A.F.L Thread

[Smudge]

Barry Hall - what a guy. Would have fitted in well with the 1974 British Lions.

 

[Johnners]

I don't see what a fair hearing has got to do with anything though when it was so obvious. Obviously you aren't going to send a player from the field if it looked an accident, was 50/50 or what have but, but that wasn't the case here.

Hall was clearly at fault when he hit Staker in the chops, yet he's allowed to keep playing whilst Staker has to watch from the sidelines. Even if West Coast can bring another player on, they're still at a disadvantage because the player the bring on obviously isn't one of their best 22, whereas Hall, who is one of Sydneys most important players, is allowed to play on.

Give him a fair hearing after the match certainly, but when it was so obvious who was at fault, send him off imo.

 

[pasag]

I don't see what a fair hearing has got to do with anything though when it was so obvious. Obviously you aren't going to send a player from the field if it looked an accident, was 50/50 or what have but, but that wasn't the case here.

Hall was clearly at fault when he hit Staker in the chops, yet he's allowed to keep playing whilst Staker has to watch from the sidelines. Even if West Coast can bring another player on, they're still at a disadvantage because the player the bring on obviously isn't one of their best 22, whereas Hall, who is one of Sydneys most important players, is allowed to play on.

Give him a fair hearing after the match certainly, but when it was so obvious who was at fault, send him off imo.

Nah no way, what's obvious to one isn't obvious to someone else (especially us with TV and YT) - that's why we've got the tribunal there to make proper decisions with all the evidence afterwards. And what about if a player got sent off unfairly, then you'd have the same unfairness. There's no reason to bring crappy soccer laws into footy just because of a rare occasions like this. Yes, it was unfair on WC, but by trying to deal with that unfairness, something which isn't really a big issue anyways, you'd be opening up a massive can of worms.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Haha, crappy soccer rules. It's pretty much a rule in every contact sport in the world bar AFL. Stupidest statement.

 

[Johnners]

Nah no way, what's obvious to one isn't obvious to someone else (especially us with TV and YT) - that's why we've got the tribunal there to make proper decisions with all the evidence afterwards. And what about if a player got sent off unfairly, then you'd have the same unfairness. There's no reason to bring crappy soccer laws into footy just because of a rare occasions like this. Yes, it was unfair on WC, but by trying to deal with that unfairness, something which isn't really a big issue anyways, you'd be opening up a massive can of worms.

If anyone thinks that the Hall/Staker incident wasn't obviously Halls fault, they're deadbeats, quite frankly. There's enough replays and like around nowadays that it's easy enough to spot who was at fault etc. that such a decision can be made accurately in a very short space of time.

The unfairness of the incident IS a big issue though, if Hall is allowed to play on. What happens if the match was going to determine who made the top 4/8 or a Grand Final. Being the 1 player down can make a huge difference, especially if the opposition still has their best 22 at their disposal.

EDIT: I'd like to see you explain to Staker how it was fair that Hall was allowed to play on whilst he was sitting on the sideline in his tracksuit with an icepack on his jaw.

(I know this all seems ironic considering my post in the grind my gears thread , but this sort of thing is a different situation to what I was talking about)

 

[Johnners]

Haha, crappy soccer rules. It's pretty much a rule in every contact sport in the world bar AFL. Stupidest statement.

AWTA

 

[pasag]

Haha, crappy soccer rules. It's pretty much a rule in every contact sport in the world bar AFL. Stupidest statement.

How is it a stupid statement, angry man? The fact that it's in other sports in no way validates the point at all.

 

[NZTailender]

Love that I picked Tigers. (H)

 

[pasag]

If anyone thinks that the Hall/Staker incident wasn't obviously Halls fault, they're deadbeats, quite frankly. There's enough replays and like around nowadays that it's easy enough to spot who was at fault etc. that such a decision can be made accurately in a very short space of time.

The unfairness of the incident IS a big issue though, if Hall is allowed to play on. What happens if the match was going to determine who made the top 4/8 or a Grand Final. Being the 1 player down can make a huge difference, especially if the opposition still has their best 22 at their disposal.

