Mega Thread Bachar Houli has been reported for this incident with Jed Lamb

[Blue1980]

It seems quite obvious why the original penalty was lenient and it doesn't help anyone.

Just because he's a top bloke Muslim doesn't change what he did. He shouldn't receive more or less a punishment for it.

I'm more left wing than right but this is just ridiculous.

Good on the AFL to show some backbone

 

[HumanMeatball]

The act was behind play, intentional, high contact, with force. Those facts are indisputable

It is a 4 week ban, possibly 3 at the very least

The tribunal already said it was in play

 

[HTT]

The act was behind play, intentional, high contact, with force. Those facts are indisputable

It is a 4 week ban, possibly 3 at the very least

The only reason it was behind play was because the blues player had prevented him from being near it by hanging onto him.

 

[HumanMeatball]

Religion was brought into it by Richmond as a defense to cut the sentence in half, the result was basically a because you are Muslim have 2 weeks off your sentence.

Go wine at your own club before you worry about anyone else.

In no way did Richmond say he should get weeks off because he is Muslim. That's a lie

 

[Arc1]

Lamb missed the game it happened hasn't started training yet maybe two more weeks off

How will this affect the penalty


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

It can't - they would've taken the medical report into account in the first instance, and that won't get revisited except if it wasn't properly factored into the decision at the time.

If Lamb's condition turns out to be worse, bad luck. The appeal would have to focus on the tribunal getting it wrong, eg. applying the wrong sanction based on the established facts.

(I think the only exception to that would be if they just completely got something wrong, like assessing "low impact" when a player was KO'd).

 

[Blue1980]

Whole thing is a predictable mess. The games better for having Houli I have no doubt for his ability and the symbolism. He has a long time clean record and this should earn some leniency. The incident deserves sanction and my uneducated opinion is 4 weeks down to three.Dont think two is a huge error.
With the fact he's a Muslim the elephant in the room, the one thing we didn't need is an ongoing circus. Of course that's what we'll get though, someone's head should roll for that reason.

Game is better for having Houli? I don't think anyone is advocating a life time ban. And for 'symbolism' I think the competition will survive without him for a month.

The symbolism that you can knock blokes out if you have enough credits in the bank with minimal penalty is one we shouldn't be advocating

 

[Arr0w]

I agree the outcome should have been 3. While you don't automatically get a discount for a good record, the guideline effectively says you do at the tribunal. 4 down to 3 should have been the outcome, even with a not guilty plea.

"(H) IMPACT OF A GOOD RECORD Players will no longer automatically receive a reduced base sanction for a good record. However, if a Classifiable Offence is contested or referred to the Tribunal, a Player with an exemplary record could argue that their good record constitutes exceptional and compelling circumstances. "

By all means argue his exemplary record. But show me where it says the discount is a given?

 

[HumanMeatball]

Wasnt it assessed as 4 weeks by the tribunal though? Cos he gets the discount for a good record bringing it down to 3, they then applied the good bloke discount down to 2, which obviously shouldn't have happened given they ruled it intentional anyway. What are the AFL challenging? Is that it should be more than 4 weeks initially or just the extra week discount? its their own rules that give a good record discount.

The afl can't appeal for more then 4 weeks. The part representing the afl wanted 4 weeks they can't get more then that

 

[Bokonon_]

Game is better for having Houli? I don't think anyone is advocating a life time ban. And for 'symbolism' I think the competition will survive without him for a month.

The symbolism that you can knock blokes out if you have enough credits in the bank with minimal penalty is one we shouldn't be advocating

Although I actually said 3-4 weeks was right in my opinion.

 

[Arr0w]

The tribunal already said it was in play

You and I both know the difference. It was close to being in play, but it wasn't.

 

[HumanMeatball]

By all means argue his exemplary record. But show me where it says the discount is a given?

It will be the afl will and should accept 3 weeks as a fair middle ground

 

[TheExtractorFactor]

This is a cluster****. The decision is wrong and too lenient but what's the point of the AFL being able to appeal a decision made by people they appointed and intrusted the decision with? Why even have a tribunal in that case? The possibility of drawing on character witnesses is dumb as well, this is footy not the supreme court, but why hold it against Houli that he had 'good' ones? It defeats the whole purpose

 

[HumanMeatball]

You and I both know the difference. It was close to being in play, but it wasn't.

