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

[Arr0w]

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

I could hold an opponent, 60 metres off the ball, that's not in play

Well if someone has claimed it was 70 metres off the ball, they have no idea

It was around 10 metres away, to the right and slighty behind, a Richmond player, who had ball in hand about to kick it I50

So to me, it was just "out of play"

 

[Bokonon_]

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

What pisses me off if I wasn't clear is this is about an incident in a game. It's now gonna be a circus. You wouldn't have to be a genius to see it coming and avoid it.

 

[Arr0w]

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

Just because you can argue the fact, doesn't mean a discount should be awarded

 

[db26]

AFL showing some character. Good to see.

Yeah would have been good to see this through all the doping scandals last 10 years that were swept under the carpet and penalties were weake, add to that the deliberately tanking by clubs went unpunished because they were already struggling.

 

[evo]

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

I think nearly everyone, including most Richmond supporters, think 3 weeks is about right.
`

 

[banzai]

Just because you can argue the fact, doesn't mean a discount should be awarded

No of course it doesnt, but a player never reported before in 10 years or whatever hes played, is likely to get one. Now I agree giving a 2 week discount was over the top, but he was always going to get atleast 1.

 

[ABSOLUTE MADMAN]

Hilarious if in the end Houli obliterated his reputation in the public eye for no gain.

 

[Frank Bunn]

I believe his action was to throw his arm back to stop the jumper tugging of the Blues player nothing more. It's probably part of the reason he had character referees to vouch for him.

Malcolm Turnbull, Waleed Aly and the AFL diversity officer are not qualified to judge whether Houli's intention was to stop his jumper being tugged.

I think the reason the Richmond defence team played the 'character' card was because they feared the punishment might be severe and wanted to limit it to 4 weeks rather than more. The tribunal is in the wrong by its decision not Richmond.

I have no problem with thugs being held accountable but Bachar is far from the thug some are calling him for (not you but just generalising).

Houli is not a thug but he performed a thuggish act. Instead of saying I didn't mean to do, I wouldn't do that because I'm religious and peaceful etc he should have fessed up. Something like -

In a moment of frustration and thoughtlessness I lashed out and injured a fellow professional. I take responsibility for my actions and deeply regret them. I have taken steps to apologise to Jed Lamb. I would hope that my good disciplinary record is taken into account when judging me for this out of character incident.​

 

[Andronicus]

Not going to be waste my time, I'm happy to have a reasonable discussion, clearly that's beyond your capabilities.

Lol.

You begin your reasonable discussion by calling me an idiot.

You ignore what everyone else can see as an obvious point, and finish by saying a reasonable discussion is beyond my capabilities.

That high horse you are trying to sit on is nothing more than a cane toad.

 

[Simche]

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.

I don't think you understand how the tort of negligence works. A tribunal decision on a perpetrator will have precisely zero impact on AFL liability. In this instance they aren't even the negligent party.

Let's all be realistic, a bunch of explayers were swayed by some pretty persuasive submissions by extremely expensive lawyers citing a whole bunch of un-footy related activities. It wasn't within the purview of what they should have taken into account when judging the incident and it has rightly been appealed.

The carry on from some people however around the actual incident itself is quite pathetic. I have seen worse incidents given the same and lesser infractions given more. The way that the classifications are now it should have been four down to three due to never being reported and the whole circus would have been avoided.

I'm also a little phased by the whole consequence based classifications. Realistically a punch is a punch and the force associated with a punch to the stomach or chest can kill if applied to the right spot. Houli caught Lamb flush on the sweet spot and will cop the consequences. I'm pretty convinced though that if you want to eradicate the behaviour you focus on the action itself as opposed to waiting for the worst case scenario to arise. If you applied mandatory two match bans for every punch (regardless of force and body zone) you'd find that players stop doing it pretty quickly.






On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[HumanMeatball]

Malcolm Turnbull, Waleed Aly and the AFL diversity officer are not qualified to judge whether Houli's intention was to stop his jumper being tugged.

I think the reason the Richmond defence team played the 'character' card was because they feared the punishment might be severe and wanted to limit it to 4 weeks rather than more. The tribunal is in the wrong by its decision not Richmond.



Houli is not a thug but he performed a thuggish act. Instead of saying I didn't mean to do, I wouldn't do that because I'm religious and peaceful etc he should have fessed up. Something like -

In a moment of frustration and thoughtlessness I lashed out and injured a fellow professional. I take responsibility for my actions and deeply regret them. I have taken steps to apologise to Jed Lamb. I would hope that my good disciplinary record is taken into account when judging me for this out of character incident.​

Why admit to something he doesn't believe to be true?

