BIG BAD BAZ

[DeeM 42]

Hall has just recived 7 weeks for his king hit

[WonnaJurah 5]

he got nothing as he is injured til june anyway

should of been more

[praha 10,358]

Should have been 10+

[pantaloons 2,019]

Everyone's a winner! (Maybe not Staker though)

Hall gets a virtually irrelevant suspension due to his injury, and the AFL now has evidence of coming down hard on Sydney next time the media/supporters are up in arms after Goodes is let off for stomping on an opponent's temple.

[Adzman 2,085]

He has an injury, so he is off light. On the upside, his record is now shocking, any further hits and he will get the book thrown at him.

[Waltham33 409]

Everyone's a winner! (Maybe not Staker though)

Hall gets a virtually irrelevant suspension due to his injury, and the AFL now has evidence of coming down hard on Sydney next time the media/supporters are up in arms after Goodes is let off for stomping on an opponent's temple.

For mine, 7 weeks is not really coming down hard on Sydney. 9+ weeks is coming down hard.

[WonnaJurah 5]

now watch sydney slide down the ladder as nick davis takes halls role

[Eastie Boyz 0]

Knowing Davis he'll probably kick 8 this week

[WonnaJurah 5]

Knowing Davis he'll probably kick 8 this week

behinds?

[leucopogon 1,472]

This isn't a punishment, it amounts to essentially a one-week suspension or probably nothing as it would have taken 6-7 weeks for him to overcome the injury in any case.

The tribunal has copped out again with Hall. Should have been 7 on top of how long it took him to get back from the injury I reckon.

Pathetic!

I don't think we've seen the last of the repercussions of this incident. I can seriously see the AFL bringing in a sin-bin or red-card type system in a couple of season's time.

It makes sense for the Hall incident that he should be sent-off for the rest of the match after rendering his opponent unable to take further part in the game.

[QueenC 74]

I had it my head to be more than eight and this may be regarded as a little below what it should have been, but his injury is utterly irrelevant......

While I understand the point of saying he will be out for a substantial period of that penalty anyway, an injury to the perpetrator (unless he broke his knuckles!!!) should never be taken into account when judging the length of time he or anyone for that matter, should be spending on the sidelines as it isn't part of the case at hand, or the action that he took which will lead to the penalty, therefore while it may seem to be an easy out, given the injury, it is irrelevant in the judgement.

Personally I feel the penalty should have been harsher, but not because he has a broken wrist (and therefore the time that will be spent on the sideline has been factored in), but because it was an bloody awful, cowardly, mind blowingly stupid, dangerous and vindictive act. Simple as that.

But then again I think the AFL tribunal should be a hell of a lot harsher on a bloody lot more cases than they are, so this one really shouldn't surprise anyone. The thing is that they will now think that this was pretty tough (particularly in regards to the Swans), and it is if you go on past ordinary acts that have been let off with what I see as lenient penalties, but the reality is that lesser acts have been hit with far harsher penalties in other codes of footy.

And there are more than a few examples from last weekend's AFL that should count themselves as extraordinary lucky.

Just my opinion.......

[WonnaJurah 5]

i have noticed the afl getting soft on tribunal

a melb storm player did a similiar incident ages ago he got 18 weeks

tribunal really should indrouce adding the suspension onto the injury time , he is injured til june so make the 7 week suspension when he is able to play

[Yencks 8]

that is ridiculouos...should have been much more

there was a man in suburban footy on the radio that received 12 months jail because he punched a bloke in the jaw with one hit behind play...i know its different but 7 weeks is a lot softer than 12 months imprisonment

[QueenC 74]

a melb storm player did a similiar incident ages ago he got 18 weeks

What Danny Williams did to the Tigers player (who's name escapes me) was far worse GnJ.......

[Jaded No More 59,067]

Ben Johnson got 6 weeks for his hit on Bell last year, which was a deserved punishment for a very dangerous hit.

What Hall did, to me, is far more serious and was not even in play, yet he gets 7.

Bemusing to say the least.

[QueenC 74]

Ben Johnson got 6 weeks for his hit on Bell last year, which was a deserved punishment for a very dangerous hit.

What Hall did, to me, is far more serious and was not even in play, yet he gets 7.

Bemusing to say the least.

With what you would think is a far worse record......

Maybe the tribunal deemed the hit to be "in play"? It has worked for them before !!!

[WonnaJurah 5]

What Danny Williams did to the Tigers player (who's name escapes me) was far worse GnJ.......

mark o neil , yea it was but saying that they go harder on there players then we do i mean lockett only got 8 weeks for smashing cavens nose in 1994

some of those incidents as told can cause death and a punch from a former junoir boxer like hall could of been lethal

[Jaded No More 59,067]

With what you would think is a far worse record......

Maybe the tribunal deemed the hit to be "in play"? It has worked for them before !!!

So 'in play' is now basically the same thing as 'happened on the field, not in change rooms'?

[QueenC 74]

So 'in play' is now basically the same thing as 'happened on the field, not in change rooms'?

Yep but only in the world of Barry Hall......

I'm not sure it even extends to the rest of his team mates !!!

[QueenC 74]

mark o neil , yea it was but saying that they go harder on there players then we do i mean lockett only got 8 weeks for smashing cavens nose in 1994

some of those incidents as told can cause death and a punch from a former junoir boxer like hall could of been lethal

No argument here babe.....

I remember watching that hit from Williams, and it was without a shadow of a doubt the worst thing I have seen on any football field.

And while I don't think there was any legal action taken, that would have been the kind of incident that could have set some very serious precedents.

[Mono 454]

Hall has just recived 7 weeks for his king hit

I would have liked to have seen 10 weeks, 3 suspended. Any further transgression, and he really pays.

[Bring-Back-Powell 13,389]

Minimum 16 weeks.

[Face Your Demons 175]

He gets to return the week after Sydney plays West Coast again. So maybe the draw gave him 7 weeks not the Afl tribunal.

[beelzebub 22,308]

Am a little surpised he only got 7.. but given he got a 1/4 off for a guilty plea the original penalty ws closer to 9 or so.

Not a lot of point comparing to other sports as the game is played to AFL rules and penalties. They are there in the books. The Tribunal had a particular course to take and has set penalties for x points of transgression. The hierachy could augment the 7 weeks but has chosen not to.

I would prefer it if this wasnt sensationally called a "king hit" ..it isnt.. It was a very good hook to the jaw..Short of hitting a wall or concrete after this is not a life threatening hit.. It WILL hurt...a lot !!

What I feel ought to be happening here is the penalty should only start when he's deemed fit to play..otherwise its really no penalty at all.

[Face Your Demons 175]

What I feel ought to be happening here is the penalty should only start when he's deemed fit to play..otherwise its really no penalty at all.

Good idea, but who would decided when he's fit to play.