It wasn't in play as Jed was holding houli. It was hardly 70m behind the ball like some have claimed

 

[imperial_oz]

That vision is damning and you are 100% correct.

How that is worth only 2 weeks is atrocious and every neutral supporter i know is outraged by it and only seems to be the vocal Tiger supporters melting because the AFL is appealing it, which is exactly what they should be doing.

Ever seen the AFL appeal before?

I have no recollection of that occurring prior to this but I'm happy to be corrected. I've watched the footage a great many times and I'd agree that it looks intentional to me but considering god knows how many strikes have been dealt with with smaller sanctions, I wonder why the AFL decided to jump on this one? Again responding to public comment?

Frankly the AFL flops about like freshly caught blowie and is about as useful as the same.

I'd agree that Houli should have been given a bigger sanction but then again, so should a lot of other players in the past.

I'd just like a little consistency but I don't expect it in my lifetime

 

[kickazz]

The AFL are playing the long game and want to make sure they don't get sued or worse down the track due to their negligence when it comes to head injuries.

If a bloke gets knocked out, and the penalty dished out can at all be possibly seen as light, they are going to appeal, lest they be seen as not taking head injuries seriously.

 

[Blue1980]

Although I actually said 3-4 weeks was right in my opinion.

Which is fine, it's like the tribunal was worried about some OJ style race riots

 

[banzai]

By all means argue his exemplary record. But show me where it says the discount is a given?

Isnt that implied. Otherwise why have it in the guidelines at all?

 

[Arr0w]

Rather than all this debate, which is healthy, perhaps add a pole to this thread, as to how many games is fair and reasonable for this incident.

2
3
4

Then we should get a reasonable outcome here as well

 

[kickazz]

This is a cluster****. The decision is wrong and too lenient but what's the point of the AFL being able to appeal a decision made by people they appointed and in-trusted the decision with? Why even have a tribunal in that case? The possibility of drawing on character witnesses is dumb too, this is footy not the supreme court, but why hold it against Houli that he had 'good' ones? It defeats the whole purpose

The AFL put in the appeals process after clubs were taking tribunal decisions to court.
They can still do that now of course, but adding the extra layer makes it less likely and saves the AFL money.

 

[imperial_oz]

The way Lamb goes down already limp is how so many people suffer serious injury/death from king hits. Just no ability to protect themselves on the way down. You can't be going easy on that.

While you are correct in your description of the dangers of a strike like that, are you not going on the result rather than the act? Would Houli deserve 2 weeks if Lamb was only staggered and not KO'd?

The AFL seems to respond to outcomes rather than acts and I think thats hardly justice in any form. My 2c

 

[1970crow]

Main board worthy. When I heard that character references were part of the process, I thought it was the most ridiculous thing I'd ever heard. There's the act, there's the result and then there's whether you plead guilty or challenge. So Joe Smith who isn't the first anything special in the AFL world does the same thing and can't draw on support from the Prime Minister and the moron's smart person, how many weeks do they get? Must admit that I'm surprised the AFL has done the right thing here, but thankfully they have. Do the crime, get your whack, regardless of who you might be or who you might know.

 

[DemonZombie_001]

I think this is a very good legal move.

The A.F.L are stating they take Head High Impact very seriously, and as such challenging there own judgement panel over this. Pretty much what kickazz has said now that I read his post

No matter what type of bloke Houli is, 3 weeks would have to be the bare minimum for this in my opinion.

 

[db26]

I find it fascinating that they didn't find a systematic doping regime to be worthy of a suspension, but a suspension can be "too lenient"

Spot on !.add to that the tanking issues that were swept under the carpet because certain clubs were already struggling.

 

[TheExtractorFactor]

The AFL put in the appeals process after clubs were taking tribunal decisions to court.
They can still do that now of course, but adding the extra layer makes it less likely and saves the AFL money.

But the tribunal is an AFL department essentially is it not? The tribunal members are employed by the AFL, as are those who will be involved in appealing the decision

 

[DemonTim]

While you are correct in your description of the dangers of a strike like that, are you not going on the result rather than the act? Would Houli deserve 2 weeks if Lamb was only staggered and not KO'd?

The AFL seems to respond to outcomes rather than acts and I think thats hardly justice in any form. My 2c

Shouldn't you take into account both?