Forget Sydney v Saints. I have NO DOUBT the tribunal makes decisions bearing in mind AFL pressure and bearing in mind public reaction. If that isn’t true then there is some mystical unexplainable force making some decisions inexplicable. The Hall decisions for example was an invention of definition and rule. Whether that is a Sydney issue, an AFL issue or a case of the tribunal not wanting a player to miss for a relatively harmless hit I don’t know but it sure as hell wasn’t application of any legitimate “rule of law”.
Yes it was, the AFL's own video provided to all clubs in the pre-season in 2005 confirmed that the incident was in play which is what the Swans argued, won that aspect of the case and had the charge demoted to less than 100 points with carry over's.
Barry Hall pleaded guilty to striking and was found guilty on that charge.
People seem to have very short memories of the facts when it comes to previous cases.
Personally as a Swans supporter I didn't think the action was in play and he therfore should not have played. But you can't go around providing helpfull videos to clubs confirming what the AFL's interpretation of the laws are and then just give up on those when it suits which is what the MRP did when charging him for behind the play contact.
DST
