Mega Thread Port Forum 'General AFL Talk' Thread Part 4

[Buget]

Does intent refer to an action, or the result?

Houli definitely intended to make contact with Lamb, but was his intent to hit him in the head?

This is where the MRP gradings are fundementally flawed - according to the latest findings a punch with a fist to the face of an opponent must be graded the same [intentional] as a flailing arm whilst looking in the other direction [intentional rather than careless].

I am not sure on what planet other than within the confines of AFL HQ that those actions can be graded the same.

I thought that the conduct was different to the level of impact which is different to body part that was impacted.

As in, the player intentionally made high impact to head, (in the Hoult case).Compared to the player making careless low impact to the body....

If I was walking down the street and hit someone, it doesn't matter if I hit them in the head or in arm, I still intend on hitting them. Compared to if I was walking down the street and bumped into someone, I was careless not intentional.

From the video online and reports I have read, Houli was being held, he then threw an arm to break the tag. The throwing of the arm was intentional, that assessment was independent to the high impact to the head component which is as a result of the arm being thrown.

Ultimately, kids can't go out in a juniors game and copy that action. It's not needed in the game.

 

[Waspy79]

I thought that the conduct was different to the level of impact which is different to body part that was impacted.

As in, the player intentionally made high impact to head, (in the Hoult case).Compared to the player making careless low impact to the body....

If I was walking down the street and hit someone, it doesn't matter if I hit them in the head or in arm, I still intend on hitting them. Compared to if I was walking down the street and bumped into someone, I was careless not intentional.

From the video online and reports I have read, Houli was being held, he then threw an arm to break the tag. The throwing of the arm was intentional, that assessment was independent to the high impact to the head component which is as a result of the arm being thrown.

Ultimately, kids can't go out in a juniors game and copy that action. It's not needed in the game.

My point is this.

Based on the list of classificable offences below, how can they ever be deemed careless? They are all deliberate acts, there is always intent involved.

 

[Phhht]

It wasn't meant to come across that way. I asked in the my first reply for the link, but it wasnt even addressed as all I saw was "Pretty sure it is mate" and then when I hit the reply button all this other stuff appeared in the quote box.

Nah mate...it's just me embellishing. I'm sure if Arsene took it that way he would have said something. More me trying to be funny...not calling you out.

 

[NEGAN]

AFL outraged that the Good Bloke defence has been applied to an actual good person who did something genuinely out of character, will argue on appeal that the Good Bloke defence is only applicable to bogan thugs who the Footy Show audience would love to have a beer with

Reading about Eddie fuming over the good bloke defence has me in stitches since his club has the original anti heroes in the rat pack.

 

[70sDinosaur]

I'm still gobsmacked at the realisation that the current Prime Minister of Australia (and Waleed Ally) provided a character reference for a footballer answering a case of knocking another player unconscious during a game.

What. The. ****.


Surely the office of PM is not as trivial as to be going in to bat for someone just so they don't miss a ******* game of football.

True, but since Turnbull has outsourced economic policy to the Chinese, foreign policy to the Americans and domestic/social policy to the right wing of his party, he doesn't really have much else to do.

 

[Buget]

My point is this.

Based on the list of classificable offences below, how can they ever be deemed careless? They are all deliberate acts, there is always intent involved.

View attachment 386634

You can make careless high impact to the head and knock a guy out that is called rough conduct. Say 2 player going for a ball that is on the ground a one accidentally bumps the other high trying to pick up the ball.

But I agree, what is a careless punch? That's is a deliberate action.

 

[Waspy79]

You can make careless high impact to the head and knock a guy out that is called rough conduct. Say 2 player going for a ball that is on the ground a one accidentally bumps the other high trying to pick up the ball.

But I agree, what is a careless punch? That's is a deliberate action.

Is a bump not an intentional act?

I think I have exposed the complete and utter failings of the MRP grading system.

