Remove this Banner Ad

Hall cleared...

  • Thread starter Thread starter CharlieG
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Originally posted by Bloods Rule!
Or the posters on BigFooty who want to use any event to parade their own prejudices.
Click to expand...

Sadly for you most of the pathetic posts were aimed by Swans fans at Grant, for either acting or lying.
 
Originally posted by Bloods Rule!
This thread is going in a really weird direction. Yes Baz and Chris had some sort of incident and it's very likely that Grant may have hammed it up to play for a free - he did that with a "push" at the start of the second quarter. But get real, players all over the ground play for frees in every game and it's no big deal.

The weird bit is that because it was Baz and because Grant was on the ground, the AFL decided to search for evidence long after it was clear that there wasn't any. Then the AFL said that after talking to Grant it was charging Baz. I started the "Grant disgrace" thread because it seemed clear that Grant had gone against the code and dobbed. Now it is clear that he hadn't and the tribunal was just off on a witch hunt.

Come tribunal time and Grant sticks to his story that there was a tussle and he hit the deck. He neither blamed Baz nor admitted to faking for a free. Is there a player in the AFL we would blame for that? And he did a great job of walking that narrow line without falling off, even when the tribunal was pushing him.

Now Grant is getting crap for:

a) not dobbing Baz. If he had dropped him in it it would not have gone over well with Baz, most players and just about everyone here. He did what is regarded as the honourable thing.

b) faking for a free. Geez, he'd just be part of that huge group of players (the majority?) who do exaggerate incidents hoping for a free - and that includes several Swans players (but not Baz - who just yells at the umps instead).

c) lying to the tribunal. Duh! It is very likely that Baz lied to the tribunal last night too and the contact was harder than he said. So it's alright to lie to get off a charge - because no-one has criticised him for probably lying? But it's dishonourable to lie to help a competitor? This is the stupidest thing I've heard for a while.

The only people we should be criticising here is the AFL that decided to push a charge against Baz purely on his past form - and for a long time after it was clear that there was no evidence to support the charge. They wasted Baz and Chris' time that would have been better spent getting ready for this weekend. Most people thought Baz would be suspended without evidence because the tribunal seems to act on a fairly random basis.

The AFL would have been better off spending Wednesday night having a crisis meeting about umpiring. When bad umpires are having as much effect as good players on the result of some games I think the AFL has more to do with its time than pursuing pointless vendettas. (And that's not to say Baz was innocent - he was definitely losing his cool. But there was never any viable evidence! And there's lots of clear evidence of bad umpiring.)

I can't work out who I'm most annoyed about. Baz for puting himself in this position for the first time in a season and a half. The AFL for running with it purely to be seen to be doing something. Or the posters on BigFooty who want to use any event to parade their own prejudices.
Click to expand...

Why would Grant play for a free when the ball is at the other end of the field. The game was well and truly over by then.
 
Originally posted by SCRAY72
Why would Grant play for a free when the ball is at the other end of the field. The game was well and truly over by then.
Click to expand...

Because he is a born thesbian.

Why would Hall punch someone when his team are about to score and the game is well and truely over, with a vitally important game the next week ?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Originally posted by grayham
You should probably stay out of this debate if you know nothing of the game or circumstances of the incident.
Click to expand...

All I need to know is:
Grant is a fair player
Hall is a thug
Whatever he did he got away with
Swans won the game
Hall's free to play
Swans fans should get off Grants back. In fact they should thank him.
 
Originally posted by grayham
Bulldogs: Grant told the truth. The truth came out in the tribunal.
There was no grassy knoll. No conspiracy. He's a diver. He was should be in the pool in Athens after last saturdays performance on many occations.
Click to expand...


You are obviously a moron of the highest order, Grant has been a champion both on & off the field for more than a decade.
He has no reason to take a "dive", if you believe that the "truth" came out of the tribunal, then not only are you a moron but a very naive one at that.

There are ethics amongst players, very few stray from them, Kelly, Campbell, Lawrence have all betrayed the players unwritten code in the recent past.

You should be extremely grateful that Grant upheld the code and got Hall off. Equally you should accept that Hall lost his cool because he was beaten by a better footballer. Wake up to yourself.
 
