[censored] I can't stand him !!

"If it bleeds it leads" we have bled

Even though he's a pencil knecked geek

http://twitter.com/barrettdamian/status/464568620413358080

Plays a mean devil's advocate, most people hate the guy. Dunno how he keeps it up.

No double entendres intended.

No double entendres intended.

Should not have added the above I was impressed with the first comment

His simplistic view that Lynch was injured therefore Viney must go is actually against what the rule is. If it was a collision that was out of his control and he was forced to protect himself then it's not going against the rule. It's in fact working exactly as it should.

If he deliberately bumps it's a different story.

That's correct and I'm amazed at how many people also interpret this way, including the tribunal.

It was pretty simple. Viney didn't bump, he protected himself from imminent contact correctly. Was there another reasonable option? Tuesdays tribunal though 'getting out if the road' was, Thursday correctly didn't.

People keep talking about the bump....Viney didn't bump!!

Is he implicitly saying that any decision that gets an appeal upheld is a reason for the initial decision makers to resign?

He is too dim to understand 'an appeals process' - a foundation institution in any legal environment in any democracy.

You know, the ability to challenge an adjudication...

This was posted to barretts twitter earlier today:

Schimma, Henwood, Dunne - sold out by the "system". On principle, they have to resign. "People power" now runs AFL judicial process

10:52am - 9 May 14

My response to that:

On principal, you have to resign for valuing your own opinion over your journalistic responsibility to report facts.

His simplistic view that Lynch was injured therefore Viney must go is actually against what the rule is. If it was a collision that was out of his control and he was forced to protect himself then it's not going against the rule. It's in fact working exactly as it should.

If he deliberately bumps it's a different story.

His first tweet was ridiculous but read his article again. I am far from an apologist for the hack journalist that is Barrett but he said it was the Tribunal/MRP thinking that someone gets hurt someone must pay. Up until the appeal he was absolutely right - that was their thinking. The problem with his article is he did not reach the conclusion that most others reached - judge the action not the outcome.

This was posted to barretts twitter earlier today:

Schimma, Henwood, Dunne - sold out by the "system". On principle, they have to resign. "People power" now runs AFL judicial process

10:52am - 9 May 14

On reflection they must consider whether they have right reasoning power for the job. They had to decide on balance of probabilities whether it was a brace or a bump. At worst, they should have decided that there is doubt as to which one it was - therefore not guilty. That they could conclude that it was a bump amazes me. They weren't sold out by the system. They just reasoned badly. People power doesn't run the judiciary but people power certainly shouts at the top of its lungs when there is incompetence and thus injustice.

I would have put a different title to the thread.

But undoubtedly would have been censored big time.

But DB.... Get Stuffed you peanut.

this thread is going for the record of most censored words...

this thread is going for the record of most censored words...

[censored] oath.

My response to that:

On principal, you have to resign for valuing your own opinion over your journalistic responsibility to report facts.

but in his case, he's not a journalist's arzole, he's an opinionist and a slimey one at that

he's so shite that anyone who really follows football takes whatever opinion he spouts with a grain of salt

I can't think of a time Barrett has said something and I have thought " that is spot on" even with the other really bad journos you can normally agree with some of it and it's certain stuff that annoys you

but in his case, he's not a journalist's arzole, he's an opinionist and a slimey one at that

he's so shite that anyone who really follows football takes whatever opinion he spouts with a grain of salt

Not sure I agree Daise. I reckon he is a journalist's arzole. Makes me think - if you had been born with two arzoles you could call one Robbo and the other Damien to differentiate.

It turns out that he was right about the 'scattergun' approach taken in 2012 (not in that it was chaotic but in the fact that it didn't work though Pedders and Dawesy are showing a bit now). We wanted experienced, match hardened senior players (that where the logic, as tenuous as it was, came from) but most of them were either finished or NQR's.
However, he has made a clown of himself about the 2013 strategy and over this.

but in his case, he's not a journalist's arzole, he's an opinionist and a slimey one at that

he's so shite that anyone who really follows football takes whatever opinion he spouts with a grain of salt

Not sure I agree Daise. I reckon he is a journalist's arzole. Makes me think - if you had been born with two arzoles you could call one Robbo and the other Damien to differentiate.

His hatred of the MFC has compromised his journalistic credibility, to a point where anything he says now is taken with a grain of salt.

Barrett must of been a hell of a football, because everyone listens to him.

Seems as though he is the 'voice of football'.. I never watched him play, but I assume he was a cross between Carey/Ablett.

Heard him on Triple M before and he still won't let up.

Lyon called him out and said he got it wrong and Barrett back peddled and is still saying the original verdict was right.

Lyon said but it wasn't because he is playing today. I just wished Lyon said: "Damien, was he found guilty - yes or no? The appeal showed the original decision was wrong. That's the end of it"

Lets also remember this is the bloke who criticised the club for drafting Tyson, never saw him play and since Tyson's first 20 games has been better than Judd, Ablett, and a few other elites.

Barrett must of been a hell of a football, because everyone listens to him.

Seems as though he is the 'voice of football'.. I never watched him play, but I assume he was a cross between Carey/Ablett.

I heard he was selected in a Demons Little League Squad in 1982 but wasn't allowed to take the field because it was discovered that his specs had optical-glass lenses instead of the OH&S-approved polycarbonate ones. He has never forgiven the club for denying him his big chance in footy.

On reflection they must consider whether they have right reasoning power for the job. They had to decide on balance of probabilities whether it was a brace or a bump. At worst, they should have decided that there is doubt as to which one it was - therefore not guilty. That they could conclude that it was a bump amazes me. They weren't sold out by the system. They just reasoned badly. People power doesn't run the judiciary but people power certainly shouts at the top of its lungs when there is incompetence and thus injustice.

I feel that this is the biggest issue with the tribunal, it's a matter of proving of one's innocence rather than guilt. The simple idea in our society is a person is innocent until proven guilty, but the moment that an incident is referred to the tribunal it's the other way around. Gleeson's job was made fairly redundant, especially given that the suggestions he put forth were almost in jest. In some ways I agree that Schimma, Henwood, and Dunne have been sold out as I believe they have been given a directive to find people guilty when a clash and injury occurres that may be a bump. I honestly believe they went into the case feeling they needed to be convinced his innocence rather than guilt.

Barrett is actually correct, people power won out in this case, and so it bloody well should've. Because the entire world recognised that the system was going to hang Jack out to dry and destroy the very fabric of the game, now the AFL needs to review how the interpretation to the rule takes place and adjust accordingly. Players shouldn't be held responsible for incidents and injuries that are out of their control.

Edited May 10, 201411 yr by Pates

In fairness, we campaigned that 'no reasonable tribunal could have come to the conclusion they did'.

Still think he's a hack.