Maybe Scott should try soccer....
Well, the Lions' guys didn't end up at the Tribunal, but Aaron Hamill did, on charges of striking, which he fortunately defended successfully:
Hamill cleared of striking
7:51:50 PM Tue 29 March, 2005
Samantha Lane
Sportal for afl.com.au
The AFL Tribunal has rejected the match review panel's ruling that St Kilda forward Aaron Hamill should be suspended for one match for striking Brisbane's Chris Scott, instead clearing the former Saints skipper of making any contact with the Lion.
The Saints took something of a gamble in contesting the panel's verdict, but were vindicated after the tribunal jury - composed of former players Michael Sexton, Emmett Dunne and Wayne Schimmelbusch at Tuesday night's hearing - ruled that Hamill's swipe at the Lion did not warrant punishment.
The former club skipper is now free to play against Fremantle in Tasmania this weekend.
Hamill successfully argued that he had not made contact with Scott's face during the third quarter of last Thursday night's fiery round one clash at the Gabba. And Scott, who gave evidence over the telephone, said he had attempted to gain a free kick on the night but had not actually been struck.
It had been suggested that Scott had a tooth damaged in the incident, but he told the tribunal that it had happened in a separate incident during the match. Scott said he had taken a dive following Hamill's swipe and admitted to making it 'look as theatrical as possible'.
The duel between the two tough nuts was one of the features of the fiercely-fought match, but Scott said he and Hamill had engaged in some light-hearted banter over the incident that prompted the report by umpire Scott McLaren.
"He (Hamill) said he thought I was a better player than to take a dive and I suggested I thought he was a better shot," Scott said.
Umpire McLaren told the tribunal he had observed Hamill making 'glancing' contact with Scott on the night, but described the force as minimal.
The match review panel had assessed the incident as negligent conduct (one point), low impact (one point), in play (one point) and high contact (two points).
With a total of five activation points, it was deemed a Level One offence drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match suspension. But due to a previous one-game suspension, his penalty was increased by 10 per cent to 137.5 points.
Had Hamill chosen to accept the panel's verdict, he would have received a 25 percent reduction and been suspended for one match. But Hamill chose to risk at least that punishment by contesting the charge.
(Article from AFL.COM)
Well, at least Mr Scott came clean, but I reckon he's in the wrong sport...
posted by Heather @ 10:49 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home