Hall cleared...

[grayham]

Grant must be suspended or fined for either over-acting or lying to the tribunal. He looked more like Jurgen Klinsman than an AFL player.

Shame, Grant, Shame. You have followed libba into dark side in your latter years.

BTW, where's MGREG QC ?

 

[CharlieG]

Grayham - have a bit of class.

We got the result we wanted, why carry on with it?

 

[Ten Ton Hammer]

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

Unbeliveable the saints haven't even won this years flag yet and already some of their fans are celerbrating like they've won it already?

Don't get me wrong i like the saints and want to see them do well but some of you saints fans are starting to get way ahead of yourselves.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by CharlieG
Grayham - have a bit of class.

We got the result we wanted, why carry on with it?

We should never had got there in the first place. What a complete waste of everybodies time.

The way many were going on it was just a question of how many weeks (obviously you were sucked in). Now those same people have "gone missing", but need to face the sort of music they so easily dished out. Disgraces the lot of them.

 

[JeffDunne]

Originally posted by DST
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.

Um, no.

There is a big difference between body contact and a force that would knock a player to the ground.

The tribunal should have just said that Grant was faking and the contact (or force of) would in no way have resulted in him feeling such pain - i.e. he was faking! They obviously took Halls word more than Grant (not that he was prepared to say much).

I ask you, if a player ends up on the turf a considerable distance off the ball (if Collis doen't believe this was off the ball then he knows nothing about football), with force enough to cause him obvious pain (regardless of it being the head), then there are really only two explanations : 1) he is faking it or 2) he was hit, be it a strike or a charge.

So if it is 1) then why not say it when passing a verdict. Why not fine/suspend Grant for giving false evidence?

But if he was telling the truth, then Hall should have to explain his actions. Given his record I doubt you'd give him the benefit of the doubt. Balance of probabilities? But hey that would be common sense.

 

[Sid]

This was just an incident that wasnt big enough to warrant any real penalty. What we do know is that Hall definitely did something to Grant. These are the aggressive things that players do to each other week in and week out.

For those Hall haters, hes definitely better than before in terms of his behaviour on field. Give the guy a go, hes trying his best in terms of anger management and hes done well so far. Since his last suspension yonks ago, he has improved his game by a considerable amount.

As for you Saint fans, we know you're the in form team and in order to have any chance of beating you, we do need as full a team we can get. Having hall out would have taken away any chances of beating you.

 

[DST]

Originally posted by JeffDunne
Um, no.

There is a big difference between body contact and a force that would knock a player to the ground.

The tribunal should have just said that Grant was faking and the contact (or force of) would in no way have resulted in him feeling such pain - i.e. he was faking! They obviously took Halls word more than Grant (not that he was prepared to say much).

I ask you, if a player ends up on the turf a considerable distance off the ball (if Collis doen't believe this was off the ball then he knows nothing about football), with force enough to cause him obvious pain (regardless of it being the head), then there are really only two explanations : 1) he is faking it or 2) he was hit, be it a strike or a charge.

So if it is 1) then why not say it when passing a verdict. Why not fine/suspend Grant for giving false evidence?

But if he was telling the truth, then Hall should have to explain his actions. Given his record I doubt you'd give him the benefit of the doubt. Balance of probabilities? But hey that would be common sense.

Come on Jeff you can do better than that.

Nothing in the rules say players can't (off the ball) stand abreast and with a test of strength take front position.

In this case either Grant misjudged the force Hall applied in the shove and went to ground or (and I reckon this is more plausible) Grant was not expecting the contact at the time and therefore stunned by the contact went to ground.

Nothing more than a free kick warranted and the tribunal based on the truth told by Grant & Barry agreed.

DST

 

[magpiestevo]

they should suspend or fine grant for being so vague or at worst lying.when are the afl going to make a stand and punish a witness.surely grant's original evidence must have indicated that something happened.did he change his story tonight,or the usual i was faking for a free

 

[magpiestevo]

Originally posted by grayham
Grant must be suspended or fined for either over-acting or lying to the tribunal. He looked more like Jurgen Klinsman than an AFL player.

Shame, Grant, Shame. You have followed libba into dark side in your latter years.

BTW, where's MGREG QC ?

i reckon hall said boo and grant fainted.he is a bit soft after all.

 

[DST]

Originally posted by magpiestevo
they should suspend or fine grant for being so vague or at worst lying.when are the afl going to make a stand and punish a witness.surely grant's original evidence must have indicated that something happened.did he change his story tonight,or the usual i was faking for a free

Not according to the reports provided so far, his evidence was exactly the same as what was provided to Rick Lewis.

Would rather speculate that Rick Lewis was happy to bunk it up to the tribunal no matter what was said so he did not have to deal with the aftermarth in explaining why a charge was not laid.

Never underestimate the easy way out.

DST

 

[magpiestevo]

Originally posted by DST
Not according to the reports provided so far, his evidence was exactly the same as what was provided to Rick Lewis.

