In defense of Hall

[Young Blood]

Yes it was indisciplined but did not deserve 150m or the consequent attention it will receive.

First 50 - not there. If this hadn't been paid, end of story.
Second 50 - technically there but should not have been paid - Roughead initiated contact then acted for all he was worth
Third 50 - guilty, your honour

I'm sad that this is likely to damage his recovery, quite possibly terminally (for his career). Clearly he has his troubles, and this undeserved attention is not going to help his mental state.

PS What odds that he'll still be on 'One week at a time' on Monday??

[satchmopugdog]

There are times when I feel sorry for him.

He didn't mean to hurt that Xavier Ellis ..that was unfortunate.

He is crucified by the umpies at times..

but I still don't like him.

[Bear]

Yes it was indisciplined but did not deserve 150m or the consequent attention it will receive.

First 50 - not there. If this hadn't been paid, end of story.
Second 50 - technically there but should not have been paid - Roughead initiated contact then acted for all he was worth
Third 50 - guilty, your honour

I'm sad that this is likely to damage his recovery, quite possibly terminally (for his career). Clearly he has his troubles, and this undeserved attention is not going to help his mental state.

PS What odds that he'll still be on 'One week at a time' on Monday??

One-eyed stupidity.

[Bloodlines]

Hally should have got a free because his arm was being held. But he behaves like such a pork chop the umpires just ignore him. But that being said he is a highly paid player and should know how to control himself. That was a 12 point brain explosion. He lost us the game At the time we had all the momentum.took us about five minutes to get the air back in the team and start going forward again. In replays I saw a little Hally chin music being administered which could see him having a holiday.
Mickey was stiffed about three times in front of goal as well.
Up in our seats we call Reg "apple" as in turnover. Is he really the best on the list of up and comers? PS he is a terrible defender

[R&WtilIDie]

Yes it was indisciplined but did not deserve 150m or the consequent attention it will receive.

First 50 - not there. If this hadn't been paid, end of story.
Second 50 - technically there but should not have been paid - Roughead initiated contact then acted for all he was worth
Third 50 - guilty, your honour
I'm sad that this is likely to damage his recovery, quite possibly terminally (for his career). Clearly he has his troubles, and this undeserved attention is not going to help his mental state.

PS What odds that he'll still be on 'One week at a time' on Monday??

Agree completely. The first 50 was for the f-bomb he dropped. meh. too precious. i hate those 50's. I don't think it's terminal though. Roosy isn't prone to hysteria.

[Xie Shan]

There are times when I feel sorry for him.

He didn't mean to hurt that Xavier Ellis ..that was unfortunate.

He is crucified by the umpies at times..

but I still don't like him.

Fair summation satch. He can still be a pretty good player when he puts his head down and contributes to the cause but even if the three 50s were excessive, he really should know better by now and it cost the team dearly today when it looked as if we were headed for victory. A real heartbreaker, especially for the younger guys, because I thought it was terrific team effort today. There were mistakes yes but the application was there the whole way.

I think he cost himself any chance of a contract extension today, and perhaps that's a good thing as we need to be exploring new forward options.

Still he's given us great service over the years and we wouldn't have won a flag without him.

[Robbo]

He should of just STOOD THE MARK AND DONE NOTHING. This makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the umpires to ping you for more infringements. If he had of stood still and said nothing then the umpires CAN'T do anything. That's the bottom line.

[Mogg0]

You're not taking into account the emotion he plays with. Clearly, he plays with plenty.

We can all sit back and say what he should have done, but it's pretty worthless coming from us.

[pinkemu]

One-eyed stupidity.

Stupid reply

[Puppy Eyes]

He should of just STOOD THE MARK AND DONE NOTHING. This makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the umpires to ping you for more infringements. If he had of stood still and said nothing then the umpires CAN'T do anything. That's the bottom line.

Ever played football, Robbo? I just love these comments on blogs on what people should have done. HIS ARM WAS BEING HELD IN A MARKING CONTEST!!! Once again, he wasn't given a fair chance in a contest. 4 frees against. 0 frees for.

[ROK Lobster]

Ever played football, Robbo? I just love these comments on blogs on what people should have done. HIS ARM WAS BEING HELD IN A MARKING CONTEST!!! Once again, he wasn't given a fair chance in a contest. 4 frees against. 0 frees for.
When he was looking to take the mark and put the team well into the lead.

[Robbo]

But the point is, once an umpire has made a decision, no amount of crying or tantrum throwing is going to change his mind.....therefore you don't, I repeat....DON'T throw tantrums. That is the bottom line.

Playing football with emotion can be great, but clearly he can't keep his emotions in check, therefore it's a problem for him.

And yes I have played football, I still play football. When an umpire makes a decision, it means he has made a decision. As a player all you can do is get on with playing the game.

[573v30]

It's hard not to throw a tantrum when umpires repeatedly make stupid decisions or crucify you to the point you want to knock out an opponent.

It wouldn't surprise me if he kicks a bagful next round and we all love him again, like we did last week. :rolleyes:

[Puppy Eyes]

But the point is, once an umpire has made a decision, no amount of crying or tantrum throwing is going to change his mind.....therefore you don't, I repeat....DON'T throw tantrums. That is the bottom line.

Playing football with emotion can be great, but clearly he can't keep his emotions in check, therefore it's a problem for him.

And yes I have played football, I still play football. When an umpire makes a decision, it means he has made a decision. As a player all you can do is get on with playing the game.

He said 5 words. "He was holding my arm". That's it. If that was 50m, you'd have 50 of them per match. Tell me you've never protested an incorrect decision.

[Young Blood]

He should of just STOOD THE MARK AND DONE NOTHING. This makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the umpires to ping you for more infringements. If he had of stood still and said nothing then the umpires CAN'T do anything. That's the bottom line.

I don't really disagree with this. But I also believe the punishment didn't match the crime, and I fear that the resulting attention will further damage Hall's seemingly fragile psyche. He shouldn't be hung, drawn and quartered for a relatively minor disciplinary breach.

[Robbo]

"Protesting" runs the risk of giving away 50. So when a vital game is in the balance in the last quarter, smart players don't protest......because it achieves SFA.

[BeeEmmAre]

He should of just STOOD THE MARK AND DONE NOTHING. This makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the umpires to ping you for more infringements. If he had of stood still and said nothing then the umpires CAN'T do anything. That's the bottom line.

We're talking about Barry Hall here. They'd probably ping him for thinking about back chatting.

[Melbournehammer]

there is simply no doubt if the situation is only slightly a free against hall it will be paid, and if it is slightly for hall it will not be paid.

he is crucified by umpires and is treated differently to most other players.

in my view from my vantage point (which was about 40 metres from the first incidents and about the same from the third). Only the third was truly deserved (he really did try to elbow mitchell in the neck.

The umpires had by this stage already shown their unwillingness to be anything other than hawthorn supporters - and one of them was too gutless to award a holding the ball decision in the goalsquare against hawthorn (fortunately we goaled shortly afterwards)

[Melbournehammer]

"Protesting" runs the risk of giving away 50. So when a vital game is in the balance in the last quarter, smart players don't protest......because it achieves SFA.

not true. i reckon there were a couple of occasions where hawthorn players protested vehemently against non decisions in the final quarter and were rewarded with decisions shortly afterwards. Its just that hall will get done in circumstances where jordan lewis wont

[Robbo]

Well it was still wrong of him to protest, he shouldn't of done it.

[SwansFan1972]

our forwards all get treated differently to other teams. Demetriou's bias from 2005 (exacerbated by the humiliation of him by winning the flag) permeates the entire AFL administration. Every rule change since 2005 has been crafted with the aim of combating the Swans style of play.

The umpires know very well what is expected of them when umpiring swans games and they do as they are told week after week. Umpire 24 today was an absolute joke - he did all bar kick four goals for the hawks today.

Hally has always had a short fuse and with the rubbish he cops each week from defenders without any support from the maggots, it is not surprising eventually he will lose it. Unfortunate, but until we get robots playing the game (which the AFL is assiduously trying to achieve), we need to take the good with the bad, and Hally is still in credit (but perhaps not as far in the black as he once was!)

As painful as it is to admit, this year it all won't matter very much anyway. All the teams bar the top three are just making up the numbers, so whether we finish 4th or 16th, for the first time in years it doesn't matter a jot. (This is really crappy to have to admit, but reality hurts sometimes).

[Robbo]

SYDNEY Swans coach Paul Roos said Barry Hall's final-term brain fade ultimately cost his side the game against Hawthorn on Sunday.

Roos said Hall's triple 50m penalty that handed the Hawks a certain goal and moved them 10 points clear 12 minutes into the final stanza swung the momentum and handed the home side the four points.

"I think clearly that was the turning point in the game," a visibly disappointed Roos said after the game.

"You can sit here and we can dream up fictional reasons or we can get to the source of the problem, and that was clearly a massive turning point in the game."

The incident began when Hall handed Jarryd Roughead a 50m penalty for arguing with the umpire in the Swans' goal-square.

He then grabbed Roughead by the neck and slung him to the ground as the ball was moved 50m up the ground, which resulted in a second penalty.

Then, as play was shifted 100m forward, he jostled with Hawthorn players and was penalised a third time for contact against Sam Mitchell, which put Roughead in position to goal.

Roos dragged Hall for the incident and refrained from addressing him straight away, but said his teammates remonstrated with him after the final siren.

Read the rest here: http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsartic...2/default.aspx

[Pace To Burn]

But the point is, once an umpire has made a decision, no amount of crying or tantrum throwing is going to change his mind.....therefore you don't, I repeat....DON'T throw tantrums. That is the bottom line.

Playing football with emotion can be great, but clearly he can't keep his emotions in check, therefore it's a problem for him.

And yes I have played football, I still play football. When an umpire makes a decision, it means he has made a decision. As a player all you can do is get on with playing the game.