EDIT: I'd like to see you explain to Staker how it was fair that Hall was allowed to play on whilst he was sitting on the sideline in his tracksuit with an icepack on his jaw.

(I know this all seems ironic considering my post in the grind my gears thread , but this sort of thing is a different situation to what I was talking about)

It's not the point though - there's no basis to say that because one player takes another one out that we should redress the imbalance by taking this player out as well. That's not how it works nor how it should. The player is punished for his actions, not to redress the imbalance between sides. And what if Staker would have gotten back on the field five minutes later? It makes no sense.

If you were arguing that stricter rules should apply ie get punished in the current game, that would be one thing, though I'd disagree with that as well, but the other team unfairness issue has no place here really, imo. It's unfortunate, but that's about it.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

How is it a stupid statement, angry man? The fact that it's in other sports in no way validates the point at all.

I wasn't trying to validate anything or even take sides. It's a stupid statement because you called it a "crappy soccer rule" when it's pretty much a rule in every sport.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

What if Hall kncoked out Glass and then went on to kick 7 goals?

 

[pasag]

I wasn't trying to validate anything or even take sides. It's a stupid statement because you called it a "crappy soccer rule" when it's pretty much a rule in every sport.

Me saying crappy soccer rule doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in other sports, just that that's the sport it's most well known in. Throw away line, anyways.

 

[vic_orthdox]

What if Hall kncoked out Glass and then went on to kick 7 goals?

Welcome to the early 90s, when Plugger did that every time he played.

 

[pasag]

What if Hall kncoked out Glass and then went on to kick 7 goals?

It shouldn't matter who a person hits nor the effect it has on the match, in reality. A player should be given a fair tribunal hearing after the game where he can plead his case and the evidence can be analysed. For extreme cases like this, they should be given hefty punishments, if found guilty, but not before their tribunal hearing. The fact that it impacted the match is unfortunate, I'm not saying it's not in any way.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Welcome to the early 90s, when Plugger did that every time he played.

Well played, sir.

 

[Johnners]

It shouldn't matter who a person hits nor the effect it has on the match, in reality. A player should be given a fair tribunal hearing after the game where he can plead his case and the evidence can be analysed. For extreme cases like this, they should be given hefty punishments, if found guilty, but not before their tribunal hearing. The fact that it impacted the match is unfortunate, I'm not saying it's not in any way.

The player is going to be given a fair tribunal after the match no matter what the case though, so that should have no bearing on the matter. The victim doesn't get a fair go on the field though, and that is a problem. Why not actually do something about it instead of just saying it was unfortunate.

 

[pasag]

The player is going to be given a fair tribunal after the match no matter what the case though, so that should have no bearing on the matter. The victim doesn't get a fair go on the field though, and that is a problem. Why not actually do something about it instead of just saying it was unfortunate.

The player wouldn't be getting a fair trial though would he, if he's already been sentenced by the umpire - my whole point.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The player wouldn't be getting a fair trial though would he, if he's already been sentenced by the umpire - my whole point.

That's the way most other football codes seem to work tho. Actually, I say most, I really mean football & both rugby codes as they're the ones I follow. Doesn't make either way right or wrong, but a difference in emphasis. Generally speaking the referee is the ultimate arbitor on such calls on the field of play & occasionally you see red cards overturned on review because he's been a bit hasty in sending a player off.

I presume it's the same in AFL for most calls except dismissals, isn't it? The umpires decide on what is a foul there & then? To play devil's advocate slightly one could argue that a player who is deemed to have commited a foul but hasn't isn't getting a fair trial either. Not as final as a sending off, admittedly, but the same sort of principle.

 

[pasag]

Well yeah, that's their job and the limit of their jurisdiction. Things with more severe punishments than your free kick should (and do) get referred to higher powers. Obviously this case is in the middle of those two and my contention is that the power shouldn't be with the umpire to make that call, that it exceeds the limit of his power.

 

[Johnners]

The player wouldn't be getting a fair trial though would he, if he's already been sentenced by the umpire - my whole point.

If getting sent off because you've clocked an unsuspecting bloke on the jaw with a haymaker isn't fair, then I'm not here.