker was guilty or not. He was found guilty and penalised.

I have answered that but you dont want to hear. Can you answer me why Hall should only get 10 weeks compared to Bakes 7 if you really think he was not guilty. Surely on that basis you should think Hall should get at least 25 weeks.

[Dan Warna]

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.

I think Baker has EVERYTHING to do with this! It's yet again another example of the AFL sticking up for a protected species!!

Baker has no video evidence and cops 7 for running into the back of a player who stops in front of him! His last conviction prior to that was a tummy tap to someone (can someone list Bakers priors??)

I was cheesed off when I heard Hall would get only 8 weeks! This is a disgrace!

So as I suggested is every case compared to Bakes from now on. Is he the starting point. Fine if he is. Lats start a sticky about Bakes compared to whoever is reported.

folks see a clear lack of consistency from the tribunal

what happened to xavier was similar to what happened to farmer, by every account, and yet treated far differently.

it was a bad rap and everyone knows it.

ball was chain clocked in the head to the point where he may have suffered permanent brain damage, and yet the AFL did nothing, and yet the head is held sacrosant in the farmer case and the offending player has a duty of care, in some cases.

sydney are a protected species, goodes, hall, kirk all seem to have a belief they can do whatever they like, much like brisbane in the period leading up to their premiership, much like WCE in the 90s, (anyone remember seeing worsfold break osbornes jaw?)

the AFL have an agenda, and its to see the growth of the competition at the cost of justice and decency.

[Mr Magic]

You realise that Hall's sentence was reduced by 25% due to an early guilty plea... so it was actually more like ten weeks, therefore rather more than Bakes got.

I don't think Bakes had a clean record either, did he?

(if this has already been pointed out, I'm sorry. CBF reading through 4 pages of arguing though)

So too was Baker's penalty then. He was not offered a discount for pleading guilty.

My understanding is that cases referred by Investigations Officer do not allow for an early plea discount. Again the Tribunal was aware of this fact before determining his penalty.

Whichever way you look at it, the Tribunal felt that Baler deserved to get a 7 week penalty, and so too did Hall.

[plugger66]

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.

I think Baker has EVERYTHING to do with this! It's yet again another example of the AFL sticking up for a protected species!!

Baker has no video evidence and cops 7 for running into the back of a player who stops in front of him! His last conviction prior to that was a tummy tap to someone (can someone list Bakers priors??)

I was cheesed off when I heard Hall would get only 8 weeks! This is a disgrace!

So as I suggested is every case compared to Bakes from now on. Is he the starting point. Fine if he is. Lats start a sticky about Bakes compared to whoever is reported.

folks see a clear lack of consistency from the tribunal

what happened to xavier was similar to what happened to farmer, by every account, and yet treated far differently.

it was a bad rap and everyone knows it.

ball was chain clocked in the head to the point where he may have suffered permanent brain damage, and yet the AFL did nothing, and yet the head is held sacrosant in the farmer case and the offending player has a duty of care, in some cases.

sydney are a protected species, goodes, hall, kirk all seem to have a belief they can do whatever they like, much like brisbane in the period leading up to their premiership, much like WCE in the 90s, (anyone remember seeing worsfold break osbornes jaw?)

the AFL have an agenda, and its to see the growth of the competition at the cost of justice and decency.

So you are saying Loewe is on the take.

[saintbrat]

You realise that Hall's sentence was reduced by 25% due to an early guilty plea... so it was actually more like ten weeks, therefore rather more than Bakes got.

I don't think Bakes had a clean record either, did he?

(if this has already been pointed out, I'm sorry. CBF reading through 4 pages of arguing though)

correct he had two weeks in points hanging from earlier in the year- due to miscounting by tribunal and being two incidents- then he got 1 for having a record. you get so many % every time you reoffend with in so many years

if Bakes offends again anytime soon I think I read it's something like 40 or 50% loading already - affectively he has 50 points hanging over his head all the time.

[saintspremiers]

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.

Didn't Hall get 3 weeks off for pleading Guilty?

From what I heard, there is no early plea discount when an incident is sent straight to the tribunal.

But if you take it as an 11 week ban, that equates to 1100 activation points - deduct 25% (or 275 points), and you're left with 825 points.

Perhaps it was a 10.5 week ban - or 1050 points....less 25% or: 263 points you are left with 787 points - rounded off to 790 points.

SO....it appears it was a 10.5 week ban with a 25% discount for a guilty plea!

How do you get a 10.5 not an 11 week ban FFS?

I assume it's "convenient" for him to be banned for 7 weeks as 8 weeks would've seemed harsh perhaps, or perhaps the tribunal wanted him to get 7 and miss playing the Eagles, with some handy carry over points to keep him in check when he returns.

The fact also that Hall didn't receive a decent fine also concerns me.

[Dan Warna]

baker should never have been found guilty

no video evidence and this rubbish about duty of care, doesn't apply when targetting xavier, ball, reiwoldt....

[plugger66]

It will be his carry over points from the Goose incident. 10 weeks plus points minus 25 %.