So you've never had something to say? Its human nature, all he said was"hes ###### holding" he didn't call the umpire a ####### or anything else. Then put his arms out and roughead ran into him, at the end of the day it didnt cost the game anymore than the easy goals missed in the last 10 mins

[hammo]

Every player in the AFL has a whinge to the umpires, including Chris Judd, so Hall is no Robinson Crusoe there. There was nothing wrong with complaining about his arm being held, but I assume he threw in an expletive at the end which is what the 50 was for. Stupid of Hall to do it but a gross over-reaction by the umpire considering the context of the game.

[Nolie]

Some great posts here. I agree that Hall gets terribly lop-sided treatment from the umps because he is 'Big, Bad, Bustling". Would Daniel Bradshaw, Matt Lloyd or one of those "nice" forwards get the same ill-treatment? Having said that I am not a Hall fan - he has been around long enough and is supposedly a professional and would know that nothing is to be gained by carrying on like a pork chop. Indeed he should in fact be factoring in the umpires' bias towards him and adapting his game accordingly. I think he has been a liability for several years now. The Swans should be giving a young bloke an opportunity.
I am with Robbo - some great comments.

[goswannie14]

SYDNEY Swans coach Paul Roos said Barry Hall's final-term brain fade ultimately cost his side the game against Hawthorn on Sunday.

Roos said Hall's triple 50m penalty that handed the Hawks a certain goal and moved them 10 points clear 12 minutes into the final stanza swung the momentum and handed the home side the four points.

"I think clearly that was the turning point in the game," a visibly disappointed Roos said after the game.

"You can sit here and we can dream up fictional reasons or we can get to the source of the problem, and that was clearly a massive turning point in the game."

The incident began when Hall handed Jarryd Roughead a 50m penalty for arguing with the umpire in the Swans' goal-square.

He then grabbed Roughead by the neck and slung him to the ground as the ball was moved 50m up the ground, which resulted in a second penalty.

Then, as play was shifted 100m forward, he jostled with Hawthorn players and was penalised a third time for contact against Sam Mitchell, which put Roughead in position to goal.

Roos dragged Hall for the incident and refrained from addressing him straight away, but said his teammates remonstrated with him after the final siren.

Read the rest here: http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsartic...2/default.aspxInteresting to note the AFL website has changed the facts to make Hall look guilty.:rolleyes: Everyone, except the umpires saw Roughead try to run through Hall and fall to the ground. Utter BS.

[Nico]

This issue has been given a really good run tonight by Mark Fyne on SEN. he was at the game and said Barry Hall was harshly done by. Every caller, Swans and Hawks and an impartial Collingwood supporter to a person said he was hard done by. The Collingwood supporter said he got a raw deal all game.
One caller said Vosso wasn't even watching the second infringement, had his back to it, as he was pacing out his 50 metres.

Fyne went as far as to say that Vosso should be looked at by the umpires panel because it was clearly an anti Barry Hall decision.

Fyne and all callers said it was clear Hall had his arm held in the contest while Roughhead came across to mark.

My take is that all day he was crucified in contests and so called 50/50 decisions went against him. It is quite extraordinary that others forwards such as Kosi and Riewolt get these arm holding frees almost every time, yet Hall gets nothing. I have no problem with frees that are there but there is no consistency and clearly he is discriminated against. Fyne as good as said this.

[Nico]

Interesting to note the AFL website has changed the facts to make Hall look guilty.:rolleyes: Everyone, except the umpires saw Roughead try to run through Hall and fall to the ground. Utter BS.

Factually incorrect on 2 fronts.

Roughhead marked 30 metres out from our goal. If it was in the goalsquare the kick for goal would have been about 30 metres out.

Secondly Roughhead canoned into Hall then Hall instinctively put his arm out, touched R/head on the shoulder and he fell over.

[hammo]

Interesting to note the AFL website has changed the facts to make Hall look guilty.:rolleyes: Everyone, except the umpires saw Roughead try to run through Hall and fall to the ground. Utter BS.
The Herald Sun's Jon Ralph has taken the old fashioned stick to his report as well. What game was this guy watching??


Repeating the dose by then attempting to decapitate Jarryd Roughead with a coathanger-style tackle indicates a serious anger management problem.
Barry Hall brain explosion gifts Hawks game | Herald Sun (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,25600847-19742,00.html)

[thedoc]

Good thread here - too many others keen to give a leading player a whack
imho hally is going well

[dimelb]

Interesting to note the AFL website has changed the facts to make Hall look guilty.:rolleyes: Everyone, except the umpires saw Roughead try to run through Hall and fall to the ground. Utter BS.
How I saw it too.

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

There are times when I feel sorry for him.

He didn't mean to hurt that Xavier Ellis ..that was unfortunate.

He is crucified by the umpies at times..

but I still don't like him.


I was at the game. Can somebody explain why his goal was disallowed in the 3rd quarter? :confused: :mad:

JF

[573v30]

The Herald Sun's Jon Ralph has taken the old fashioned stick to his report as well. What game was this guy watching??


Barry Hall brain explosion gifts Hawks game | Herald Sun (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,25600847-19742,00.html)

The media are doing their job well it seems... :rolleyes:

[goswannie14]

I was at the game. Can somebody explain why his goal was disallowed in the 3rd quarter? :confused: :mad:

JF
The commentators said the umpire paid a push in the back against Hall.:confused:

[ROK Lobster]

Well it was still wrong of him to protest, he shouldn't of done it.Most players protest every decision, especially for decisions not paid such as deliberatelu OOB and holding the ball.

[Nico]

Most players protest every decision, especially for decisions not paid such as deliberatelu OOB and holding the ball.

While we are on deliberate OOB, what about that obvious one against our point post in the 3rd Q. The Hawthorn player simply put it OOB from 20 metres towards our goals.

[dimelb]

While we are on deliberate OOB, what about that obvious one against our point post in the 3rd Q. The Hawthorn player simply put it OOB from 20 metres towards our goals.
True - and our blokes demonstrated. Much good it did.

[Melbournehammer]

I was at the game. Can somebody explain why his goal was disallowed in the 3rd quarter? :confused: :mad:

JF

he was holding and there was a clear tug on the shirt - hall does tend to grab jerseys before treating players like rag dolls - but this is one of the afl's interpretations - if you grab a shirt you get pinged if you grab an arm you won't unless it is completely obvious.

[Robbo]

It's understandable for Hall to be upset over the raw deal he got from the umps. But the way he reacted was his choice. Nobody forced him to act like a 6 year old.

I believe the issue here is Hall's failure to keep his emotions in check.

[msb]

As bad as it was, I dont believe it cost us the game. We still had our chances after that, especially those couple of missed shots towards the end from jolly and goodes that would of put us within 4 or 5 points I think with a minute or 2 left, who knows what could of happened. I was at the other end of the ground up with the seagulls (geez its high up in those stands at the G) and couldnt see exactly what happened with hall, had all these hawthorn *&&^% standing up going berserk in front of me. Is he likely to be suspended or come under any scrutiny from the match review panel?

[goswannies]

BBBH seems most frustrated (and prone to brain explosions) when he's either being ignored on a lead; being man-handled - and ignored by the umpires (which occurs when he's 1:1/2:1 in a contested situation in the goal square); or when the passes come in badly.

How would it be playing him up the ground... where he doesn't have that relatively static 1:1 goal square contest; where he can use his explosive 15-20m pace; and where he can use his underrated foot delivery skills to accurately pass to other key forwards. Reg/RoK/Magic/Goodsey & Jolly all have good hands and with better ball delivery leading to set shots, might enable better conversion. Two/three presenting lead-up forwards would give greater variation to scoring avenues making the forward-line less one-dimensional (ie Hall focused).

Just a thought.

[kangle4]

he gets crucified by the umpires time and time again just bcos of who he is and then people wonder why he gets annoyed. i'd be the same and he must feel like he just wants to end it all sometimes.

[goswannie14]

It's understandable for Hall to be upset over the raw deal he got from the umps. But the way he reacted was his choice. Nobody forced him to act like a 6 year old.Have you actually seen the incident or just listened to the press? Because your over-reaction is exactly what I would expect from a member of the press.

FWIW the momentum shift in the game was starting when Bevan gave away that blatant free kick to Williams right in front of goal, just before the Hall free kick not being awarded. But it's always easier to blame Hall than face the obvious.

[skaterboi1973]

I see a lot of posts arguing that Barry Hall is badly treated by the umpires. But this is not true, he does bring a lot of it on himself with his style of play and lack good body positioning and body work. This has become more evident since the rule changes that occurred around 2007.

I advise you all to youtube the 50 metre penalties, you will notice that the first one actually shows Hall holding onto his opponents geurnsey (why a forward is doing that is beyond me) and that the player only held onto Barry because of that.

The second 50, its up to Barry to move out of the players path with the free kick, which Barry didnt, its smart play by the player to get the extra 50. Barry should have got out of the way or sprinted back to resume the mark 50 metres down the track.

The third 50 should be reportable, even tho it was a love tap, it was still contact to the head and a punch.

This however doesnt really have much to do with Hall's temperment or passion, its more to do with his technique. Anyone who sits next to me at the footy can usually hear me having a go at Barry (they must think I'm from the opposition lol).

For a man with his physique, his body work and positioning is attrocious, hence he has to scrag and give free kicks away to try and get the ball. He doesnt read the trajectory of the ball well, and hence the backman is usually in the better position.

As for calling for leads, well, the number of times i have seen him just point to the air for a player to kick lon astounds me. As mentioned above he hardly wins these types of contests or gives a free kick away. Barry Hall is at his most potent when he is on a lead. If he lead earlier and kept with the lead, he would either get it in front, would help the swans move the ball up the ground quicker as there is an option, and clear out the forward line for the likes of Micky O etc and provide more options for the players kicking the ball into the forward line.

It all comes down to technique, Micky O showed that with great body work to nudge out a player for a mark. The difference with Barry is that he would have used his hands and given away the free kick. What Micky did was correct and legal, you can use your forearm, body etc to move a player out of position (within reason, ie you cant just shove them out, but you can hold your position with your forearm), you just cant use your hands in anyway in relation to the back, which Barry is prone to do.

