Paul Medhurst - How Many Weeks?

[Wizard]

Houlihan had the ball so that works in his favour, elbow was tucked in. I'm in agreeance with the commentators nothing in it.

Gets just wants him to get two weeks cos we play them soon.

 

[Wizard]

He should get 3 weeks just for the way he carried on last night.

Paul "tough guy" Medhurst ... wow ... you must be real tough to flatten Marc Murphy and Princess Houlihan !!

How about you try it on someone like Fev now ?? ... Coward.

What so big tough guy Fev can try and gouge his eyes out?

 

[Wizard]

1 or 2?

Surely he has to go for that bump on Houlihan.

There is no difference to the bump Stenglein layed on Eckermann.

High contact and it is reportable.

My guess is one week.

There was a difference, Houlihan got back up Eckers got stretchered off.

 

[theorangeapple]

There was a difference, Houlihan got back up Eckers got stretchered off.

But its not Stenglien's fault he is 190cm and 90kgs and Eckerman is smaller than most yr11's at 178cm and 77kgs. Quite a size different.

Medhurst is smaller than Houlihan.

 

[juzza316]

Houlihan had the ball so that works in his favour, elbow was tucked in. I'm in agreeance with the commentators nothing in it.

Gets just wants him to get two weeks cos we play them soon.

No he didn't, but he was only a few metres from the ball. He will get a week, reduced to a slap on the wrist I think.

 

[MRobbo]

Paul Medhurst should get 2 weeks (maybe 1 week with Early Plea)

It was high contact with elbow and no need for it to happen. The elbow came up before he hit Houlihan.

 

[Wizard]

Paul Medhurst should get 2 weeks (maybe 1 week with Early Plea)

It was high contact with elbow and no need for it to happen. The elbow came up before he hit Houlihan.

No it didn;t.

 

[Slacker]

No it didn;t.

It was tewwibly high. Who's up for some netball???

 

[Roughie]

His elbow was tucked in, it was just a good bump above the shoulder which equals a free kick, no weeks.

 

[C4[2]Yo`DooR]

Houlihan had the ball so that works in his favour, elbow was tucked in. I'm in agreeance with the commentators nothing in it.

Gets just wants him to get two weeks cos we play them soon.

No he didn't.

 

[Gets!]

Houlihan had the ball so that works in his favour, elbow was tucked in. I'm in agreeance with the commentators nothing in it.

Gets just wants him to get two weeks cos we play them soon.

Yeah thats it. Because Medhurst is a worry to the Crows and all

 

[Wizard]

Yeah thats it. Because Medhurst is a worry to the Crows and all

If i were an opposing side i would put a lot of time into him. He isn;t the same player this eyar as he has been in past years. He is now a half forwrd that picks up 15 touches a week rather than a forward pocket that gets two touches.

 

[ThePope]

Houlihan did have the ball. He grabbed it just before he was collected and it spilt once he was hit. I'll post a screen capture later tonight.

If Medhurst gets a week for this he should put on a bib and pleated skirt before he faces the media.

The other joke about this is that his 87 games from 4 years without a guilty verdict means nothing in terms of good behaviour, but someone like Livingstone (43 games), McDougall(37) or Hadley (27) who has been on a list for 5 years, but played much less games would get a 25% reduction! They should have 5 years or 50 games or similar as the requirement. Pretty easy to have a good record playing WAFL/VFL/SANFL or sitting in the stands injured.

If they do need to plea bargain it out, he should be able to get it down to negligent, not reckless.

From the tribunal 2006 guidelines

Recklessness requires evidence, drawn from observations, that
the person recognised there was a risk of a reportable offence, but
proceeded to act nonetheless, not caring whether or not the action
resulted in a reportable offence.

Negligent means the failure to take due care to avoid any
consequences that could reasonably be foreseen to result in a
reportable offence. It requires evidence, drawn from observations,
that the act or failure to act, resulted in behaviour that a reasonable
person would not regard as prudent in the circumstances.
Negligence is different from intentional and reckless in that it does
not require a deliberate desire to commit a reportable offence or
a reckless disregard for whether or not the action resulted in a
reportable offence.​

His desire was to lay a solid bump on a player, who had the ball when he made contact, which I hope is not a reportable offence. Houlihan slipped, causing contact to the head, which definitely earnt him a free kick, but I still don't see it as reportable. If it is, then why are the commentators complaining about kicking backwards ruining the game. Reporting things like this is ruining the game.

 

[itsintheblood]

1 or 2?

Surely he has to go for that bump on Houlihan.

There is no difference to the bump Stenglein layed on Eckermann.

High contact and it is reportable.

My guess is one week.

I think you'll find most carlton fans would have loved seeing houlihan cop a bit of rough stuff. He's often on the receiving end of "soft" taunts from his fans.