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

Interested to see who his character reference is this time. Dalai Lama or Mick Molloy is my guess.

I asked my boss today If I could have 2 weeks off if I bought in two character references. He was willing to give me 4 weeks.

If only the tribunal seen things in the same manner.

 

[HumanMeatball]

He will get 3 which is fair then everyone can find the next thing to be outraged about

 

[kickazz]

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

I suppose it can be compared to VCAT, magistrates, county, supreme etc. They too all come under the one body. Courts can make mistakes so there is a hierarchy of appeal.

You could say that the AFL has put in place its own judicial process, and where an outcome appears to have not complied then they've created an extra level where it can be reassessed, within the boundaries of the AFL's specialist jurisdiction, without wasting the courts' time.

 

[imperial_oz]

Shouldn't you take into account both?

No, not in my opinion.

Swinging an elbow, intentionally at a blokes head, can have a range of outcomes but the essential elements that form the offence are unchanged. ie I elbow player A intentionally but Player A for whatever reason gets a black eye, goes down but is otherwise undamaged. Same scenario on player B, catches him just right and he goes down unconscious and has a severe concussion. Same scenario on player C, unconscious, goes down, hits his head wrong and several days later dies in hospital.

Same act, different consequences. In my view the act should be sanctioned based on events controlled by the infringer.

The different consequences may result in additional offences being committed ie additional charges such as manslaughter or whatever.

I am of the view that an intentional elbow to the head should attract a severe penalty by default not just when the outcome is a poor one. Others may hold a different view

 

[kickazz]

I don't think you understand how the tort of negligence works. A tribunal decision on a perpetrator will have precisely zero impact on AFL liability. In this instance they aren't even the negligent party.

Maybe not get sued or anything, but could it lead to a situation where the AFLs judicial framework is deemed inadequate, leaving them either directly penalised, or losing some autonomy (which could cost money)?

 

[Grrr]

Hilarious if in the end Houli obliterated his reputation in the public eye for no gain.

Please explain.

 

[DemonTim]

No, not in my opinion.

Swinging an elbow, intentionally at a blokes head, can have a range of outcomes but the essential elements that form the offence are unchanged. ie I elbow player A intentionally but Player A for whatever reason gets a black eye, goes down but is otherwise undamaged. Same scenario on player B, catches him just right and he goes down unconscious and has a severe concussion. Same scenario on player C, unconscious, goes down, hits his head wrong and several days later dies in hospital.

Same act, different consequences. In my view the act should be sanctioned based on events controlled by the infringer.

The different consequences may result in additional offences being committed ie additional charges such as manslaughter or whatever.

I am of the view that an intentional elbow to the head should attract a severe penalty by default not just when the outcome is a poor one. Others may hold a different view

So you want to discount the result of the action, and you would judge force based on?

Seems very stupid to ignore the result of an illegal action. Also seems stupid two judge two elbows to the head with results at either extreme as the same.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Why admit to something he doesn't believe to be true?

Hard to say for sure but religious people have to reconcile a whole lot of irrationality.

It's possibly due to resolving the cognitive dissonance between the concepts 'I'm a peaceful, religious person' with 'I've just belted someone unconscious'.

 

[HumanMeatball]

Hard to say for sure but religious people have to reconcile a whole lot of irrationality.

It's possibly due to resolving the cognitive dissonance between the concepts 'I'm a peaceful, religious person' with 'I've just belted someone unconscious'.

Leave religion out of it

 

[Blue1980]

Waleed Aly is a left wing Muslim who co-hosts a reasonably popular prime time commercial TV show. This pisses off conservatives.

I'm more left of centre, doesn't change that Aly is as opportunistic as Andrew Bolt to pay the bills

 

[rampar]

Why did he plead not guilty?

 

[Blue1980]

What pisses me off if I wasn't clear is this is about an incident in a game. It's now gonna be a circus. You wouldn't have to be a genius to see it coming and avoid it.

Correct, maybe they could of, I don't know, treated it like they treat every other case?

 

[Philth]

Tribunal brought this upon themselves. If it's unintentional, high/high, then three down to two is precisely as expected. The moment you deem it deliberate though you open the door to the argument that the punishment should accordingly be higher.

Yep, well summed up. I guess they'll give him another match and that's fair enough.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

Leave religion out of it

Houli brought religion into it.