Whether its too late to teach Barry these things, I dont know. To be honest I would move him to centre half forward, have him provide an option for the second kick out defense, and have him provide the kick into the forwards. Full Forward would be Reg, he can fly (we have seen this recently), has good body work skills, and a decent goal sneak. With sme time up there I reckon he could be a more than handy full forward in years to come. I would also play the three ruckmen, one on teh bench, one in the ruck and one in the forward line.

Anyways, thats my 2 cents

ps. Have been a swans fan since 1982. And played a couple of years in the Sydney Football League.

[connolly]

Have you actually seen the incident or just listened to the press? Because your over-reaction is exactly what I would expect from a member of the press.

FWIW the momentum shift in the game was starting when Bevan gave away that blatant free kick to Williams right in front of goal, just before the Hall free kick not being awarded. But it's always easier to blame Hall than face the obvious.

Jeez i was almost going to agree with you. But Hall was CRUCIFIED by an extraordinary inconsistency again by the umpires. Compare the Bevo free to the treatment Big Beamish received from the triple tag team they had on him. The Bevanators arm momentarily slipped over Williams shoulder. On several occasions Hall had defenders facing him and jumping into him. Don't you reckon that the Bevo free had something to do with Big Beamish's reaction. Players watch the big screen. Also there should be a thread on this but Roos reaction to the peanlties was simply disgraceful. A great coach does not humiliate a player in front of world by disciplining a passionate and courageous player like a school kid. Roos should have thrown him in at the next centre bounce and tried to harness the aggression and frustration or sent the message to him. Afterwards he should have dealt with it in-house. Roos has become less of a coach and more of a PR flak. Lost a lot of respect for him yesterday. Also where was the Dalai Lama with some calming words?? Very poor effort by Roos as well to denigrate Hall after the game. The big bloke is basically finished at the club but there is a thing called dignity and respect.

[Lohengrin]

No defence of Hall in that situation. What was he doing with his left arm back holding the Hawthorn player's jumper? He does that too often. Too focussed on wrestling with his opponent rather than focussing on the ball. At one stage in the third quarter he was so busy wrestling that the ball bounced off his chest. Especially stupid when his Hawthorn opponent is strong but slow, while Hall is pretty quick and could have beaten him with some good leads, but seemed to prefer wrestling.

[goswannie14]

Jeez i was almost going to agree with you. But Hall was CRUCIFIED by an extraordinary inconsistency again by the umpires. Compare the Bevo free to the treatment Big Beamish received from the triple tag team they had on him. The Bevanators arm momentarily slipped over Williams shoulder. On several occasions Hall had defenders facing him and jumping into him. Don't you reckon that the Bevo free had something to do with Big Beamish's reaction. Players watch the big screen. Also there should be a thread on this but Roos reaction to the peanlties was simply disgraceful. A great coach does not humiliate a player in front of world by disciplining a passionate and courageous player like a school kid. Roos should have thrown him in at the next centre bounce and tried to harness the aggression and frustration or sent the message to him. Afterwards he should have dealt with it in-house. Roos has become less of a coach and more of a PR flak. Lost a lot of respect for him yesterday. Also where was the Dalai Lama with some calming words?? Very poor effort by Roos as well to denigrate Hall after the game. The big bloke is basically finished at the club but there is a thing called dignity and respect.
I meant the whole passage of play that ended in the free, that was the start of the momentum shift.

[connolly]

I meant the whole passage of play that ended in the free, that was the start of the momentum shift.

Fair enough to that. So it was the fact that we lost (from memory) five consecutive contested midfield contests that swung the game. And Roos blaming and shaming of Hall just diverts attention from the problem that was the root cause of the Freo, Bulldogs and Hawks disasters. A midfield that gets beaten at contested contests either when Kirk and Bolton are being rested, nullified or are just too shagged to do any more. Scapegoating players, as Roos did yesterday is no substitute for fixing problems.

[goswannie14]

Fair enough to that. So it was the fact that we lost (from memory) five consecutive contested midfield contests that swung the game. And Roos blaming and shaming of Hall just diverts attention from the problem that was the root cause of the Freo, Bulldogs and Hawks disasters. A midfield that gets beaten at contested contests either when Kirk and Bolton are being rested, nullified or are just too shagged to do any more. Scapegoating players, as Roos did yesterday is no substitute for fixing problems.This isn't the first time he has done it.

[Lohengrin]

This isn't the first time he has done it.
And didn't someone actively support it in the past...?

[SwansFan1972]

I see a lot of posts arguing that Barry Hall is badly treated by the umpires. But this is not true, he does bring a lot of it on himself with his style of play and lack good body positioning and body work. This has become more evident since the rule changes that occurred around 2007.

etc ....

Sorry - have to take issue with some of those comments. The belief that Hall gets a raw deal is too widespread (and cuts across club lines) to be arrogantly dismissed as "not true". As for body positioning and body work, he is clung on to by limpets all the time and never gets the protection the rules demand. He is clearly on a blacklist with the umpires (and the reasons go further than just precious umpires being upset that he gives them more angry stares than anyone else in the league). The AFL wants him out of the game - have done for years - and have stepped up the pressure since the staker incident last year. The rule changes since 2005/06 have all been designed to nullify the swans strengths and Hall in particular. You don't embarrass demetriou by showing what a poor football judge he is (2005) and get away with it.

"The second 50, its up to Barry to move out of the players path with the free kick, which Barry didnt, its smart play by the player to get the extra 50. Barry should have got out of the way or sprinted back to resume the mark 50 metres down the track".

It would be nice for you to explain how Hally was supposed to get out of the way when the footage clearly shows Hall with his back to roughead, who deviated left to cannon into him. It was milked for all it was worth (which was not surprising - the hawks were milking the cows all day with great success). Presumably Hall could do with a pair of eyes in the back of his head so he can get out of the way better next time.

The AFL, media , rules committee and the sideline whinge brigade who are constantly bagging the game will soon get their wish (a non-contact, bump free, aggression free vanilla version of what used to be football). Hally is public enemy number one to these people, and they will never let up on him until he is out of the game. I'd love to see him get a fair crack and receive the love from the umpires that Lloyd and Riewoldt have enjoyed over their careers, but hell will freeze over before it happens.

[goswannie14]

It would be nice for you to explain how Hally was supposed to get out of the way when the footage clearly shows Hall with his back to roughead, who deviated left to cannon into him. It was milked for all it was worth (which was not surprising - the hawks were milking the cows all day with great success). Presumably Hall could do with a pair of eyes in the back of his head so he can get out of the way better next time.

The AFL, media , rules committee and the sideline whinge brigade who are constantly bagging the game will soon get their wish (a non-contact, bump free, aggression free vanilla version of what used to be football). Hally is public enemy number one to these people, and they will never let up on him until he is out of the game. I'd love to see him get a fair crack and receive the love from the umpires that Lloyd and Riewoldt have enjoyed over their careers, but hell will freeze over before it happens.
I had thought the same thing anout that comment, how the hell can Baz get out of the way of someone who takes a cheap shot at him from behind.

I said to someone the other day that if Hall was treated like Lloyd he would have kicked over 1000 goals by now.

[Lohengrin]

Hall clearly gets a raw deal from the umpires. But he hardly helps his case by actively scragging as well (in the big incident he was holding the Hawthorn player's jumper first), not to mention his complaining on every occasion, even when the free kick is not there. Lockett also used to get a raw deal, but he kept his mind on the job. Then again, he didn't have hands of concrete like Hall.

Crap delivery into the forward line doesn't help either - our poor forwards have had it pretty tough for a long time now.

As for the three 50m penalties, they were all there unfortunately.

[Roden]

If the AFL and the umpires don't want Sydney to be competitive, just say so. The umpiring was pathetic and one sided - again. I'm tired of watching it, its becoming a joke like the NRL. Hall is a liability to the Swans. Not because he is a bad player, but because he is treated unfairly by umpires. Roos doesn't help by criticising his players - especially Hall and Goodes. Would have been nice if Roos had stood up for his players and the blatent and pathetic umpiring that they put up with week after week. Its enough to drive any sane person off their game.

[stellation]

The umpiring was frustrating at times, but I'm sure it was for Hawthorn fans too (I think the deliberate out of bounds that we got a free kick from was pretty harsh, as an example). I don't think we really have a conspiracy against us, I think it's just a result of playing "hard, contested footy" with some guys that give their heart and soul but times just lack the skill and leg speed to stick with their opponents.

I did think the 2nd 50 on Hall was pretty poor though, I've only seen the one replay of it but from memory he looked to have his arms up saying "Are you suggesting I was less than respectful to an official? Surely not, good sir?" and a passing Hawk flew into one of the engines.

[skaterboi1973]

It would be nice for you to explain how Hally was supposed to get out of the way when the footage clearly shows Hall with his back to roughead, who deviated left to cannon into him. It was milked for all it was worth (which was not surprising - the hawks were milking the cows all day with great success). Presumably Hall could do with a pair of eyes in the back of his head so he can get out of the way better next time.


He just had to step to the side and out of the path of the player. Pretty simple. The Hawks player didnt deviate that much from the path if at all. Barry should have jogged with the umpire, kept his arms down, or moved out of the area (10 metres i believe it is in the laws).

As for limpets holding him, if he lead instead of pointing in the air for the kick to be kicked long to him then he wouldnt have much of an issue. A player his size should be able to clear a path for himself, wouldnt mind if he gave a kick away whilst leading, at least it would make the players filling holes think twice, ala Plugger. Also, as was evident in the video, he initiated the holding by grabbing the hawks players jumper.

I grant you there are times when Barry Hall gets a rough deal, but he does bring a lot of it on himself by the way he plays. You mentioned Lloyd and Rienwoldt.. two players who predominantly lead. Makes you think.

[RogueSwan]

I see a lot of posts arguing that Barry Hall is badly treated by the umpires. But this is not true, he does bring a lot of it on himself with his style of play and lack good body positioning and body work. This has become more evident since the rule changes that occurred around 2007...