[Behind Play]

baker should never have been found guilty

no video evidence and this rubbish about duty of care, doesn't apply when targetting xavier, ball, reiwoldt....

Total agree Dan, Baker should never have been found guilty but have a look at the advice and his mouth piece. Thank god he has gone.
With similar advice and the same mouth piece, Hall may have coped 20 weeks.
That i believe is the difference.

[plugger66]

baker should never have been found guilty

no video evidence and this rubbish about duty of care, doesn't apply when targetting xavier, ball, reiwoldt....

Total agree Dan, Baker should never have been found guilty but have a look at the advice and his mouth piece. Thank god he has gone.
With similar advice and the same mouth piece, Hall may have coped 20 weeks.
That i believe is the difference.

So true.

[barks4eva]

Is this thread tugger's chatroom?

[saintspremiers]

It will be his carry over points from the Goose incident. 10 weeks plus points minus 25 %.

I thought carry over points expired after 12 months.

Thughead clobbered Goose in 2006 and hasn't received any reprimands/suspensions since from what I recall??

[Dan Warna]

It will be his carry over points from the Goose incident. 10 weeks plus points minus 25 %.

I thought carry over points expired after 12 months.

Thughead clobbered Goose in 2006 and hasn't received any reprimands/suspensions since from what I recall??

yep a number of incidents went through to the keeper, including a late hit on chris grant amongst others.

apparently no video evidence of that one either, chris grant fell over on his own and was throwing up apparently, cough cough scarlett on reiwoldt.

had that been baker

[Mr Magic]

baker should never have been found guilty

no video evidence and this rubbish about duty of care, doesn't apply when targetting xavier, ball, reiwoldt....

Total agree Dan, Baker should never have been found guilty but have a look at the advice and his mouth piece. Thank god he has gone.
With similar advice and the same mouth piece, Hall may have coped 20 weeks.
That i believe is the difference.

So true.

I think I'm going to give this one last try and then give up.

Forget about whether Baker was guilty or not.

HE WAS FOUND GUILTY of the charge that was levelled at him.

The tribunal then decided his penalty for that charge should be n 4 games plus his carry over points which means 7 games.

The tribunal found Hall guilty of the charge against him and decided he should serve a 7 game suspension. It doesn't matter how they arrived at the figure. They decided he should be suspended for 7 games - the same as Baker.

One person was found guilty of 'stopping' on the field.
The other player was found guilty of King Hitting an opponent.

The Tribunal thinks both offences deserve the same penalty.
Plugger obviuosly agrees with them.

[saintspremiers]

It will be his carry over points from the Goose incident. 10 weeks plus points minus 25 %.

I thought carry over points expired after 12 months.

Thughead clobbered Goose in 2006 and hasn't received any reprimands/suspensions since from what I recall??

yep a number of incidents went through to the keeper, including a late hit on chris grant amongst others.

apparently no video evidence of that one either, chris grant fell over on his own and was throwing up apparently, cough cough scarlett on reiwoldt.

had that been baker

for gods sake everyone!

I'm just trying to establish the facts before getting carried away with the emotion.

If the bloody AFL website had the full details I wouldn't be querying this.

The Baker case was a screw up by us admitting guilt remember, or is convenient to forget that fact?

[saintspremiers]

It would not surprise me if Sydney threatened to sue the AFL for Hall's injury through the sheer negligence and incompetence in failing to provide a safe playing environment and a compromise deal was arranged behind closed doors with 7 weeks being the light penalty in return for no further action by Sydney.

well that could be plausible barks.....but you also have to wonder why Hall didn't pull up when he was about to hit the fence.

The defence from the AFL if Sydney did try and sue them would be that Hall was negligent in that he didn't do enough to protect himself.

Perhaps Hall's noggon was in nar nar land at the time given he knew he was not going to play footy for 2 months due to the king hit?

[Behind Play]

baker should never have been found guilty

no video evidence and this rubbish about duty of care, doesn't apply when targetting xavier, ball, reiwoldt....

Total agree Dan, Baker should never have been found guilty but have a look at the advice and his mouth piece. Thank god he has gone.
With similar advice and the same mouth piece, Hall may have coped 20 weeks.
That i believe is the difference.

So true.

I think I'm going to give this one last try and then give up.

Forget about whether Baker was guilty or not.

HE WAS FOUND GUILTY of the charge that was levelled at him.

The tribunal then decided his penalty for that charge should be n 4 games plus his carry over points which means 7 games.

The tribunal found Hall guilty of the charge against him and decided he should serve a 7 game suspension. It doesn't matter how they arrived at the figure. They decided he should be suspended for 7 games - the same as Baker.

One person was found guilty of 'stopping' on the field.
The other player was found guilty of King Hitting an opponent.

The Tribunal thinks both offences deserve the same penalty.
Plugger obviuosly agrees with them.

I believe like any case, if the arguments are put to the judge and jury appropriately and in the manner which is relevant,two case can receive a different outcome due to the manner of the evidence given.
However, having said that , Bakers situation stank then and still stinks now.