SA Footy

Round 1: Justin Koschitzke - four games for rough conduct against Sydney's Nick Malceski. Can reduce to three with an early guilty plea.

Brendon Goddard - $900 fine for making contact with umpire Stephen McBurney in the same game.

No further incidents warranting fine/suspension so far.

When I saw the Hille/Bartel collision Friday night, must admit I immediately thought three games for Hille, but has been determined that no further action to be taken

CK wrote:When I saw the Hille/Bartel collision Friday night, must admit I immediately thought three games for Hille, but has been determined that no further action to be taken

Yep, Im staggered that one has gone through to the keeper, incredible ruling ... Pretty happy though for Supercoach reasons

Barry Hall to be fined a maximum of $4000 ($3000 with guilty plea) for misconduct. As below:

The match review panel determined a sanction of $4000. In summary, he can accept a $3000 sanction with an early plea. The charge was laid under the misconduct provisions in the Table of Offences, whereby the Match Review Panel can impose a financial sanction for a misconduct offence that is not classified under the table. The Match Review Panel took into account the medical report on player Thompson and the relevant footage in determining a charge of rough conduct was not appropriate in the circumstances of this case.

Good for BBBBH.

I, however, am still staggered that Goose Maguire got done for a game

CK wrote:Barry Hall to be fined a maximum of $4000 ($3000 with guilty plea) for misconduct. As below:

The match review panel determined a sanction of $4000. In summary, he can accept a $3000 sanction with an early plea. The charge was laid under the misconduct provisions in the Table of Offences, whereby the Match Review Panel can impose a financial sanction for a misconduct offence that is not classified under the table. The Match Review Panel took into account the medical report on player Thompson and the relevant footage in determining a charge of rough conduct was not appropriate in the circumstances of this case.

And Scott Thompson got off and no case to answer after prevoking Hall- Absolute Bull Sh!t

The Dark Knight wrote:And Scott Thompson got off and no case to answer after prevoking Hall- Absolute Bull Sh!t

Spot on. Wish Hall turned his lights out....

Turd.

Disgraceful that the Roo Scott Thompson didn't get a fine either, pretty gutless effort really and loved the choker hold that Barry put on the little prick.

RoosterMarty wrote:Disgraceful that the Roo Scott Thompson didn't get a fine either, pretty gutless effort really and loved the choker hold that Barry put on the little prick.

Everyone I've spoken to today (even people who don't necessarily follow footy, and some anti-Hall people) agree.

If Hall had knocked over Thompson while he was tying his laces, Hall would have been suspended.

If Hall had harassed Thompson on his way to the bench, Hall would have been suspended.

He's been treated unfairly because of his record.

I can accept that he's going to be treated in a more severe manner than someone else, but not that he is going to be less protected.

You blokes must be kidding. Barry Hall has dropped blokes with round houses and you are suggesting some bloke having a bit of niggle at him was taking it too far? I cant believe the public reaction to all this. Thompson must have man bits the size of onions to go out there and have a go at Bazza, really. I know I sure wouldn't do it.

I heard Rowey ( not a good source ) say that "Thompson knew Barry wouldn't do anything 'coz it could end his ( Hall's ) career". Well if Bazza did do something he could have ended Thompson's career too. So Thompson had no idea what Barry was going to do, Barry sure has no idea and Rodney Eade's reaction to it all ( a very animated "Get him off " ) by dragging Hall showed he had no idea what Barry was going to do. Im sure Thompson learnt his lesson after Bazza got him in that headlock for during the second half he didnt get within 5 yards of Hall.

If Joe Public want that sort of "niggle" gone out of the game then Dimwitriou and his flunky's will get rid of it and that's when I'll give up watching the game. What a turn around. Barry Hall was the biggest villian in football the day after he dropped Staker and now people want him "protected" ( Please FFS ) from some kid with the gumption to niggle at him.

I agree with you there Booney. Does Barry need to be protected No Barry needs to calm down and accept that this is football. Thompson should not have done what he did but he got what he deserved and so did hall 4000 dollars worth of fine.
The old Barry Hall would have knocked Thompson out but he didn't this time.. Maybe Barry has learnt something. But Hall needing protection nope. He needs protection from himself.

Hey I have no problem with niggle, but the fact is Thompson does it to every bloke he stands no matter how far off the ball they are.

The AFL bought in a rule stating how close the ball must be to the player getting niggled, but yet the chose not to enforce it, when it suits them....

Remember Lake giving away the free kick in last years final series ?

SJABC wrote:Hey I have no problem with niggle, but the fact is Thompson does it to every bloke he stands no matter how far off the ball they are.

The AFL bought in a rule stating how close the ball must be to the player getting niggled, but yet the chose not to enforce it, when it suits them....

Remember Lake giving away the free kick in last years final series ?