Too true.
My wife , who has a just a little bit more than a passing interest in the Swans is astounded by Halls marking skills or lack of. Sure he can take one on the lead but, compared to Magic, Goodes, Pebbles and even B1, he struggles to take a good contested mark.

[Lohengrin]

Hall is too much of a sook. He gets more frees than Lockett used to. He also gets more than Neitz and on a par with Carey and Dunstall. The difference is that he gives away stacks of free kicks through scragging and untidy tackling. Players like Riewoldt and Tredrea don't do that sort of thing. Even J Brown, who is big and not liked by umpires, gets a pretty good go because he is so focussed on the ball.

[SwansFan1972]

I grant you there are times when Barry Hall gets a rough deal, but he does bring a lot of it on himself by the way he plays. You mentioned Lloyd and Rienwoldt.. two players who predominantly lead. Makes you think.

Hall leads and they ignore him. After how many ignored leads should he keep trying? Ignoring him as consistently as they do when he leads would be forgivable if they then kicked to a team-mate freed up by that lead, but they don't. They hold it up and eventually just bomb it in hope. In years gone by they could afford to hold it up and pin-point a pass, but the skill level isn't there in the midfield to do that these days.

After being ignored, he doubles back and they drop it on his head when he is double and triple teamed. There is thinking that needs to take place alright - in the midfield.

He busted his arse leading and running in the cats game (for example) and not once did they use him well - the responsibility for that rests solely on the midfield, yet Hally cops all the heat.

As for the bringing it on himself, either the rules are there to be enforced or not. Being a sweetheart towards the umpires should make no difference, but it clearly does. It is obvious that the umpires turn a blind eye to clear infractions on Hall - he is treated differently. Frustration then sets in and then the merest suggestion of a free from Hall gets paid, along with a few that are just plucked from fantasy land. Puts into perspective all the blarney the AFL puts out about the umpires, and their decision making processes - they umpire what they see, they don't guess etc etc.

Oh - and we all think about the game - obviously. Fortunately we don't all just fall into line and agree - would make for a rather dull forum, if you think about it.

[COBHC]

Barry Hall is a legend. Roughead is nearly as soft as Adam Hunter now. :D

[BeeEmmAre]

And the match review panel has cleared Barry Hall for both 'incidents' that I thought he'd get victimised further over.

Steven King cops four-week ban, Patrick Ryder suspended for a week | Herald Sun (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,25605032-19742,00.html)

[SwansFan1972]

And the Hawks in general are the premier niggle team. A shame that such a skilful side see a need to do all that crap.

Sam Mitchell with his face lit up like bulb wagging three fingers in Baz's face was a perfect imitation of a freckly mouthly little pug that every primary school has. You know - the kid that chirps away like a mossie and gets in the face of the bigger kids until finally someone snaps and snots him one. Who then gets hammered by authority for doing what anyone would do!

[Nico]

And the Hawks in general are the premier niggle team. A shame that such a skilful side see a need to do all that crap.

Sam Mitchell with his face lit up like bulb wagging three fingers in Baz's face was a perfect imitation of a freckly mouthly little pug that every primary school has. You know - the kid that chirps away like a mossie and gets in the face of the bigger kids until finally someone snaps and snots him one. Who then gets hammered by authority for doing what anyone would do!

My son played against Sam Mitchell for 4 years as a junior. He displayed none of that behaviour and was a well respected player who was the seond best in his age group in the EFL behind Damian Cupido (now there's a lost talent).

I reckon his behaviour has been influenced by Clarkson who is best remembered for his sniping. The lifting of the knee into the thigh of players last year and his elbows are now becoming a signature of his game, sad really because he is very good at finding the footy in close and always has been. How he wasn't drafted first up is beyond most people's comprehension who saw him as a junior.

[Melbournehammer]

Have you actually seen the incident or just listened to the press? Because your over-reaction is exactly what I would expect from a member of the press.

FWIW the momentum shift in the game was starting when Bevan gave away that blatant free kick to Williams right in front of goal, just before the Hall free kick not being awarded. But it's always easier to blame Hall than face the obvious.


not to labour the point but the momentum shift was goodes playing on by dummying to his right and getting caught by guerra.

[stellation]

It's up on youtube now, that's the first time I've bothered to watch a replay. All 3 of those were soft as hell.

[SwansFan1972]

Barry Hall is a legend. Roughead is nearly as soft as Adam Hunter now. :D


I reckon his behaviour has been influenced by Clarkson who is best remembered for his sniping. The lifting of the knee into the thigh of players last year and his elbows are now becoming a signature of his game, sad really because he is very good at finding the footy in close and always has been. How he wasn't drafted first up is beyond most people's comprehension who saw him as a junior.

It is a shame, because if you take all that out of his game, he is a star. In the end, he is blowing his own reputation - he has the potential to be remembered in the game like bucks, hird, mcleod (i.e, respected across the board, not just - or even - by his own club supporters).

This is the club that "drew the line in the sand" of course (against the Bombers in 2004). Was nonsense then, and the key personnel have changed, but they still obviously adhere to some elements.

[SwansFan1972]

not to labour the point but the momentum shift was goodes playing on by dummying to his right and getting caught by guerra.

spot on.

[DST]

None of the BBBH incidents were reportable and the MRP have found likewise.

But it did take the wind out of our sails at the time and had a profound impact on the game.

DST
:D

[DST]

spot on.

Goodes is our only real attacking weapon.

He has and should have license to do this type of thing in order to create.

Therefore I have no issue with him getting caught with the ball trying something like this.

DST
:D

[goswannie14]

not to labour the point but the momentum shift was goodes playing on by dummying to his right and getting caught by guerra.
IIRC that play ended in the Bevan free kick, so we are talking about he same play.

[Lohengrin]

IIRC that play ended in the Bevan free kick, so we are talking about he same play.
It did. And the Hall incident was the next passage of play from the centre.

Three poor errors in a row.

Still, we had played so poorly for most of the game, it really shouldn't come down to a critical few plays when playing against an undermanned team, even a good one.

[Triple B]

Goodes is our only real attacking weapon.

He has and should have license to do this type of thing in order to create.

Therefore I have no issue with him getting caught with the ball trying something like this.

DST
:D

Absolutely.

Continually trying to create, especially when your teammates are woefully short on confidence to also go down the same path, will often lead to the odd occasion where u will get caught.

Much better to try and fail once in a while then not trying at all.

[dimelb]

Hall leads and they ignore him. After how many ignored leads should he keep trying? Ignoring him as consistently as they do when he leads would be forgivable if they then kicked to a team-mate freed up by that lead, but they don't. They hold it up and eventually just bomb it in hope. In years gone by they could afford to hold it up and pin-point a pass, but the skill level isn't there in the midfield to do that these days.

After being ignored, he doubles back and they drop it on his head when he is double and triple teamed. There is thinking that needs to take place alright - in the midfield.

He busted his arse leading and running in the cats game (for example) and not once did they use him well - the responsibility for that rests solely on the midfield, yet Hally cops all the heat.

As for the bringing it on himself, either the rules are there to be enforced or not. Being a sweetheart towards the umpires should make no difference, but it clearly does. It is obvious that the umpires turn a blind eye to clear infractions on Hall - he is treated differently. Frustration then sets in and then the merest suggestion of a free from Hall gets paid, along with a few that are just plucked from fantasy land. Puts into perspective all the blarney the AFL puts out about the umpires, and their decision making processes - they umpire what they see, they don't guess etc etc.

Oh - and we all think about the game - obviously. Fortunately we don't all just fall into line and agree - would make for a rather dull forum, if you think about it.
Agree with this.

[Lohengrin]

Hall leads and they ignore him. After how many ignored leads should he keep trying?

He busted his arse leading and running in the cats game (for example) and not once did they use him well - the responsibility for that rests solely on the midfield, yet Hally cops all the heat.He should just keep trying - it's his job and it's not about him, it's about the team. He's very selfish at times.

[Swans500]

In the game day thread , along with many on the forum,I blasted Hall. I was angry as I have ever been in footy. BUT....I was listening on radio and went by the commentators and the posts here.
Having finally seen it all on YouTube I have completely reversed my opinion.
For sure, the original incident was just typical of the crap BBB cops...the second 50 should in fact have been reversed if anything. What an overact from the Hawthorn player who clearly initiated the contact.

Now I am angry again for all the opposite reasons!

[dimelb]

On yesterday's effort, Roughead would walk into the Italy soccer team ...:mad:

[Robbo]

Have you actually seen the incident or just listened to the press? Because your over-reaction is exactly what I would expect from a member of the press.

FWIW the momentum shift in the game was starting when Bevan gave away that blatant free kick to Williams right in front of goal, just before the Hall free kick not being awarded. But it's always easier to blame Hall than face the obvious.

Paul Roos disagrees with you.

I haven't over reacted to anything mate. I just think the way Hall carried on was dumb given the circumstances of the particular moment. I can't see how anyone can disagree with that.

[connolly]

Paul Roos disagrees with you.

I haven't over reacted to anything mate. I just think the way Hall carried on was dumb given the circumstances of the particular moment. I can't see how anyone can disagree with that.

There are three people who saw the Bevo free kick and not the Hall penalty as a turning point. They all post on this site. Funny Roos didn't mention it. Goodes didn't mention it. None of the commentators mentioned it. None of the written media reports mentioned it. How can so many people get it so wrong????

[Puppy Eyes]

Paul Roos disagrees with you.

I haven't over reacted to anything mate. I just think the way Hall carried on was dumb given the circumstances of the particular moment. I can't see how anyone can disagree with that.

View the footage, which Roos hadn't seen when he made his assessment.

YouTube - Barry Hall gives away a triple 50 metre penalty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq7PaL-9EVc)

Tell me where Hall F%&ked up any more than any other player ever.

1. Was it in the marking contest?
2. Was it when he said to the umpire "he was holding my arm"?
3. Was it when he failed to see Roughead approaching him from behind?
4. Was it when he failed to apply Buddhist principles in not avoiding contact with a yapping poodle who deliberately obstructed him when he was going back for his second BS 50m?