 

[LeoMessi]

AFL outraged that the Good Bloke defence has been applied to an actual good person who did something genuinely out of character, will argue on appeal that the Good Bloke defence is only applicable to bogan thugs who the Footy Show audience would love to have a beer with

Hit the nail on the head. I have an inkling that if it was the good bloke Codgey, there would've been an out pour of support for him.

 

[Buget]

Can be unintentional. Two players needing to be in the same spot at the same time to win possession.

Player A might going for the ball, then the position of his body make coincidental contact with player B. That would be unintentional and therefore careless.

 

[DaTBird187]

Wow, wonder what defence they used.

That he hit a ginger, so it doesn't count.

 

[Waspy79]

Can be unintentional. Two players needing to be in the same spot at the same time to win possession.

Player A might going for the ball, then the position of his body make coincidental contact with player B. That would be unintentional and therefore careless.

It also wouldn't be reportable.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

How did I miss the Jonas discussion in here?

The new more vertical-horizontal consistency rules came in, in 2015 and Jonas hit Gaff in 2016. The prick of a counsel from the AFL Jeff Gleeson wanted 7 weeks for Jonas. He accused Jonas of recostructing the truth, IIRC Jonas initial said he would take what ever the tribual handed out but he argued at the tribunal that his intent wasn't to hit Gaff. The AFL media report said he would have got 5 weeks instead of 6 if he just said he made an error and not try and say there were mitigating circumstances. He asked for carless instead of intentional. The bloody same as Houli.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-05-...jonas-after-intentional-strike-on-andrew-gaff

Jonas, who had been referred directly to the Tribunal for his late hit on Gaff, chose to argue his case and sought to have the intent downgraded from intentional to careless. His decision to challenge elements of the charge cost the defender his right to a one-match discount for an early guilty plea.

The 25-year-old told the Tribunal he had taken the "soft option" of protecting himself and the forearm he raised was intended to protect his body from impact in the collision......"One thing I'm sure of is I didn't intend to make contact with him like that," a contrite Jonas told the Tribunal. "I regretted it immediately and I felt terrible. "It's a little bit embarrassing. I took the soft option and was scared for my own safety. "At no time during the incident did I have the intention of striking Andrew Gaff in the neck or head and hurting him." Jonas's argument was dismissed by the jury of Hamish McIntosh, Shane Wakelin and Emmett Dunne, who deliberated for seven minutes before settling on their penalty.

The final ban was one-match shy of the seven-week penalty recommended by AFL counsel Jeff Gleeson, who accused Jonas of reconstructing the truth. "It's a human response to convince yourself that you didn't intend to do what the evidence shows you did," Gleeson said in his case against Jonas. He said the jury should reject the defender's evidence that he had intended to spoil and braced for contact at the last minute. "That doesn't leave many other palatable alternatives ... at the last minute he intended to strike," Gleeson said.

Jonas did everything he could to express his regret and contrition, Tribunal chairman David Jones said, and had been aware of his mistake immediately. Umpire Shane McInerney gave evidence that the defender had been "melancholy" when told he was on report and didn't attempt to plead his innocence on the spot like others players. When giving evidence, Jonas admitted his actions had been a "clumsy mess". "I expected I would only make contact with his back or shoulder," he said. "I never intended to make contact with his head or neck."
.

The Eagles' medical report stated that Gaff had been found unconscious and remained so for two minutes after the incident. Gaff had suffered a "moderate severity neck injury from impact", and required physio treatment and medication for neck pain and headaches.

"This is not a Barry Hall punch," he said, in reference to the former Western Bulldogs, Sydney Swans and St Kilda goalkicker, who punched Brent Staker in 2008, earning a seven-match suspension.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-05-...jonas-after-intentional-strike-on-andrew-gaff

Oh and so the AFL had a different counsel who accepted the Good Bloke defence as he only asked for 4 along with 2 of the 3 different panel members. Hamish McIntosh sat on both cases.

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...-thread-part-4.1165325/page-292#post-51031242

In the incident against the Blues, Houli swung his left arm behind him and struck Lamb, who was left unconscious and didn't return to the game. The MRP graded the incident high impact and high contact and referred the case directly to the Tribunal.