Would rather speculate that Rick Lewis was happy to bunk it up to the tribunal no matter what was said so he did not have to deal with the aftermarth in explaining why a charge was not laid.

Never underestimate the easy way out.

DST

intersting point.you could be onto something with lewis.
sorry chris.

 

[Dry Rot]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
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.

Still reckon he's not a diver??

Eh? The ball was deep in the Dogs forward line. Both Swans forwards and Dogs defenders were just standing around.

Obviously Grant was expecting a 100m pass to Hall.

Impressive.

 

[McGough27]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
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.

Still reckon he's not a diver??

"Im not sure where i hit him" .

Hello ??????

 

[liz]

Originally posted by Dry Rot
Eh? The ball was deep in the Dogs forward line. Both Swans forwards and Dogs defenders were just standing around.

Obviously Grant was expecting a 100m pass to Hall.

Impressive.

Actually the ball was being bounced in the centre square, almost bang in the middle. And as we keep being reminded, the SCG is so short that that means it was barely 50m to where Grant and Hall were standing (towards the 45m arc) - less if you allow for Hall trying to gain position to lead.

 

[SHCP]

Originally posted by magpiestevo
they should suspend or fine grant for being so vague or at worst lying.when are the afl going to make a stand and punish a witness.surely grant's original evidence must have indicated that something happened.did he change his story tonight,or the usual i was faking for a free

What a disgrace when a champion like Chris Grant has to lie ( and be accused of faking ) to get a dog like Hall off.
It's funny that i read in previous post's that BBBBH has controlled his anger , but the way he was spraying the ump's on Saturday night show's that this is not the case. No wonder he didn't receive any free kicks in the last quarter , the ump's must hate him and rightly so.
After Hall's performance the other night i belive he has now overtaken Richo as the biggest sook in the game.

 

[skipper kelly]

Originally posted by SHCP
What a disgrace when a champion like Chris Grant has to lie ( and be accused of faking ) to get a dog like Hall off.
It's funny that i read in previous post's that BBBBH has controlled his anger , but the way he was spraying the ump's on Saturday night show's that this is not the case. No wonder he didn't receive any free kicks in the last quarter , the ump's must hate him and rightly so.
After Hall's performance the other night i belive he has now overtaken Richo as the biggest sook in the game.

Are you accusing Grant of being a liar. Fairly big accusation against one of your favourite sons.

 

[JeffDunne]

Originally posted by skipper kelly
Are you accusing Grant of being a liar. Fairly big accusation against one of your favourite sons.

If Grant is a liar, then wouldn't that mean that BBB is also?

 

[SHCP]

Originally posted by skipper kelly
Are you accusing Grant of being a liar. Fairly big accusation against one of your favourite sons.

Yes he did lie , he lied to protect the players code. That does mean alot to some people.

 

[Ted's Robot]

Can't believe all this stuff being said about Grant, he has done everything possible to get Hall off and good for him, players don't like to see other players rubbed out. Hall may have hit him and he was stunned, but that does not necessarily mean he was punched against the rules.
Chris Grant is an absolute champion.

 

[Ipaidmy200in89]

With the evidence given by both players, and a re-enactment at the hearing the only person in question is the guy the put this up to be heard.

Chris Grant and Barry Hall both gave accounts to Rick Lewis. If the Swan fans have an axe to grind it is with him.

As for Chris Grant being labelled a dobber, diver, soft or what ever by many on this thread and others during the week that is just plain inaccurate.

As for Hall, he is a much more controlled player today than he was 3 years ago. To suggest is continues to be a thug is also inaccurate. Those days are behind him. Sure he is aggressive and so he should be.

So lets all just get on to the next subject......

 

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by Ted's Robot
Chris Grant is an absolute champion.

So was OJ. Onfield performance hardly gives a player a godlike status. He certainly isn't a champion in my eyes anymore... and Barry Hall is just another football player too, with as many personal flaws as the rest of us.

 

[skipper kelly]

Originally posted by JeffDunne
If Grant is a liar, then wouldn't that mean that BBB is also?

I didnt accuse anyone of lying.

 

[skipper kelly]

Originally posted by SHCP
Yes he did lie , he lied to protect the players code. That does mean alot to some people.

Well thats Chris Grants problem.

 

[skipper kelly]

Originally posted by Ipaidmy200in89
With the evidence given by both players, and a re-enactment at the hearing the only person in question is the guy the put this up to be heard.

Chris Grant and Barry Hall both gave accounts to Rick Lewis. If the Swan fans have an axe to grind it is with him.

As for Chris Grant being labelled a dobber, diver, soft or what ever by many on this thread and others during the week that is just plain inaccurate.

As for Hall, he is a much more controlled player today than he was 3 years ago. To suggest is continues to be a thug is also inaccurate. Those days are behind him. Sure he is aggressive and so he should be.

So lets all just get on to the next subject......

But doggies supporters are accusing their captain of lying. Fairly big accusation.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

grants position was quite simple:
dammed if he did and dammed if he didnt.

cheers!