 

[ThePope]

Both Stenglein vs Eckermann and Ricciuto vs Selwood were deemed to be negligent, not reckless.

 

[ThePope]

Both Stenglein vs Eckermann and Ricciuto vs Selwood were deemed to be negligent, not reckless.

 

[Blues_Man]

Houlihan did have the ball. He grabbed it just before he was collected and it spilt once he was hit. I'll post a screen capture later tonight.

If Medhurst gets a week for this he should put on a bib and pleated skirt before he faces the media.

The other joke about this is that his 87 games from 4 years without a guilty verdict means nothing in terms of good behaviour, but someone like Livingstone (43 games), McDougall(37) or Hadley (27) who has been on a list for 5 years, but played much less games would get a 25% reduction! They should have 5 years or 50 games or similar as the requirement. Pretty easy to have a good record playing WAFL/VFL/SANFL or sitting in the stands injured.

If they do need to plea bargain it out, he should be able to get it down to negligent, not reckless.

From the tribunal 2006 guidelines

Recklessness requires evidence, drawn from observations, that
the person recognised there was a risk of a reportable offence, but
proceeded to act nonetheless, not caring whether or not the action
resulted in a reportable offence.

Negligent means the failure to take due care to avoid any
consequences that could reasonably be foreseen to result in a
reportable offence. It requires evidence, drawn from observations,
that the act or failure to act, resulted in behaviour that a reasonable
person would not regard as prudent in the circumstances.
Negligence is different from intentional and reckless in that it does
not require a deliberate desire to commit a reportable offence or
a reckless disregard for whether or not the action resulted in a
reportable offence.​

His desire was to lay a solid bump on a player, who had the ball when he made contact, which I hope is not a reportable offence. Houlihan slipped, causing contact to the head, which definitely earnt him a free kick, but I still don't see it as reportable. If it is, then why are the commentators complaining about kicking backwards ruining the game. Reporting things like this is ruining the game.

gee you know your stuff ...so how did it all go for Medhurst ?? lol

edit : just watched the replay frame by frame and you are wrong on a number of points :
1 : Medhurst had the elbow raised during contact
2 : he hit Houlihan in the head with the elbow
3 : Houlihan had not slipped ..he was standing upright and had just taken possession of the ball

Clearly it is not okay for players to make head high contact using forearms or elbows...just because the player is from your team doesn't mean he should get preferential treatment

 

[Wizard]

Dockers are appealing the one match suspension offered.

 

[Ted38]

Dockers are appealing the one match suspension offered.

Waste of time money and rresources! He deserves 2 weeks for his Pickett like sniper action.

 

[ThePope]

edit : just watched the replay frame by frame and you are wrong on a number of points :
1 : Medhurst had the elbow raised during contact
2 : he hit Houlihan in the head with the elbow
3 : Houlihan had not slipped ..he was standing upright and had just taken possession of the ball

Clearly it is not okay for players to make head high contact using forearms or elbows...just because the player is from your team doesn't mean he should get preferential treatment

1 & 2. Like most bumps, the elbow pops up after contact, not during the contact.
3. Houlihan is 187cm, Medhurst is 178cm. Medhurst did not jump. Please explain how he could hit him in the head without Houlihan slipping/crouching.

No, it's not okay, but it was worth a free kick (because head high contact was unintentionally made). Nothing more.

and like I've said before, the two cases that are most similar, Stenglein vs Eckermann and Riccuito vs Selwood were both negligent, not reckless. I can't recall, but did Eckermann/Selwood have the ball when they were hit or were they shepherds?

 

[Blues_Man]

1 & 2. Like most bumps, the elbow pops up after contact, not during the contact.
3. Houlihan is 187cm, Medhurst is 178cm. Medhurst did not jump. Please explain how he could hit him in the head without Houlihan slipping/crouching.

Houlihans knees were slightly bent ..and during contact both of medhursts feet clear the ground ...so thats how

No, it's not okay, but it was worth a free kick (because head high contact was unintentionally made). Nothing more.

this is where your football knowledge is lacking ...head high hits by raised elbows are almost always brough up before the tribunal .
as for being intentional ..who knows ?..in the replay it shows medhurst lning him up from a long way away ..so it was almost certain intentional

 

[cobba]

0 weeks

 

[cobba]

0 weeks

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Well the AFL would want to show some consistency on this issue this year after letting Medhurst downgrade to escape suspension.

I can guarantee that someone in a similar situation will get done this year. It might not have been an intentional head high shot but it did get him in the head and the head is sacrosanct. You will see plenty of nothing incidents get weeks this year and somebody will feel hard done by.

I don't care about this one myself but I will be looking for consistency.

 

[surfsup]

this is where your football knowledge is lacking ...

Yes well.