Remove this Banner Ad

Hall Striking

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

K

kolchak

Club Legend
Veteran Hawthorn Hawks - Beau Muston 2008 Player Sponsor
Sep 10, 2006
2,849
185
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I want to form my opinion on what happened with Hall and Staker, I have seen the replay, but what happened to Staker after that? Did he keep playing? Did he suffer any injury? IMO that should have a lot to do with the weight of a suspension but the AFL might be a bit tough on him regardless.

Striking is striking whether in play or not as far as I'm concerned.

I'd give him 6 weeks, and that includes a week for the AFL trying to be hard. But depends on what happened to Staker? If he is serisously hurt then I'd give him more.

Not a troll, but I have seen far worse "resulting" strikes in play get only 4 weeks. If Staker is okay that is.
 
Dunn - Well Done said:
disappointing but i still respect the man but his temperament is definatly to low. He has boil overs too often
Click to expand...

he doesnt really have boil overs too often. Aside from the striking charge from 2005 against Maguire, Hall has had a clean sheet since 2002 - and that charge was shithouse and was dropped anyway. Considering the amoutn of disrespect and crap Hally is given from the umpires and defenders, this was bound to happen eventually.

And no.. Staker was not injured from it. He did not play for the rest of the game, but was cleared of any serious injury. Besides from "Experts" the other day saying that it could have killed him, he is fine. He was cleared today from having a broken jaw, and the "experts" have also admitted that it was not as bad as orignially thought.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Mav_87 said:
he doesnt really have boil overs too often. Aside from the striking charge from 2005 against Maguire, Hall has had a clean sheet since 2002 - and that charge was shithouse and was dropped anyway. Considering the amoutn of disrespect and crap Hally is given from the umpires and defenders, this was bound to happen eventually.

And no.. Staker was not injured from it. He did not play for the rest of the game, but was cleared of any serious injury. Besides from "Experts" the other day saying that it could have killed him, he is fine. He was cleared today from having a broken jaw, and the "experts" have also admitted that it was not as bad as orignially thought.
Click to expand...


So he is fine but took him off as a precaution? I think 6 weeks is fair. I think 8 is over the top, 7 would be very harsh, but still reasonable I suppose because it put Staker out for the rest of the game.

Damm, just such stupid thing to do.
 
Mav_87 said:
he doesnt really have boil overs too often. Aside from the striking charge from 2005 against Maguire, Hall has had a clean sheet since 2002 - and that charge was shithouse and was dropped anyway. Considering the amoutn of disrespect and crap Hally is given from the umpires and defenders, this was bound to happen eventually.

And no.. Staker was not injured from it. He did not play for the rest of the game, but was cleared of any serious injury. Besides from "Experts" the other day saying that it could have killed him, he is fine. He was cleared today from having a broken jaw, and the "experts" have also admitted that it was not as bad as orignially thought.
Click to expand...

I am not going to crucify Hall for what he did. It was bad and he'll take his medicine and we'll all move on. I still very much look forward to seeing him play again and hopefully he can still make a decent contribution to what we hope will be a successful year for our Swannies.

But the Maguire charge against him wasn't "shithouse". It was a very silly thing to do and he was a little fortunate to play the next week.

And yes, he has done wonders in curbing his clearly short temper, and no he's not the monster some would have him be, but 95% of AFL players don't ever have outbursts like his. (And unfortunately for him but happily for everyone else playing the game, the other 5% who do often lose their cool don't have the same skills of execution that Hall does.)
 
kolchak said:
I want to form my opinion on what happened with Hall and Staker, I have seen the replay, but what happened to Staker after that? Did he keep playing? Did he suffer any injury? IMO that should have a lot to do with the weight of a suspension but the AFL might be a bit tough on him regardless.

Striking is striking whether in play or not as far as I'm concerned.

I'd give him 6 weeks, and that includes a week for the AFL trying to be hard. But depends on what happened to Staker? If he is serisously hurt then I'd give him more.

Not a troll, but I have seen far worse "resulting" strikes in play get only 4 weeks. If Staker is okay that is.
Click to expand...

Of course Staker was ok. Granted he had a headache and a sore jaw, but Worsfold was making it out a lot worse than it was. It pretty much sums up the culture over there. He was obviously trying to get Hall a longer suspension.
 
kolchak said:
I want to form my opinion on what happened with Hall and Staker, I have seen the replay, but what happened to Staker after that? Did he keep playing? Did he suffer any injury? IMO that should have a lot to do with the weight of a suspension but the AFL might be a bit tough on him regardless.

Striking is striking whether in play or not as far as I'm concerned.

I'd give him 6 weeks, and that includes a week for the AFL trying to be hard. But depends on what happened to Staker? If he is serisously hurt then I'd give him more.

Not a troll, but I have seen far worse "resulting" strikes in play get only 4 weeks. If Staker is okay that is.
Click to expand...
It shouldn't make a difference whether Staker was injured or not in deciding how long he gets u can't go around whacking blokes like that.
 
tarks24 said:
8 weeks minimum he will get, with the broken wrist the afl can make an example of him and know one really loses out.
Click to expand...

Hall will get what he gets but I can't see how his broken wrist will come into play.

