Hall cleared...

[CharlieG]

 

[Minkus_Swan]

Good stuff.

Was it due to lack of evidence, or did Grant admit he took a dive?

 

[flamethrower]

Chris Grant gave evidence that was inconsistent with the facts.

 

[saintfreddy]

Pleased Hall has been cleared. Can't you see the Swan supporters on Monday after losing, "If we had Hall then we would have won".

At least now they won't have an excuse

 

[CharlieG]

Originally posted by saintfreddy
Pleased Hall has been cleared. Can't you see the Swan supporters on Monday after losing, "If we had Hall then we would have won".

At least now they won't have an excuse

Not planning on needing an excuse.

Now you run along and make sure your blokes get an early night. You've got a big day on Sunday!

 

[ZimZum]

Originally posted by saintfreddy
Pleased Hall has been cleared. Can't you see the Swan supporters on Monday after losing, "If we had Hall then we would have won".

At least now they won't have an excuse

Tool.

Have you worked out your excuses yet?

1. The footy clinics are too draining.

2. The movie was crap.

3. Been up for too long.

4. Salary cap.

5. Cornflakes is too soft.

 

[Savatage]

Originally posted by ZimZum
Tool.

Have you worked out your excuses yet?

1. The footy clinics are too draining.

2. The movie was crap.

3. Been up for too long.

4. Salary cap.

5. Cornflakes is too soft.

What are we making excuses for?

 

[dogsbody]

Originally posted by Minkus_Swan
Good stuff.

Was it due to lack of evidence, or did Grant admit he took a dive?

Shame on you, Minkus Swan. Read Bloodsrule's last post in the other thread which, by its title, blackguards Chris Grant, and learn graciousness.

 

[OldLion]

On the strength of this decision, how the hell did Brown and Charman get 2 weeks each ? Outrageous stuff.

 

[evertonfc]

David Parkin:

"NO"

 

[Jerilderie Swan]

Took them long enough

 

[liz]

Originally posted by flamethrower
Chris Grant gave evidence that was inconsistent with the facts.

So precisely what "facts" are in your possession that are inconsistent with the evidence given?

It seems as if only two people have any idea of what happened - Grant and Hall - or do you have divine insights not available to the tribunal?

 

[AD_03]

The tribunal has been a joke this year!!!

 

[Bartholin Juice]

Right decision. No strong evidence at all to suspend Hall.

 

[Schneiderman]

And rightfully so!

 

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by dogsbody
Shame on you, Minkus Swan. Read Bloodsrule's last post in the other thread which, by its title, blackguards Chris Grant, and learn graciousness.

Whatever. This speaks volumes (from afl.com.au):

"Basically Chris Grant was trying to get front position. I'm not sure where I hit (him) but it wasn't in the head," Hall said.

"I was definitely surprised to see him on the ground.

"I just said that he should have a Grammy (sic) for his acting because he was trying to get a free kick."

Although Grant said he was initially "stunned" by the incident he said he quickly got to his feet and played out the rest of the game, adding that he was knocked in the shoulder and collarbone region.

"If you get struck, it's more of a blow," Grant said

Still reckon he's not a diver??

 

[Bartholin Juice]

Originally posted by OldLion
On the strength of this decision, how the hell did Brown and Charman get 2 weeks each ? Outrageous stuff.

The video evidence against Charman was more conclusive, even though it didn't show the point of contact.

Consider that Deluca wasn't dazed prior to that contest, and then after the contest which involved a motion by Charman closely resembling a punch towards Deluca's head, Deluca got up looking pretty groggy. Not completely conclusive, but rather plausible.

On the other hand, there was no footage of anything between Hall and Grant that would plausibly have caused Grant to go down like the proverbial.

 

[dogsbody]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
Whatever. This speaks volumes (from afl.com.au):



Still reckon he's not a diver??

Absolutely. Grant could have crucified Hall. He played it down even if Hall chose to accuse him of diving. Bloodsrule has a bit of class. You veer closer to small mindedness.

 

[JeffDunne]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
Whatever. This speaks volumes (from afl.com.au):

Nah, this speaks volumes :

The tribunal must make its findings on the evidence given to us. We have to accept the fact that we didn't regard this as a behind the play incident," Collis said.

"Both players have said in the maneuvering that forceful contact was made. Both players, however, were adamant that it was not a strike.

"The contact that was made could have occurred in the maneuvering."

Where was the ball Mr Collis? He not only clears him but is an apologist while doing it.

Also Mr Collis, please highlight one example where a player goes down like Grant did through forceful contact "maneuvering". This far off the ball and with such force - wouldn't it be called a charge? Don't need to strike to get rubbed out.

Complete and utter joke.

 

[Schneiderman]

LOL. From my vantage point at the time, watching his rolling on the ground, he looked to have been smashed in the head, and then smacked in the gut. Not surprisingly, many of the posters on this forum have made the conclusion.

He looked like a soccer player, and his evidence was no clearer. He said himself it "was more of a shove than a punch". So is he a noble soft player? Or is he a tough lier? You can call me all the names you want, but the Tribunal agreed with my opinion, and thats all that counts.

 

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by JeffDunne
Don't need to strike to get rubbed out.

Complete and utter joke.

Maybe you should find out what Grant said about the incident before assuming Collis made a bad decision. You'll find he gave the man little choice

 

[Forzaport]

thank God for the player's code and the poor camera work. it would've capped off a shocking weekend for hall who was ridden like a donkey and got no frees but a bloodied face.

at least sydney now HAVE a chance of beating the rampant saints

 

[sainter]

I'm sure most saints fans are happy with the decision, beating Sydney with Hall playing would mean so much more.

 

[DST]

Originally posted by JeffDunne
Nah, this speaks volumes :

The tribunal must make its findings on the evidence given to us. We have to accept the fact that we didn't regard this as a behind the play incident," Collis said.

"Both players have said in the maneuvering that forceful contact was made. Both players, however, were adamant that it was not a strike.

"The contact that was made could have occurred in the maneuvering."

Where was the ball Mr Collis? He not only clears him but is an apologist while doing it.

Also Mr Collis, please highlight one example where a player goes down like Grant did through forceful contact "maneuvering". This far off the ball and with such force - wouldn't it be called a charge? Don't need to strike to get rubbed out.

Complete and utter joke.

What bullsh*t, would you prefer your defenders at all times when the ball is 50 meters away stand at least three feet away from their direct opponent so no contact was made? Because that is what you are advocating.

Both players are entitled to stand their ground and obtain the front position no matter where the ball is. That is a test of strength.

From the evidence given by both Grant & Hall no punches were thrown and no contact was made with the head. Just a shove off balance.

DST

 

[The Fireman]

I am Glad Hall is playing,