AFL legal counsel Andrew Woods submitted to Tribunal chairman Ross Howie QC that a four-game ban was the appropriate sanction, while Sam Tovey, representing the club and Houli, asked for a two-game suspension. Tribunal members David Neitz, Hamish McIntosh and Wayne Henwood deliberated for five minutes before finding Houli intentionally struck Lamb and another five minutes before settling on his penalty. The entire case took almost two hours.

The Tiger said Lamb had been holding his jumper, so Houli swung his arm back in an attempt to separate himself. He said he tried to connect with Lamb's "elbow to shoulder area".,,,Houli categorically denied intending to strike Lamb in the head. "It's false, absolutely false. I've never hit anyone in my life," Houli said.

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...-thread-part-4.1165325/page-292#post-51031242

 

[DaTBird187]

The AFL has until midday today to appeal the decision

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-28/afl-weighing-up-appeal-on-houli-penalty

Seriously what's the point of sending an action straight to the tribunal if they start discounting? If the MRP decides an action is extreme enough to go straight to tribunal, no discounts should apply to the penalty.

Surely if something is graded as bad enough to go to the tribunal, then a minimum sentence should be set. Say 3 weeks once it goes to the tribunal and then they can adjust it up from there, where required.

 

[Buget]

It also wouldn't be reportable.

Pretty sure if you knocked a player out, it would be looked at.

Jack Viney was initial suspended for 2 weeks in 2014 for the bump that broke Lynch's jaw (the bump were Lynch was sandwiched). That was under the old system though. At the time everyone was in uproar about it as it wasn't intentional.

As recent as round 13, Selwood was fined for careless low impact to head.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Surely if something is graded as bad enough to go to the tribunal, then a minimum sentence should be set. Say 3 weeks once it goes to the tribunal and then they can adjust it up from there, where required.

That's only if the Tribunal agrees with the MRP. The highest you get before you go to the tribunal is 3 down to 2 with an early plea. The tribunal agreed it was intentional conduct, high impact and high contact so it has to be at least 4 weeks as a starting point. Its fair enough he gets a week less for a good record over 11 years, but if Jonas lost a weeks benefit for wanting to change the conduct from intentional to careless then surely Houli should as well.

 

[LFC2010]

Lets hope common sense prevails and he gets at least 4 for knocking a bloke out.

 

[Waspy79]

Pretty sure if you knocked a player out, it would be looked at.

Jack Viney was initial suspended for 2 weeks in 2014 for the bump that broke Lynch's jaw (the bump were Lynch was sandwiched). That was under the old system though. At the time everyone was in uproar about it as it wasn't intentional.

As recent as round 13, Selwood was fined for careless low impact to head.

Yeah I recall the Viney uproar, again a case of Victorian good bloke defence where in weeks earlier blokes like Hartlett and Douglas had been crucified and no one said boo.

Also note the Selwood decision. As I have said previously, having seen the footage I have no idea how the MRP came to the conclusion that the strike was anything but intentional, but then you have to factor in the Victorian good bloke defence, and the fact one of his best mates is on the MRP, to understand why.

I'm not arguing with you about this, just trying to rationalise these decisions in my head, which is proving difficult given the lack of logic applied across the board by the AFL's array of panels, boards, tribunals and judiciaries.

 

[chiwigi]

How did I miss the Jonas discussion in here?

The new more vertical-horizontal consistency rules came in, in 2015 and Jonas hit Gaff in 2016. The prick of a counsel from the AFL Jeff Gleeson wanted 7 weeks for Jonas. He accused Jonas of recostructing the truth, IIRC Jonas initial said he would take what ever the tribual handed out but he argued at the tribunal that his intent wasn't to hit Gaff. The AFL media report said he would have got 5 weeks instead of 6 if he just said he made an error and not try and say there were mitigating circumstances. He asked for carless instead of intentional. The bloody same as Houli.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-05-...jonas-after-intentional-strike-on-andrew-gaff

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-05-...jonas-after-intentional-strike-on-andrew-gaff

Oh and so the AFL had a different counsel who accepted the Good Bloke defence as he only asked for 4 along with 2 of the 3 different panel members. Hamish McIntosh sat on both cases.

