Some people listen to journos who have never played football, so Barrett has a job.

Personally, I don't listen to anyone who hasn't actually played the game - but that is just me, different strokes, different folks.

I'd listen to Gerard Whateley over just about anyone else.

Thank God he supports Norf and not us. That would be an embarrassment

What would you get if you bred Damien Barrett and Susan Boyle?

Craig Hutchinson...

Is there a more... annoying [censored] to listen to with his... mid-sentence, reflective pauses and know-it-all... tone? I put it to you... guys... that this beady-eyed acne scarred [censored] ... is the most annoying... [censored] on tv/radio.

......thanks...... guys.

hahaha, this is spot on

he is one of the smuggest, know-it-all germs I've seen, and keeps getting worse

he genuinely does hate us too, what a [censored] trying to disagree with viney's suspension when literally the whole football community is tearing their hair out over it

Hutchinson and Barrett are on the AFL's payroll. They are lefty trolls that think everything is non-subjective, that nothing can be discussed, dissected. That there is one way and if you don't fit that standard of morality or whatever then you are wrong. Barrett's "They were 100% right" comment on Viney's suspension is evident of this. He would argue that within the guidelines, he should be suspended. He can't comprehend that maybe the guidelines just don't fit in with how the common person understands the games and rules. Having a lawyer argue rules to a player who responds spontaneously to a situation is a mockery of the game itself. In society we have time to react, to consider the consequences. In Football the goal is to get the football and WIN. That is it. There are rules, yes, but there is NO rule against accidentally hurting someone. The AFL has basically legislated against accidents. It is a travesty. It's like trying to say to someone, "It is illegal to offend someone". These are laws built around human action than are spontaneous but also firmly subjective.

Also, Hutchinson says what the AFL wants him to say. He gets pulled into line all the time for anything directly negative of the AFL or sport, and Barrett is the same. There's no doubt in my mind that every story he breaks comes directly from AFL House, which helps shape the narrative to suit the organisation.

Edited May 7, 201411 yr by Cudi_420

No amount of make up can hide the acne scars Mr. Barrett.

I swear this guy wakes up in the morning and asks himself "how can i be an obnoxious [censored] today?"

I was hoping someone would make a threat addressing this absolute [censored].

This can be the official thread for this guy.

I can't express my hatred for this guy

He doesn't realise it, but this will be the beginning of the end for him - His AFL media career spirally slowly but surely down the toilet like a turd.

Barrett just wants to get noticed, he doesn't for the right reasons, good journalism, so he has to resort to going against the grain and writing the pathetic articles. He is a horrible little man.

What would you get if you bred Damien Barrett and Susan Boyle?

Craig Hutchinson...

an unmade bed that can sing.

I still stand by the time Liam Pickering told Hutchy to his face live on SEN that he always looked like an "unmade bed", as being the funniest thing i have ever heard on radio. I laughed so hard the Coco Pops cereal i was eating came out of my nose.

he's without doubt the biggest [censored] in the media, like to know how he got in the media? why do they let tossbags like this commentate on footy

The thing that cruels his whole argument is the fact that not once does he mentioned the AFL judiciary's penchant for giving free passes to elbows to the head.

The thing that cruels his whole argument is the fact that not once does he mentioned the AFL judiciary's penchant for giving free passes to elbows to the head.

That would require thinking and knowing something about the world.

Neither are his strong suits.

This thread is his intention. He deliberately takes the controversial side of every topic to stir up debate and make himself the centre of it... and you're all lapping it up! Stop feeding the troll.

http://www.triplem.com.au/melbourne/sport/afl/news/james-brayshaw-and-damian-barrett-discuss-the-disintegrating-match-review-panel-sysytem/

Here's a link to some audio of this piece of [censored] talking about the Jack Ziebell suspension when it happened.

While it isn't as damning as I'd hoped, the [censored] is predictably hugging Ziebell's nuts. Nothing like his reaction to us frothing at the mouth supporters this week.

Hypocritical piece [censored].

Yep watch the footy show Sam went bananas about the fyfe bump so expect him to let rip

Jumbo's very quiet.....

Hutchinson and Barrett are on the AFL's payroll. They are lefty trolls that think everything is non-subjective, that nothing can be discussed, dissected. That there is one way and if you don't fit that standard of morality or whatever then you are wrong. Barrett's "They were 100% right" comment on Viney's suspension is evident of this. He would argue that within the guidelines, he should be suspended. He can't comprehend that maybe the guidelines just don't fit in with how the common person understands the games and rules. Having a lawyer argue rules to a player who responds spontaneously to a situation is a mockery of the game itself. In society we have time to react, to consider the consequences. In Football the goal is to get the football and WIN. That is it. There are rules, yes, but there is NO rule against accidentally hurting someone. The AFL has basically legislated against accidents. It is a travesty. It's like trying to say to someone, "It is illegal to offend someone". These are laws built around human action than are spontaneous but also firmly subjective.

Also, Hutchinson says what the AFL wants him to say. He gets pulled into line all the time for anything directly negative of the AFL or sport, and Barrett is the same. There's no doubt in my mind that every story he breaks comes directly from AFL House, which helps shape the narrative to suit the organisation.

Lefty Trolls?? would say way more right than left especially Barrett, he has private schoolboy, Daddy bought him everything, written all over him.

Thank God he supports Norf and not us. That would be an embarrassment

Oh yeah ? Well this club has Mike Sheahan and he helped the AFL kick Fitzroy to death.

The best thing we can do, is not click on any of his links and not watch shows he is associated with, or listen to radio he is on.

Lefty Trolls?? would say way more right than left especially Barrett, he has private schoolboy, Daddy bought him everything, written all over him.

How does any of that make him right-wing? You're relying on tired generalisations.

He votes Green.

That's irrelevant, though. His type is present throughout the industry. They're merchants of negativity. He belongs in the Canberra Press Gallery, not football journalism.

DB only argument for the suspension is that the rules say blah blah and so he must be found guilty. The rules are always right. The good old sgt Schultz quote, "I know NOTHING"

Only obeying the rules is an argument that was dismissed at the Numerberg war trials in the late 40s.

Even in the military since the mid 70s you can disobey an order if you consider it illegal but you will wear the consquences latter if you are wrong!

What I am trying to say is if his only argument is "I am only obeying orders" he is half a century out in his thinking [ if he can in fact think]

Does it matter?

Wouldn't want to waste oxygen on the topic.

fortunately, commenting on the web consumes no oxygen, unlike Barratt who not only does, but also produces CO2, and lots of methane

The only antidote to this virulent pest is winning. There will no doubt be a surge of his crap whilst we continue to improve then he will have to shut up when the time comes he has to eat his own excrement.

He obviously does this already, as it oozes, sometimes spews forth, from his mouth whenever he opens it

DB only argument for the suspension is that the rules say blah blah and so he must be found guilty. The rules are always right. The good old sgt Schultz quote, "I know NOTHING"

Only obeying the rules is an argument that was dismissed at the Numerberg war trials in the late 40s.

Even in the military since the mid 70s you can disobey an order if you consider it illegal but you will wear the consquences latter if you are wrong!

What I am trying to say is if his only argument is "I am only obeying orders" he is half a century out in his thinking [ if he can in fact think]

Nürnberg??

When 99 percent of the football world are against the viney decision Barrett decides to go against the grain so his name rises above all others. He needs to be heard and wanted the uproar over his opinion.