If he gets 8 weeks then that is the penalty for striking Staker. It is not four weeks plus four weeks for his broken wrist.

Surely this will become the standard penalty for this type of offence. If it happens again you can't say that the next culprit gets ony fours weeks because he isn't injured.

All we want from the tribunal is consistency. I can't see much difference between this and the Hartlett case except for the fact this was captured on TV. I am still amazed that Hartlett only copped two weeks for his actions which was much more premeditated than Barry's punch.
 
liz said:
I am not going to crucify Hall for what he did. It was bad and he'll take his medicine and we'll all move on. I still very much look forward to seeing him play again and hopefully he can still make a decent contribution to what we hope will be a successful year for our Swannies.

But the Maguire charge against him wasn't "shithouse". It was a very silly thing to do and he was a little fortunate to play the next week.

And yes, he has done wonders in curbing his clearly short temper, and no he's not the monster some would have him be, but 95% of AFL players don't ever have outbursts like his. (And unfortunately for him but happily for everyone else playing the game, the other 5% who do often lose their cool don't have the same skills of execution that Hall does.)
Click to expand...

I may be wrong but I am assuming that Mav was referring to the 2002 incident as being "shithouse" which I think was the headbutt IFIRC?
 
d-mac3276 said:
It shouldn't make a difference whether Staker was injured or not in deciding how long he gets u can't go around whacking blokes like that.
Click to expand...

If a bloke is fine to keep playing after taking a hit, then obviously he isn't hurt. Common sense. I was saying he should get more if was seriously hurt anyway. 7 weeks is harsh but fair at the same time. Anymore would have been too many.
 
d-mac3276 said:
It shouldn't make a difference whether Staker was injured or not in deciding how long he gets u can't go around whacking blokes like that.
Click to expand...

The tribunal actually stated the fact Staker wasn't seriously hurt and was a 50-50 chance of playing next week (Club doctors usually keep players out for a week in cases like these as a precaution) was taken into account. So it does make a difference.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

liz said:
I am not going to crucify Hall for what he did. It was bad and he'll take his medicine and we'll all move on. I still very much look forward to seeing him play again and hopefully he can still make a decent contribution to what we hope will be a successful year for our Swannies.

But the Maguire charge against him wasn't "shithouse". It was a very silly thing to do and he was a little fortunate to play the next week.

And yes, he has done wonders in curbing his clearly short temper, and no he's not the monster some would have him be, but 95% of AFL players don't ever have outbursts like his. (And unfortunately for him but happily for everyone else playing the game, the other 5% who do often lose their cool don't have the same skills of execution that Hall does.)
Click to expand...

Very pertinent comment Liz...a perfect example of this is Luke Hodge. While an extremely telented player he quite often just loses the plot and tries to take people out but obviously doesn't have the execution of Barry Hall. I have definitely noticed this in a a number of recent clashes against the Swans where we have beaten them comfortably and he just doesn't seem to be able to take losing, especially if he's playing poorly. Of course he's not on his "Paddy Malone" here and there are other players in this category but I have highlighted Hodge becuase he seems to be a serial offender against us if you watch our games against the Hawks closely.
 
kolchak said:
The tribunal actually stated the fact Staker wasn't seriously hurt and was a 50-50 chance of playing next week (Club doctors usually keep players out for a week in cases like these as a precaution) was taken into account. So it does make a difference.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah and the tribunals always got it right, i don't give a stuff whether they said he was a chance to play it was the act that comes into it not whether the bloke plays the next week.
Maybe each side should nominate a guy to b their hitman and go around smacking blokes but make it so they don't hurt em too much so they can get off.
 
d-mac3276 said:
Oh yeah and the tribunals always got it right, i don't give a stuff whether they said he was a chance to play it was the act that comes into it not whether the bloke plays the next week.
Maybe each side should nominate a guy to b their hitman and go around smacking blokes but make it so they don't hurt em too much so they can get off.
Click to expand...

The point I was trying to make is I was right and you were wrong.

And yes it does make a difference if they can't play, if you take someone out of the game via injuring them then you should suffer, it would be the reason behind suspending players in the first place.

If you had a hit man who hits blokes without hurting them he would be a pretty useless hit man.
 
d-mac3276 said:
Oh yeah and the tribunals always got it right, i don't give a stuff whether they said he was a chance to play it was the act that comes into it not whether the bloke plays the next week.
Maybe each side should nominate a guy to b their hitman and go around smacking blokes but make it so they don't hurt em too much so they can get off.
Click to expand...

Did Hall get off? When did this happen? Did Sydney appeal or something?
 
2 points
1-Ryan Gamble gets up off the ground and takes a swing at a Saints player who is running past to partake in the next piece of play (and is looking straight ahead). He gets one week? Now he has had the same intention as Hall but hits like a girl, so he gets 6 less weeks. Hall got what was coming for a stupid act but surely Gamble should have received 2-3. Ah thats right, he is not a big name player. 1 rule for some.....
2- I thought there was a rule years ago that when a player is reported, the incident was no longer allowed to be replayed. Can anyone tell me if this is in fact correct or when this rule was removed as it certainly was not the case on Saturday night and in the following days.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Hall Striking

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top