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...-thread-part-4.1165325/page-292#post-51031242

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...-thread-part-4.1165325/page-292#post-51031242

Are you main boarding this hypocrisy?
It might also be a good time to mention that the only person I can remember being sanctioned for staging was Kane Cornes.

 

[Canoogs]

Is a bump not an intentional act?

I think I have exposed the complete and utter failings of the MRP grading system.

Head on down to Section 4.2 for how to determine intentional vs careless.

Also, under 4.3(B):

Intent: Notwithstanding any other part of these Guidelines, the fact that an act of striking occurred behind the play or off the ball or during a break in play or with a raised forearm or elbow is usually conclusive that the strike was intentional.

You'd have to think that this is where Richmond's greatest challenge was. In terms of bumping while a player's head is over the ball:

(D) FORCEFUL FRONT-ON CONTACT
Bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from front-on when that opponent has his head down over the ball is a Reportable Offence. Unless Intentional, such actions will be deemed to be Careless, unless:
» The Player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball; or
» The bump or forceful contact was caused by circumstances outside the control of the Player which could not reasonably be foreseen

Generally, not many of those go intentional because of how hard it is to prove a player was targeting the head.

 

[Steve Dore]

Are you main boarding this hypocrisy?
It might also be a good time to mention that the only person I can remember being sanctioned for staging was Kane Cornes.

Kornes was given a warning for staging and Leroy Jetta was given a reprimand. There may have been others.

 

[RedCentrePower]

Houli deserves 4 - 6 weeks for this dog act - Lamb could have died.

The Tribunal’s job is to just assess the incident without fear or favor and give the penalty it deserves. Anything outside of this is irrelevant. No character reference’s required. No discounts for good blokes – aren’t all players are good blokes to their clubs – except those who bonk other players’ wives. The Tigers are at fault for cooking up this bullshit spun scheme. The tribunal, were incompetent for even allowing this to happen. They have brought the game into disrepute and should all be sacked.
Keep politics/religion out of sport. This is an AFL PR disaster.

 

[Waspy79]

Head on down to Section 4.2 for how to determine intentional vs careless.

Also, under 4.3(B):

You'd have to think that this is where Richmond's greatest challenge was. In terms of bumping while a player's head is over the ball:
Generally, not many of those go intentional because of how hard it is to prove a player was targeting the head.

Thanks Canoogs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intentional conduct


A Player intentionally commits a Classifiable Offence if the Player engages in the conduct constituting the Reportable Offence with the intention of committing that offence.

Careless conduct


A Player’s conduct will be regarded as Careless where his conduct is not intentional, but constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the Player to all other Players.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Make up your own minds.

I do not believe Houli had any intention of committing a reportable offence, but 4.3 (B) appears to be a hurdle as you say.

 

[Steve Dore]

... Keep politics/religion out of sport. This is an AFL PR disaster.

To be fair to the AFL it was Houli who played the religion card, "I've never, ever, intended to hurt anyone, it's part of my practise of my religion.".

 

[tribey]

To be fair to the AFL it was Houli who played the religion card, "I've never, ever, intended to hurt anyone, it's part of my practise of my religion.".

lol

What a douche.

 

[Byron!!!]

I'm still gobsmacked at the realisation that the current Prime Minister of Australia (and Waleed Ally) provided a character reference for a footballer answering a case of knocking another player unconscious during a game.

What. The. ****.


Surely the office of PM is not as trivial as to be going in to bat for someone just so they don't miss a ******* game of football.

I think they submitted a transcript of part of a speech where Turnbull had described Houli when doing some community thing together. It's a bit different to him providing a character reference specifically for the tribunal.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app