Define "niggle" then, for crying out loud as if the modern day forward doesn't get enough gifts. No hands in the back ( as opposed to the old push in the back ) no chopping the arms and now "no niggle when the ball is more than 5m away".

Who said the rule applies to forwards only ?

What is a niggle??

Johno6 wrote:What is a niggle??

An ugly nipple.

Booney wrote:You blokes must be kidding. Barry Hall has dropped blokes with round houses and you are suggesting some bloke having a bit of niggle at him was taking it too far? I cant believe the public reaction to all this. Thompson must have man bits the size of onions to go out there and have a go at Bazza, really. I know I sure wouldn't do it.

I heard Rowey ( not a good source ) say that "Thompson knew Barry wouldn't do anything 'coz it could end his ( Hall's ) career". Well if Bazza did do something he could have ended Thompson's career too. So Thompson had no idea what Barry was going to do, Barry sure has no idea and Rodney Eade's reaction to it all ( a very animated "Get him off " ) by dragging Hall showed he had no idea what Barry was going to do. Im sure Thompson learnt his lesson after Bazza got him in that headlock for during the second half he didnt get within 5 yards of Hall.

If Joe Public want that sort of "niggle" gone out of the game then Dimwitriou and his flunky's will get rid of it and that's when I'll give up watching the game. What a turn around. Barry Hall was the biggest villian in football the day after he dropped Staker and now people want him "protected" ( Please FFS ) from some kid with the gumption to niggle at him.

I've got no problem with "niggle", it has been going on for years, and forwards have to learn to live with it. What I do have a problem with is all these "heros" that get involved afterwards. Not those who rushed in to help Thompson in the wrestle, that was fair enough, but those who lined up to give him a serve as he was coming off the ground. And against Collingwood when he was against four who went at him just to get a reaction and the ball was not within cooee. Same with the third 50 v Hawthorn when Mitchell was no where near the first contest or fifties, but went up to Hall simply to verbal him to try to get another one. Why should Hall have to put up with that sh!t? The umpires should tell those players to get out of it, or put up with what is coming to them.

So tell me what was Thompson going to get reported for? Knocking over a bloke while he was doing up shoelaces? I know the AFL has gone soft but seriously?

If we are going to get technical then Thompson should have rec'd a free kick for the high contact surely?

Hall is very very very lucky not to get at least one game.

FlyingHigh wrote:

Booney wrote:You blokes must be kidding. Barry Hall has dropped blokes with round houses and you are suggesting some bloke having a bit of niggle at him was taking it too far? I cant believe the public reaction to all this. Thompson must have man bits the size of onions to go out there and have a go at Bazza, really. I know I sure wouldn't do it.

I heard Rowey ( not a good source ) say that "Thompson knew Barry wouldn't do anything 'coz it could end his ( Hall's ) career". Well if Bazza did do something he could have ended Thompson's career too. So Thompson had no idea what Barry was going to do, Barry sure has no idea and Rodney Eade's reaction to it all ( a very animated "Get him off " ) by dragging Hall showed he had no idea what Barry was going to do. Im sure Thompson learnt his lesson after Bazza got him in that headlock for during the second half he didnt get within 5 yards of Hall.

If Joe Public want that sort of "niggle" gone out of the game then Dimwitriou and his flunky's will get rid of it and that's when I'll give up watching the game. What a turn around. Barry Hall was the biggest villian in football the day after he dropped Staker and now people want him "protected" ( Please FFS ) from some kid with the gumption to niggle at him.

I've got no problem with "niggle", it has been going on for years, and forwards have to learn to live with it. What I do have a problem with is all these "heros" that get involved afterwards. Not those who rushed in to help Thompson in the wrestle, that was fair enough, but those who lined up to give him a serve as he was coming off the ground. And against Collingwood when he was against four who went at him just to get a reaction and the ball was not within cooee. Same with the third 50 v Hawthorn when Mitchell was no where near the first contest or fifties, but went up to Hall simply to verbal him to try to get another one. Why should Hall have to put up with that sh!t? The umpires should tell those players to get out of it, or put up with what is coming to them.

Bottom line is the Dogs won by bucketloads, Hall will play finals, Thompson wont. Who has the last laugh?

Dutchy wrote:If we are going to get technical then Thompson should have rec'd a free kick for the high contact surely?

They did didn't they? Pretty sure there was a 50 thrown in as well. That's how they got their first goal.

Dutchy wrote:So tell me what was Thompson going to get reported for? Knocking over a bloke while he was doing up shoelaces? I know the AFL has gone soft but seriously?

If we are going to get technical then Thompson should have rec'd a free kick for the high contact surely?

Hall is very very very lucky not to get at least one game.

i agree dutchy...thats what backmen do and always have...its in the rules...