Honestly, if Baz can't get some support from his own supporters, I think it's a sad day.

The hit on Staker was bad. He copped what he deserved. Yesterday was no more than an umpire failing to be impartial (freeze frame at 25 seconds and see what Vozzo was looking at) and the rest has been media hysteria. Swans supporters should stand up for Swans players, particularly when they are in the right.

[SwansFan1972]

Fact remains, whatever Baz 's subsequent reactions, the original free was a joke (and in fact should have been an arm chop free TO Hall). If the correct decision is made in either case, the match goes down a whole different path.

Players give lip aggressively to umpires all the time - and if that had been anyone else but Hall, no free would have been paid. He is on a different footing to all other players - which is just wrong and flies in the face of everything the AFL tells us the umpires department supposedly stands for.

The overriding message is to suck up to the three blind mice and you'll get a better than even run from them.

[Robbo]

View the footage, which Roos hadn't seen when he made his assessment.

YouTube - Barry Hall gives away a triple 50 metre penalty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq7PaL-9EVc)

Tell me where Hall F%&ked up any more than any other player ever.

1. Was it in the marking contest?
2. Was it when he said to the umpire "he was holding my arm"?
3. Was it when he failed to see Roughead approaching him from behind?
4. Was it when he failed to apply Buddhist principles in not avoiding contact with a yapping poodle who deliberately obstructed him when he was going back for his second BS 50m?

Honestly, if Baz can't get some support from his own supporters, I think it's a sad day.

The hit on Staker was bad. He copped what he deserved. Yesterday was no more than an umpire failing to be impartial (freeze frame at 25 seconds and see what Vozzo was looking at) and the rest has been media hysteria. Swans supporters should stand up for Swans players, particularly when they are in the right.

Why remonstrate at all? If he gets raped by the umps all the time, wouldn't it be smart for him to just to keep his mouth shut?

Why not just run around Mitchell? He just couldn't help himself.

You seriously are delusional if you think he is in the right here. It's pretty clear that Kirk and Goodes didn't think he was.

[Robbo]

"You just don't need to do that Barry"

-Craig Hendrie

[goswannie14]

"You just don't need to do that Barry"

-Craig HendrieIf you think quoting the umpire who made at least one of the bad decisions is going to help your argument, you are seriously misguided.

[SwansFan1972]

Why remonstrate at all? If he gets raped by the umps all the time, wouldn't it be smart for him to just to keep his mouth shut?

Why not just run around Mitchell? He just couldn't help himself.

You seriously are delusional if you think he is in the right here. It's pretty clear that Kirk and Goodes didn't think he was.

In a star trek world, everyone would be able to go back and do things differently, but seriously, who could expect to give away three 50's for such incidents?

Hally was expected by another poster to know that Roughead was coming at him from behind and to step gracefully out of the way, now you say he should have danced around Mitchell coming at him from the front as well!!

Hally could have turned at right angles, but a player like Mitchell, who goes the niggle far too much these days for a player of his quality, would have got in Hally's face and stayed there no matter what. His three fingers "little man syndrome" display shows what he's about these days.

Perhaps they should have played quickstep music for Hally over the ground mikes - so he could have waltzed around all the opposition players as he walked a path no-one has probably ever had to in the game's history (150m!)

Please! If we are going to be that soft, then the game is truly lost and the AFL thought police have won - all physicality and aggression to be blotted out of the game and the remains left to robots to play.

[Puppy Eyes]

Why remonstrate at all? If he gets raped by the umps all the time, wouldn't it be smart for him to just to keep his mouth shut?

Are you saying that it's reasonable for a different set of rules to apply to Hall? Otherwise, how about some words for those applying the seperate set of rules?


Why not just run around Mitchell? He just couldn't help himself.

Why the f$%k should he. It's his path, he is involved in getting back to the mark. Mitchell is not involved and deliberately initiates contact. And going by Mitchell's reaction after, as Hall DID try to get away from him, he just kept getting in his face anyway.


You seriously are delusional if you think he is in the right here. It's pretty clear that Kirk and Goodes didn't think he was.

I would say that there's little likelihood that Goodes or Kirk saw the original marking contest, or the Roughead decision, and probably assumed that Hall whacked Roughead. I think that once they view the replay, they, and Roos, will be apologising to him.

[pinkemu]

"You just don't need to do that Barry"

-Craig Hendrie

"Craig Hendrie, 19th Hawk on the field"

-Pink emu

[liz]

Why remonstrate at all? If he gets raped by the umps all the time, wouldn't it be smart for him to just to keep his mouth shut?

Why not just run around Mitchell? He just couldn't help himself.

You seriously are delusional if you think he is in the right here. It's pretty clear that Kirk and Goodes didn't think he was.


Kirk and Goodes, I suggest, were mostly concerned about stopping him really doing something stupid.

That's the first time I've watched the incident since during the game and have to agree that all but the Mitchell incident were non-frees/50m penalties. He's not the only player who gets hard done by, but hard done by he certainly does get.

[Robbo]

It reminded me of this.....

YouTube - Angry Frase (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE77-c8i3uE)

Gehrig gave away a free kick, and because he was well known for having a short fuse, Mundy and Grover went up to him to try and get him to do something stupid to give away 50. Instead of letting his temper get the better of him, Gehrig should of ignored them and done nothing. He couldn't help himself though and he directly cost his side a goal - The Saints went on to lose by a point that day.

Yesterday, instead of being sucked in by Mitchell's taunts, Barry should of ignored him. Instead he chose to make high contact, and it resulted in a 50m penalty which gave Hawthorn a cheap goal at a vital point in the game and our season as a whole. It was @@@@ing dumb and he just couldn't help himself.

Even when the goal had been kicked Hall still wanted to go on with it. Goodes and Kirk then pleaded with him to let it go, he got dragged, Roosy gave him a stare as he came off. I find it very hard to understand how you came to the conclusion that he was "in the right" puppy eyes.

[Robbo]

Are you saying that it's reasonable for a different set of rules to apply to Hall? Otherwise, how about some words for those applying the seperate set of rules?

Why the f$%k should he. It's his path, he is involved in getting back to the mark. Mitchell is not involved and deliberately initiates contact. And going by Mitchell's reaction after, as Hall DID try to get away from him, he just kept getting in his face anyway.

I would say that there's little likelihood that Goodes or Kirk saw the original marking contest, or the Roughead decision, and probably assumed that Hall whacked Roughead. I think that once they view the replay, they, and Roos, will be apologising to him.

No I'm not saying it's reasonable for a different set of rules to apply. Got no idea how you came up with that.

Mitchell was in his path, yes. But was Hall obliged to make head high contact with him? He CHOSE to do that, and it gave Roughead a shot from the goal square.

I'm pretty sure Goodes and Kirk would of seen the original marking contest. I can't think of many reasons why they wouldn't of. As a player you generally keep an eye on where the ball is. If you think Roos or any of Hall's teammates will be apologising to him then you need to get serious. I'm pretty certain that it will be the other way around.

[ScottH]

Why did Roughead run through barry's outstretched arms, in the first place?

[chalbilto]

Sorry Robbo but you are barking up the wrong tree. It's obvious that the majority of the posters here don't agree with your points of view and upon viewing the replay I agree with Liz's assessment.

You are of course entitled to your opinion but respectfully I think you are wrong in this instance. I also believe that Paul Roos was very harsh with his criticism of Barry Hall at the post match interview and that he should now be defending him. Roos says that they have spoken to the umpires department about Hall's treatment, but maybe he should a James Hird or Grant Thomas and publicly comment about the umpires in the media. Sure he will cop a $20,000 fine, but if he achieves some justice then it will be well worth it. I for one would only be too willing to donate money to this fine if the situation ever arose.:mad:

[Robbo]

Which part of my post do you disagree with chalbilto?

[chalbilto]

Robbo, it is not just your last post but the majority of your posts in this thread.

[SwansFan1972]

"You just don't need to do that Barry"

-Craig Hendrie

Hendrie didn't need to blow the pea out of his whistle either, but he did. As I've said elsewhere, the Hawks got so used to hearing it in their favour they were reacting to it faster than Pavlov's dog by halfway through the third quarter.

He's secured himself membership of the Chamberlain/McLaren "Feel For The Game" club.

And some are saying his brother played for the Hawks ... not that I would ever suggest that would affect the impartiality of that particular man in green. Their impartiality is already affected by Baz's face only a mother could love. Oh that he had a dial like Lloyd's or the Dog's Johnno, how different it could all be! :)

[Robbo]

Robbo, it is not just your last post but the majority of your posts in this thread.

So you don't think it was stupid of Hall to make head high contact with Mitchell?

[SwansFan1972]

So you don't think it was stupid of Hall to make head high contact with Mitchell?

Mitchell was behaving like a little goblin, so unless hall's arms were taped to his sides, head high contact was likely! :)

The focus is on Hall, but the way the Hawks play the game has escaped scrutiny. They are a dirty bunch of scraggers (with a few exceptions - Stewie Dew, Hodge are all class) who play the game trying to make this sort of rubbish happen.

The footy gods will square up with them (if they haven't already - as premiership defences go, it is pretty poor so far, regardless of the causes).

[dimelb]

... Mitchell was in his path, yes. But was Hall obliged to make head high contact with him? He CHOSE to do that, and it gave Roughead a shot from the goal square ...
I've watched the replays on TV and on the YouTube, and I didn't see Hall make head-high contact with Mitchell; he gave a shove with his forearm across the top of Mitchell's chest. At no time in the whole episode was Hall guilty of a reportable offence.
On the matter of losing his block, I agree with you. He shouldn't have done it. But his frustration is thoroughly understandable. He is probably the most over-penalized and under-rewarded player in the game.

[Melbournehammer]

it is impossible to conclude other than that inconsistency is what drives the 50 m penalty.

and it is easy to be critical of barry because of previous actions but there were any number of incidents where players screamed at umpires but not even free kicks were paid.

all game the inconsistency was there and all three fell for crowd calls all match.

at the time i was frustrated that he didnt actually whack mitchell - the 100m was going to get roughhead close enough to goal to be relatively straightforward and i thought if he was going to give another one away it should have been for something worthwhile.... you coulod see he wanted to just let mitchell have one but decided not to...anyway it was simply another example of wretched umpiring

[ROK Lobster]

You seriously are delusional if you think he is in the right here. It's pretty clear that Kirk and Goodes didn't think he was.But Kirk is a @@@@wit and Goodes is soft. There was not a 50 there for either the first or the second. The third maybe...

[Robbo]

I think the Roughead one was there. Barry grabbed him by the neck/upper chest and threw him down.

[Mogg0]

Robbo mate, you're completely off the ball on this one. I don't agree with your perspective on the incident, but at least you've presented it without being an arse!

Nice to see ROK not immediately playing devil's advocate. I couldn't take anymore frustration after yesterday. :o

[Puppy Eyes]

I think the Roughead one was there. Barry grabbed him by the neck/upper chest and threw him down.

You know, I remember debating against people like you when the Socceroos got shafted by Italy in the last world cup. It's like there's some great moral or intellectual virtue in taking the side of the opposition and bagging out your own. Over at BigFooty, supporters from all clubs have been in supporting Hall and saying he was shafted. Quartermain and Walls BOTH said on 1 Week at a Time tonight that Hall was shafted on the first three decisions. Footy is a physical game game with lots of adrenalin. That's why the rules say that it is acceptable to question umpires decisions but that you can't be overly demonstrative or abusive. He said five words. None of them offensive and the umpire wasn't the subject. So there is NO WAY it can be called abuse.

Roughead dived.

[ROK Lobster]

He said five words. None of them offensive and the umpire wasn't the subject. So there is NO WAY it can be called abuse.

Roughead dived.That's how it seemed to me.

As for my earlier comments re Kirk and Goodes they were piss take words clearly. Of course they were trying to calm Barry down, does not mea that they thought the frees were warranted.

[Robbo]

Robbo mate, you're completely off the ball on this one. I don't agree with your perspective on the incident, but at least you've presented it without being an arse!

Nice to see ROK not immediately playing devil's advocate. I couldn't take anymore frustration after yesterday. :o

Can you try and be a bit more specific.

[ROK Lobster]

Can you try and be a bit more specific.
Mogg0 thinks you are being a dick. :p

[T-bag]

None of the BBBH incidents were reportable and the MRP have found likewise.

But it did take the wind out of our sails at the time and had a profound impact on the game.

DST
:D
Good on Barry for doing what he did, I think he was hard done by. But come on.... None of the incidents deemed reportable? Beggars belief I reckon. He should at least be up for the 3rd 50 incident. I guess it's the AFL's way of saying, "all this should never have happened in the first place if the umpiring was fair and equitable."

[Agent 86]

Robert Walls has just pretty much said on One week at a time that Baz doesn't deserve to get the benefit of the umpire's doubt in 50-50 decisions. Basically Walls is saying that it's ok that Barry gets a raw deal on the pitch - beacuse he's Barry Hall & he's stuffed up in the past.

I would expect that each decision needs to be based on the merits of the current event - not on what has transpired in the past.

Whilst attitudes like Wall's exist, we have a problem.

[liz]

Whilst attitudes like Wall's exist, we have a problem.


True, but when the (footy) world starts taking Walls seriously, we have an even bigger problem.

[SwansFan1972]

Robert Walls has just pretty much said on One week at a time that Baz doesn't deserve to get the benefit of the umpire's doubt in 50-50 decisions. Basically Walls is saying that it's ok that Barry gets a raw deal on the pitch - beacuse he's Barry Hall & he's stuffed up in the past.

I would expect that each decision needs to be based on the merits of the current event - not on what has transpired in the past.

Whilst attitudes like Wall's exist, we have a problem.

Basically it means the umpires can, will, and do play favourites (or more accurately, make life tough for players who aren't sweet faced suck ups).

It's perfectly reasonable to expect each decision to be made on it's merits, but for Hally and the Swans in general, it's a pipedream.

The worst part of it is that the AFL just bat it all away - everything is perfect in their world - and they will never do anything about it. Makes a joke of so called umpire directives and the laws of the game.

Maybe Hally should turn up with a Matty Lloyd mask on against the pies - anything's worth a try! :rolleyes:

[Lohengrin]

I've watched the replays on TV and on the YouTube, and I didn't see Hall make head-high contact with Mitchell; he gave a shove with his forearm across the top of Mitchell's chest.Hall gave Mitchell a little tap with his fist to the jaw.

[Agent 86]

Hall gave Mitchell a little tap with his fist to the jaw.

Isn't that what he did to Staker?

[dimelb]

Hall gave Mitchell a little tap with his fist to the jaw.

I wish ...

[T-bag]

Paul Roos disagrees with you.

I haven't over reacted to anything mate. I just think the way Hall carried on was dumb given the circumstances of the particular moment. I can't see how anyone can disagree with that.

No we disagree with Paul. He's just doing his usual tow the party line bull @@@@

[573v30]

Finally I get to see some footage of the incident and yes, those 50m penalties were soft. :mad:

[T-bag]

Players give lip aggressively to umpires all the time - and if that had been anyone else but Hall, no free would have been paid. He is on a different footing to all other players - which is just wrong and flies in the face of everything the AFL tells us the umpires department supposedly stands for.

Exactly. What about Sam Mitchell having a go at the umpire incessantly and the umpire telling him to settle down. Why didn't Barry get told to settle down as well?

[573v30]

Exactly. What about Sam Mitchell having a go at the umpire incessantly and the umpire telling him to settle down. Why didn't Barry get told to settle down as well?

...because giving 50m penalties going against him is much more satisfying. :rolleyes:

[T-bag]

So you don't think it was stupid of Hall to make head high contact with Mitchell?
That was THE ONLY stupid thing he did. And I do believe that Chalbilto referred to that fact by agreeing with Liz. Finding it hard to keep up?

[goswannie14]

I think the Roughead one was there. Barry grabbed him by the neck/upper chest and threw him down.Selective vision?? You forgot to add "after Roughead tried to run through him".

[stellation]

True, but when the (footy) world starts taking Walls seriously, we have an even bigger problem.
I'd love to see Walls get a seat in parliament. Imagine the Hon Mr Robert Walls MP getting up to speak, "Mr Speaker, on careful review I believe it is clear that we are not getting sufficient effort from the police in order to quell attacks on Indian students... the commissioner is simply not getting involved... Mr Speaker, I propose we give the commissioner a run in the ruck!"

[Doctor J.]

I'd love to see Walls get a seat in parliament. Imagine the Hon Mr Robert Walls MP getting up to speak, "Mr Speaker, on careful review I believe it is clear that we are not getting sufficient effort from the police in order to quell attacks on Indian students... the commissioner is simply not getting involved... Mr Speaker, I propose we give the commissioner a run in the ruck!"


It took 6 pages, but finally some sense has entered this thread. Well done Stell

[Yuri H]

Mitchell was behaving like a little goblin

Ha! I love this phrase. I'm stealing it for all further convo with co-workers about this.

[Hartijon]

Mitchell's behaviour was disgraceful, certainly never deserves to be a leader in any team let alone a premiership one.Totally immature and on hindsight he should be ashamed but won't be!. What still shocks me is the umpire blatantly allowing the charade to continue and standing back watching Barry and ready to blow the whistle and comply with the playacting ,"force Barry to react" charade.Their behaviour warrants investigation for bringing the game into disrepute. Kindergarden stuff all round and all stems from a non event of Hall telling the umpire his arm was held.The two mature people were Goodes and Kirk..well done boys! Where were the rest of the "leadership team" ? Why were they not stopping the Goblin as he deserves to be called now play acting? Where was the support for the team mate...Well done Goodes,Kirk the rest weak. Barry Hall? hard done by but a product of his history..It's called KARMA where I live.

[Agent 86]

Exactly. What about Sam Mitchell having a go at the umpire incessantly and the umpire telling him to settle down. Why didn't Barry get told to settle down as well?

'cos the crowd will cheer the umpies when Baz gets pinged for the 50s and they will boo if it goes the other way. It's the advantage of the home crowd and the fact that the maggots think they're part of the entertainment.

[connolly]

'cos the crowd will cheer the umpies when Baz gets pinged for the 50s and they will boo if it goes the other way. It's the advantage of the home crowd and the fact that the maggots think they're part of the entertainment.

Hard to stop clowns becoming part of the circus. Apparently incitement and provocation is not part of the Demetriou rule book.

[johnno]

This may seem like a silly comment that i am about to make, but after watching what unfolded during the game, and rushing home to watch it on T.V. afterwards, I have finally admitted defeat and conceded that Barry Hall will never be umpired the same way most players in the league are. Have sort of known it for a few years now, but always held out hope that it wasn't true. But after witnessing that on Sunday, that's it, can't hold out hope anymore. From now on, I will watch every game with the knowledge of not expecting any free kicks to come Barry's way in the future.

[dimelb]

Mitchell's behaviour was disgraceful, certainly never deserves to be a leader in any team let alone a premiership one.Totally immature and on hindsight he should be ashamed but won't be! ... The two mature people were Goodes and Kirk..well done boys! Where were the rest of the "leadership team" ? Why were they not stopping the Goblin as he deserves to be called now play acting? ...
Someone - I think Jude - eventually pulled him away.

[Triple B]

Someone - I think Jude - eventually pulled him away.

It was Bulldog.

[Hartijon]

It was Bulldog.

Well done Bulldog! Times like that the leaders have to stand up!

[Hartijon]

Final comment on this sad affair: We must have a plan! Barry is now a serial flip out! We know this,he can't help it or control it and it will happen again.So get used to it and have a plan.
1.The moment it happens surround him with swans players so no one can get near him. Protect him and the team from further damage
2.Never let him be on his own taking a 50 metre penalty.Fellow forwards flock in ,maybe take it for him.
3.Have the captains ask the umpires politely for their reasons for pinging him..also distracts them!

Plan for the next explosion and have everybody knowing what to do....

[Mel_C]

In the game day thread , along with many on the forum,I blasted Hall. I was angry as I have ever been in footy. BUT....I was listening on radio and went by the commentators and the posts here.
Having finally seen it all on YouTube I have completely reversed my opinion.
For sure, the original incident was just typical of the crap BBB cops...the second 50 should in fact have been reversed if anything. What an overact from the Hawthorn player who clearly initiated the contact.

Now I am angry again for all the opposite reasons!

I had the exact same reaction. At the game I was really angry with him. I didn't see the 2nd and 3rd incidents because all the Hawthorn supporters were standing up cheering and yelling out he was going to get 10 weeks. So I assumed from those comments that he had hit someone again.

But then I saw the footage and it was a total over reaction by the umpires.
1. The 1st 50 was technically there as Hall has said...although soft.
2. The 2nd 50 was caused by Roughhead bumping into him from behind and then him falling down like a marshmellow when Hall retaliated. Which is fair enough for roughhead to do but the umpires shouldn't fall for it.
3. The 3rd 50 was caused by the little twerp Mitchell. I have seen him a number of times during other matches do this. And by the way I have noticed that when his team is behind he rarely plays well and seems disinterested. (Unlike our captain :) ).

On the radio this morning the talkback seemed to be in favour of Hall which is generally rarely the case.

[johnno]

Just to go on about the 2nd 50 that was paid for Hall knocking over Roughhead, the unfortunate thing is that Barry will never ever fall over when being bumped like that to milk a free kick out of the umps, its not in his demeanor, he would rather take the hit and make sure the other fellow is the one who goes down, not himself. It really doesn't make a difference though, even if he did go down(to milk a free kick), the umps would never ever give him one.

[Plugger46]

I wasn't too happy with him at the game but I think he was pretty stiff after watching the replay. He probably should've been having a shot at goal, when Cambell held onto him.

Over umpired and there's no way any other player in the competition would have been treated the same way.

[Mr Magoo]

Firstly there are so many laws and rules that the umpires will rarely be wrong on these matters BUT there is little doubt that Hall is treated differently to other players and is rarely awarded free kicks. While I dont agree with players whinging about frees as it rarely achieves anything, I can understand getting frustrated when you are busting a gut on the field and you see your oppossing players getting away with blue murder while you get pinged every time you step out of line.

I dont know if the swans coaches feel the same way but it is getting to the stage where if I was Roos I would consider foregoing the fine just to publicly state this and to support Hall.

[dimelb]

Just to go on about the 2nd 50 that was paid for Hall knocking over Roughhead, the unfortunate thing is that Barry will never ever fall over when being bumped like that to milk a free kick out of the umps, its not in his demeanor, he would rather take the hit and make sure the other fellow is the one who goes down, not himself. It really doesn't make a difference though, even if he did go down(to milk a free kick), the umps would never ever give him one.
I've wondered about this. The umps do it for Fevola, who at the slightest touch in the back throws his arms around and stumbles spectacularly. Judd and Lloyd do the same, but they are different cases (umps' pets). But if for Fev, why not for Hall? I think it's a product of the new rules; you saw it happen before, but it seems to have become a more frequent part of the game.

[goswannie14]

I dont know if the swans coaches feel the same way but it is getting to the stage where if I was Roos I would consider foregoing the fine just to publicly state this and to support Hall.If he had any balls he would have done this a couple of years ago.

[connolly]

If he had any balls he would have done this a couple of years ago.

Spot on. And our fearless leader Dick has said nothing. Could you imagine the verbal barrage from Eddie at the maggots or motor mouth at the mayblooms if one of their power forwards was being crucified? Get off your arse Dick and say something

[giant]

Even the Hawks fans on BF have come out in defence of him. :eek:

Nevertheless, he should know better than most that they ARE in fact after him and needs to modify his behaviour accordingly.

In the meantime, Colless should support Kennett and the 95% of AFL fans that are sick of umps that think we've paid money to watch them perform. Take the mikes off them immediately.

[Lohengrin]

I wasn't too happy with him at the game but I think he was pretty stiff after watching the replay. He probably should've been having a shot at goal, when Cambell held onto him.
He was hanging onto Campbell's jumper first.

[ScottH]

He was hanging onto Campbell's jumper first.

I noticed that. He and other fwds do that a lot, then complain they are being held.

(Oops, 1 behind)

[Lohengrin]

I don't really understand why they do it.

[ROK Lobster]

He was hanging onto Campbell's jumper first.
I thought he had his arm held first.

[Lohengrin]

I thought he had his arm held first.
You can see from one angle that Hall has reached back to grab Campbell's jumper and then Campbell grabs onto his arm.

Hall does that a lot. Strange technique.

[ROK Lobster]

You can see from one angle that Hall has reached back to grab Campbell's jumper and then Campbell grabs onto his arm.

Hall does that a lot. Strange technique.
Maybe he's not grabbing. There is no "hands in the chest" rule is there?

[Lohengrin]

Maybe he's not grabbing. There is no "hands in the chest" rule is there?
There is for Hall.

[Lohengrin]

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/9635/hallawl.jpg

[hot potato]

Hall gets a bad deal from the umpires because of his histrionics in your face reaction to their whistle when it's a free against, he has massive anger management accepting it and the umps simply detest him for it. Onyone would. If he can beat it, even modify it, he will be paid more free and legitimate free kicks. And he ain't got long left to do it.

[liz]

It is one of the strange anomolies of the apparent rules of our game. Tug a jumper, even if the ball is 100m away and if an umpie sees it, he'll more than likely play a free, especially in front of goal, regardless of whether the effect is to retard a player trying to lead or is in more of a wrestle situation (If it happens around the ground it seems to be 50/50 pot luck whether a free will be paid.)

On the other hand, tug an arm so securely that the player trying to get the ball only has one arm available to either mark or gather the ball, and the chances of getting a free seem to drop to about 1 in 10. Wrap the arms securely around the waist? Chances of a free against seem to dive even further.

Now I realise that as a woman whose sole experience of actually playing AFL comprises one training session with the ENSW women's team where the coach didn't even turn up and at which I realised I was far too old, unfit and fond of full use of all my joints (not to mention becoming aware of how painful a chest mark could be!) I realise I am completely unqualified to comment on most aspects of football.

But putting that aside, and putting my imagination into gear, if I were a 194cm, 100kg male in peak physical condition, I reckon a minor tug on my ever-so-snug guernsey wouldn't impede me nearly so much as having someone hanging grimly onto my wrist for dear life as they trailed behind me, or as having someone dish out an affection bearhug around my waist or chest.

[ROK Lobster]

putting my imagination into gear, if I were a 194cm, 100kg male in peak physical conditionI wish I could confirm your theory from first hand experience.

I just might add that jumper holding in this instance seems absurd. A jumper is tugged from behind to stop a player running away. There is no need for a handful of jumper in this instance. If Hall held him back open-palmed would it result in a free? (Though in this instance the mark was paid to Roughead wasn't it?)

[Lohengrin]

It is one of the strange anomolies of the apparent rules of our game. Tug a jumper, even if the ball is 100m away and if an umpie sees it, he'll more than likely play a free, especially in front of goal, regardless of whether the effect is to retard a player trying to lead or is in more of a wrestle situation (If it happens around the ground it seems to be 50/50 pot luck whether a free will be paid.)

On the other hand, tug an arm so securely that the player trying to get the ball only has one arm available to either mark or gather the ball, and the chances of getting a free seem to drop to about 1 in 10. Wrap the arms securely around the waist? Chances of a free against seem to dive even further.

Now I realise that as a woman whose sole experience of actually playing AFL comprises one training session with the ENSW women's team where the coach didn't even turn up and at which I realised I was far too old, unfit and fond of full use of all my joints (not to mention becoming aware of how painful a chest mark could be!) I realise I am completely unqualified to comment on most aspects of football.

But putting that aside, and putting my imagination into gear, if I were a 194cm, 100kg male in peak physical condition, I reckon a minor tug on my ever-so-snug guernsey wouldn't impede me nearly so much as having someone hanging grimly onto my wrist for dear life as they trailed behind me, or as having someone dish out an affection bearhug around my waist or chest.
You're exactly right, but unfortunately the umpiring interpretations are very inconsistent.

[Cardinal]

Just to go on about the 2nd 50 that was paid for Hall knocking over Roughhead, the unfortunate thing is that Barry will never ever fall over when being bumped like that to milk a free kick out of the umps, its not in his demeanor, he would rather take the hit and make sure the other fellow is the one who goes down, not himself. It really doesn't make a difference though, even if he did go down(to milk a free kick), the umps would never ever give him one.

Hawthorn are smart unlike Hall when it comes to earning free kicks. They drop their heads, feign contact, collapse and generally play-act with the best. Williams must be the most hit in the head player going round (probably hurts sometimes though). When I got back to the hotel I seem to recall the commentators picking up this point about players dropping to the ground for the free. It's unbecoming and makes me hates the Hawks almost as much as the Pies

[dimelb]

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/9635/hallawl.jpg
I played the two rugbies; I've learned about AFL by watching. But that is the weirdest marking technique I've ever seen. What do other players think?

[DeadlyAkkuret]

In the game day thread , along with many on the forum,I blasted Hall. I was angry as I have ever been in footy. BUT....I was listening on radio and went by the commentators and the posts here.
Having finally seen it all on YouTube I have completely reversed my opinion.
For sure, the original incident was just typical of the crap BBB cops...the second 50 should in fact have been reversed if anything. What an overact from the Hawthorn player who clearly initiated the contact.

Now I am angry again for all the opposite reasons!

I feel exactly the same, I feel so bad that I went off at Hall. That 2nd 50 was absolutely ridiculous and hearing the snooty bitch of an umpire makes it a thousand times worse!

The man is a victim of his own reputation, it must be incredibly frustrating for him.

[satchmopugdog]

I played the two rugbies; I've learned about AFL by watching. But that is the weirdest marking technique I've ever seen. What do other players think?

He is trying to create space in front of him that is protected from the defender,before trying to mark the ball.

[Mr Magoo]

I disagree with all those saying that if Hall just stopped the whinging he would get more frees. He tried that for a number of seasons and still was crucified for frees. He was just better at keeping his frustration in check

It seems now that he has gotten sick and tired of getting crucified and the new rules devised since 05 to eliminate the swans style of game have also worked against his style of play. The AFL dont wont hard men, they want pretty athletic types to play the basketball game they seem to want so much. That will go down a treat in western sydney as sydney (add for that most of Australia) has shown how much it loves basketball.

[T-bag]

I thought he had his arm held first.Yeah he did. You can see this quite clearly on a long camera shot that I have only seen replayed once. Was about two seconds before the ball was within range, and when Hall grabbed the jumper.

[T-bag]

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/9635/hallawl.jpg
There has never been any doubt in my mind (or many others on here) that Hall held the jumper. But there was a camera angle, shot from the other side (shown on Fox), that showed the holding of the arm before the holding of the jumper.

The outcome really should have just been play on

[Melbournehammer]

which it was - roughhead marked.

the 50 was for abuse, the next 50 for whacking roughhead and so on.

the reall issue was whether the abuse justified the first 50 - and most i think agree that it was at worst borderline - but heres the thing it is the inconsistency of who abuse is paid against that frustrates.

[T-bag]

He is trying to create space in front of him that is protected from the defender,before trying to mark the ball.
Correct. Although I don't see any need to spell it out for some. The less educated can just remain so

[T-bag]

which it was - roughhead marked.

the 50 was for abuse, the next 50 for whacking roughhead and so on.

the reall issue was whether the abuse justified the first 50 - and most i think agree that it was at worst borderline - but heres the thing it is the inconsistency of who abuse is paid against that frustrates.Exactly.

[Lohengrin]

There has never been any doubt in my mind (or many others on here) that Hall held the jumper. But there was a camera angle, shot from the other side (shown on Fox), that showed the holding of the arm before the holding of the jumper.

The outcome really should have just been play on
In the lead up to that picture, it appears that Hall initiates the contact and Campbell's holding comes only after the picture.

It was called play on, which was correct. Was anyone disputing that?

[dimelb]

Correct. Although I don't see any need to spell it out for some. The less educated can just remain so

Speaking as one of the less educated - and I indicated that in my post - I needed to have it spelt out. The problem is that Satch's comment didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. I still think clutching the front of an opponent's jumper is a strange way to go about creating space, apart from being illegal. My implied question was: is this common practice?
If my ignorance offends you, that's your problem, not mine.

[Melbournehammer]

common not exactly - obviously the key is to make sure the defender cannot get to the ball without going through you - williams on bevan was a really good example of the use of the body. but using arms to hold the player out of the space and then shifting the arms is something kossy, mooney, fevola brown all do.

hall is one of relatively few who seem to ghrab the opponent but this was sort of what carey used to do and the commentators used to go on about tests of strength - for example silvagni used to use two arms around the two arms of the forward to prvent them from getting back to the drop of the ball.

the reality is that it actually doesn't suit us when hall does this anyway - he rarely marks in that situation and our game plan which is designed to create space for him and o'loughlin to lead into is not about having crumbers get to the feet quickly because that brings additional defenders into the space.

[Hartijon]

Speaking as one of the less educated - and I indicated that in my post - I needed to have it spelt out. The problem is that Satch's comment didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. I still think clutching the front of an opponent's jumper is a strange way to go about creating space, apart from being illegal. My implied question was: is this common practice?
If my ignorance offends you, that's your problem, not mine.

Way too common and incredibly annoying.Imagine trying to reach a contest and being impeded this way.The problem is to break free without giving an obvious and easily exagerated free to the opponent because you have to touch them to break the hold.eg arm down hard on their arm . Fevola milks this well.The "milking a free" sux and reminds me of soccer so much as its akin to rolling over in agony in the penalty box from the slightest contact.Better players who can judge the flight better use their body to hold the opponent out or force a free.(see Davis against Geelong,or a lot of forwards against Bevan) This leaves the opponent no option but to jump and punch and over the shoulder contact is easily milked too..Halls best work is with the body ..then lunging forward he takes what appears to be an easy chest mark.He is good at this and should not need to hold. Often holding is in response to holding..but this is dangerous for Hall as the umpires will not ever pay him but might easily pay against him.

The way to break free of all this is fast delivery to leading forwards but this does not always happen for hundreds of reasons

[10Totti10]

Don't encourage acting - Thomo (http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/Blog.aspx?blogentryid=422169&showcomments=true)

very interesting read. Sums up the whole situation.

[chalbilto]

Agreed. However there are some posters here who don't share the gist of the article and blame Barry for his actions. From the tone of their comments I think their views are pretty well set, so be it. As the saying goes we agree to disagree.

[pinkemu]

Don't encourage acting - Thomo (http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/Blog.aspx?blogentryid=422169&showcomments=true)

very interesting read. Sums up the whole situation.

Right on the money!

This whole episode reminds me of bull fighting. And they call that sport to.

[goswannie14]

Agreed. However there are some posters here who don't share the gist of the article and blame Barry for his actions. From the tone of their comments I think their views are pretty well set, so be it. As the saying goes we agree to disagree.
You know it was bad when even the press come out supporting Barry, doesn't say much for the objectivity of some of those who are high on their moral high ground soapboxes. It must feel good being that self righteous.

[T-bag]

Speaking as one of the less educated - and I indicated that in my post - I needed to have it spelt out. The problem is that Satch's comment didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. I still think clutching the front of an opponent's jumper is a strange way to go about creating space, apart from being illegal. My implied question was: is this common practice?
If my ignorance offends you, that's your problem, not mine.Sorry Di I didn't actually mean you

[Robbo]

Don't encourage acting - Thomo (http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/Blog.aspx?blogentryid=422169&showcomments=true)

very interesting read. Sums up the whole situation.

Oh the irony coming from a supporter of the Italian soccer team.

[pinkemu]

Oh the irony coming from a supporter of the Italian soccer team.

It's to late for that game. Let's save ours from the red carpets.

[Lohengrin]

This thread has become unnecessarily nasty simply because some people disagree.

I'd be interested in the last occasion that Thomas was cited as an expert here.

[shaun..]

Thats actually a decent read, the umpires should take note. Or just let Hall get rid of Mitchell's smug grin for good.

[johnno]

Don't know if anyone here saw the sketch that Sam Newman did of Barry Hall on the footy show last night, it was another one of thos CGU ads sketch similar to the one he did a few weeks ago about Terry Wallace. I felt it was a touch harsh.

[ROK Lobster]

This thread has become unnecessarily nasty simply because some people disagree.

I'd be interested in the last occasion that Thomas was cited as an expert here.
Doesn't invalidate what is a fairly well articulated and reasonable opinion.

[Go Swannies]

This thread has become unnecessarily nasty simply because some people disagree.

I'd be interested in the last occasion that Thomas was cited as an expert here.

As a coach Thomas failed. But he knows more about the game than anyone here so he deserves to be read. (The same reason that I think Valentino Rossi knows more about motorcycle racing than I do - and Mark Webber more about F1 - they do it, we watch and may have done it at a very junior level.) So we get the benefit of a true expert with no axe to grind detailing how he sees a controversial event featuring one of our players. If he detailed how Baz deserved each of the 50s I'd have taken that view seriously. But he took Baz' side and that's very gratifying.

My personal view is that unfair umpiring will end Baz' career before it should - and that same biased umpiring has made Nick Reiwoldt more of a star than his playing deserves. I wonder if GT would acknowledge that?

[Lohengrin]

I wouldn't dispute Thomas knows his football. But I just wonder what the attitude to his article would have been if it had been 'anti-Swans' (or even in the case of many other footy experts who criticise the Swans).

I agree with all of his article except the point that Hall should have been given a free kick. From either angle he was clearly holding first and play on was the appropriate call.

The 50s were a case of over-umpiring, which we've seen too much of in recent years.

As for Hall complaining about frees, he does get a tough run, but I wonder how many times (like this one) they're not really frees but look like it because of his strange technique?

[shaun..]

A bit of a loss as to why he would hold his opponent's jumper too, wouldn't it be easier to place the palm and hence palm-off if need be?

In saying that, he also gets held on to and doesn't get the calls - one obvious one against Campbell - and hence carries on like a lunatic.

[1%ers]

Hall is a liability to his team-mates. They don't what he will do & turns the ball over far too much.
As soon as he is frustrated or out positioned by his opponent he infringes on his opponent, when we are in attack.
How can we consistently outscore the opposition with Halls actions & whinging to umpires?

[Lucky Knickers]

Hall is a liability to his team-mates. They don't what he will do & turns the ball over far too much.
As soon as he is frustrated or out positioned by his opponent he infringes on his opponent, when we are in attack.
How can we consistently outscore the opposition with Halls actions & whinging to umpires?
Our skills are deplorable at the moment. We aren't making it easy on our forward line to mark and take set shots.
Baz does fine if we hit up a target.
You should be asking how can we consistently outscore the opposition when we continue to turn the ball over.

[liz]

Hall is a liability to his team-mates. They don't what he will do & turns the ball over far too much.
As soon as he is frustrated or out positioned by his opponent he infringes on his opponent, when we are in attack.
How can we consistently outscore the opposition with Halls actions & whinging to umpires?


LOL. Hall is odds on to finish this season as the Swans' leading goal scorer - for the 8th consecutive season, baring significant injury. Only Adam Goodes looks as if he could possibly outscore him but probably only then if he were stationed in the forward line more often (and we don't really want to sacrifice him from the midfield).

And it is hardly like he is hampering the development of a young up-and-comer by keeping them out of the team.

In the words of O'Keefe




"I think you get a hell of a lot more good from Barry than bad ... and the opposition does try and provoke him," O'Keefe said.

"But he's been in brilliant form and great touch this year and we wouldn't have him any other way."

Barry Hall owns up to mistake | Herald Sun (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,25604815-19773,00.html)