Should he stay or should he go - the poll

[rojo]

I'd vote for him to play on at least for this year, on the proviso that next time he's out for good. I have a concern though that his action last Saturday was compulsive, totally irrational knowing that he was already on thin ice. For whatever reason maybe be is on the edge of doing something really stupid and Roosy and Kirk are afraid of this.

[ernie koala]

Of course he should stay. He's the only player we've got with fangs, for all his misgivings, we look pretty weak in the forward line without him. No team ever won a flag playing nice gentlemanly football, less stupidity would be good...but I'd have him in the side, rather than leave him out, any day.

[SwansFan1972]

Stay. Surely now he knows the ice is pretty thin (regardless of whether people think it should be or not).

Still lots of credits in the bank - he held up the cup for gawd's sake - it just has to end in a better manner than this!

Rutten swung the elbow back and Hall reacted. Anyone else would've got a reprimand, but because of the reputation, it gets blown up like the worst crime in football all year.

Some of us still luv ya Baz!

[laughingnome]

Yep right. A convicted criminal who bashed an opponent breaking his jaw behind the play is a rated the best player of the 20th Century, a Hall of Famer and allowed to peddle his trade in the sport, a "recovering" drug addict is playing on and its a competition of divers (Lloyd), nigglers (just about every opponent of Hall's who have been sent out by mug coaches such as Malthouse and Clarkson to deliberately incite Hall into a misdeamenor) and cheap shot merchants (Mooney). Hall is neither a diver, niggler, cheap shot merchant, inciter of violence nor a convicted criminal but is apparently not allowed to continue his profession despite already being punished by the disciplinary body of the code. The calls for him to be rubbed out of the sport come not from battered or aggreived opponents but from within his own club. Does this not seem bizarrely unfair? And if the game is supposedly against on field violence why is it still regarded as acceptable for clubs to deliberately employ tactics to incite and provoke an opponent to violence? Fair play?

Hear hear.

Stay on, big fella.

[connolly]

The competition has changed since Jack Dyer was playing buddy. The way Barry Hall behaves is not acceptable.

I agree the game has gone soft, we can sit here and whinge about it all night, but the fact of the matter is that you can't behave like Hall does.

Yep right. A convicted criminal who bashed an opponent breaking his jaw behind the play is a rated the best player of the 20th Century, a Hall of Famer and allowed to peddle his trade in the sport, a "recovering" drug addict is playing on and its a competition of divers (Lloyd), nigglers (just about every opponent of Hall's who have been sent out by mug coaches such as Malthouse and Clarkson to deliberately incite Hall into a misdeamenor) and cheap shot merchants (Mooney). Hall is neither a diver, niggler, cheap shot merchant, inciter of violence nor a convicted criminal but is apparently not allowed to continue his profession despite already being punished by the disciplinary body of the code. The calls for him to be rubbed out of the sport come not from battered or aggreived opponents but from within his own club. Does this not seem bizarrely unfair? And if the game is supposedly against on field violence why is it still regarded as acceptable for clubs to deliberately employ tactics to incite and provoke an opponent to violence? Fair play?