Originally posted by grayham
Because he is a born thesbian.

Why would Hall punch someone when his team are about to score and the game is well and truely over, with a vitally important game the next week ?
Click to expand...

Because he is a born bogan who can't control his temper and is easily frustrated and distracted.

Do you really think Hall was thinking about the following week's game? Priceless.
 
For the record I speak for no one. I only present the facts, and truths that arent always apparent in the hurly burly of modern football.
You can take them or leave them
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Originally posted by Bloods Rule!
I can't work out who I'm most annoyed about. Baz for puting himself in this position for the first time in a season and a half. The AFL for running with it purely to be seen to be doing something. Or the posters on BigFooty who want to use any event to parade their own prejudices.
Click to expand...

Good post Bloods. Any thread that runs to over 8 pages is a good one.
 
Originally posted by SHCP
What if he told the truth and put Hall in, what would your opinion of Grant be then ???. I'm sure you would be calling him a dobber or something like that.

Why cant you accept that lying to protect a player from suspension is part of football culture ?. It has been happening for decades, it will never change.
Click to expand...

No if something different to what was given in evidence did happen, then like I have said before, I wouldnt give a toss, and I would say good on Chris Grant for telling the truth, which he obviously has anyway.
 
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.
Click to expand...

For all you dyckheads out there that cant read, I asked this poster why he called his Captain a liar.
 
Originally posted by MarkT
Why do you keep going on about this. Do you think lying to the tribunal is some sort of mortal sin or something? I have absolutely no problem with Collingwood players not being honest in tribunal evidence when they have been belted. I have no problem with the "code". Not even a hint of a problem. Players lie every day to the media, the tribunal, the umpires...... They lie about injuries, free kicks, reportable incidents or whatever. So what? Christ what sort of standards do you set for yourself in your life? There are lies and there are lies.
Click to expand...

If you want to live in the 70's thats fine, I dont.

Lets say Barry Hall did to Chris Grant what Brodie Holland did to Paul Williams. And Collingwood where playing Sydney next week in the Grand Final.

Would this be a fair situation.

1, Holland reported for striking. Video evidence produced. Holland gets 1 week. No Grand Final.

2. Hall gets reported for striking. No video evidence produced. Evidence is via witnesses. Witnesses lie to uphold some outdated code.

Collingwood are the losers. The witnesses lose nothing. The reported player loses nothing. In this instance what gives the witnesses the right to decide on Collingwoods fate. If this occured, Collingwood would be up in arms.

Lets say this was Round 22 and St. Kilda needed to win to make the finals. Do you think St. Kilda supporters would be up in arms, because some player followed some outdated code, which may have an effect on their finals chances.

What I would like to see is the AFL crack down on players giving false evidence, then the door would be open for the players to tell what happened. If the truth hurts, stiff shyt for the offending player.

And Mark T, we are not talking about players lying to the media about an injury or club secrets etc etc, we are talking about players lying to the controlling body of violence in our sport. I am quite sure you can see the difference.

If the recipient of the strike suffers serious injuries does that code get broken?
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Originally posted by skipper kelly
For all you dyckheads out there that cant read, I asked this poster why he called his Captain a liar.
Click to expand...

to uphold "the code"
 
Originally posted by skipper kelly
I would say good on Chris Grant for telling the truth, which he obviously has anyway.
Click to expand...

Obviously. :confused:
 
Originally posted by skipper kelly
No if something different to what was given in evidence did happen, then like I have said before, I wouldnt give a toss, and I would say good on Chris Grant for telling the truth, which he obviously has anyway.
Click to expand...


Would your favouite player outside of Sydney be Wayne Campbell at all ?
 
Originally posted by hotpie
Obviously. :confused:
Click to expand...

As I have previously stated Hotpie. I didnt give a fcuk if Hall got off or not. If the evidence was there so be it. If you want to lump my thoughts alongside grayhams then go ahead. But 1st take some time to read what I said.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Muddiemoose
Status in Question Player removed from Hall of fame?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
165
Views
15K
Profop
P
Always Ballin
How did prime Barry Hall (04-06) compare to other great CHFs?
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
Roobs321
Roobs321

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom