Page 34 of 35 FirstFirst ... 24303132333435 LastLast
Results 397 to 408 of 413

Thread: Match Day Rnd 14 Sydney V Essendon. SCG 19.50 pm.

  1. #397
    I'm not sure if this has been covered, but what was Newman doing in the goal square anyway? Was he tagging a bombers forward who had gone into defence? Or was he improvising? Either way, I was happy he was there ...

  2. #398
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717
    Bachar Houli is currently in front of the tribunal. There has been some discussion about the grading of Houli's strike as intentional. Houli is clearly very upset about any implication that he intentionally hit Lamb to cause serious injury. However from the way the MRP guidelines are currently written, I think technically it is probably accurate to assess the strike as intentional.

    It will be interesting to see what the tribunal has to say. I do feel for Houli who seems to be a very decent man. And as he has already said to the tribunal, every week he (and other players) has an opposing player hanging on to him to impede his run.

  3. #399
    I really like watching the Houli chap play footy ... looks like he was just trying to break the tag just like Dusty does with his really vigorous fendoffs .

  4. #400
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    Bachar Houli is currently in front of the tribunal. There has been some discussion about the grading of Houli's strike as intentional. Houli is clearly very upset about any implication that he intentionally hit Lamb to cause serious injury. However from the way the MRP guidelines are currently written, I think technically it is probably accurate to assess the strike as intentional.

    It will be interesting to see what the tribunal has to say. I do feel for Houli who seems to be a very decent man. And as he has already said to the tribunal, every week he (and other players) has an opposing player hanging on to him to impede his run.
    Houlis clearly guilty. He looks to see where Lamb is before he does it. I don't see how he could possibly argue that it wasn't intentional. As for his arguement that he gets hung onto every week, he's no different to every other player in the AFL, especially our midfielders.
    Last edited by S.S. Bleeder; 27th June 2017 at 10:34 PM.

  5. #401
    Quote Originally Posted by S.S. Bleeder View Post
    Houlis clearly guilty. He looks to see where Lamb is before he does it. I don't see how he could possibly argue that it wasn't intentional. As for his arguement that he gets hung onto every week, he's no different to every other player in the AFL, especially our midfielders.
    my understanding from skimming the coverage is that he acknowledges the strike was intentional.

    I don't see how you can call the footage on the Franklin goal inconclusive. The pvr has defeated me (for now), but it was very clearly touched. There is no other possible explanation for the very clear finger movement.

  6. #402
    Veterans List dejavoodoo44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    7,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    Bachar Houli is currently in front of the tribunal. There has been some discussion about the grading of Houli's strike as intentional. Houli is clearly very upset about any implication that he intentionally hit Lamb to cause serious injury. However from the way the MRP guidelines are currently written, I think technically it is probably accurate to assess the strike as intentional.

    It will be interesting to see what the tribunal has to say. I do feel for Houli who seems to be a very decent man. And as he has already said to the tribunal, every week he (and other players) has an opposing player hanging on to him to impede his run.
    Yes, and also from the Tribunal, Schofield has been cleared, because it was decided that the contact to the jaw was negligible. Does this now mean that Oliver should be charged with diving? Or are they satisfied, that a negligible blow could cause a player to drop to the ground?

  7. #403
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    Bachar Houli is currently in front of the tribunal. There has been some discussion about the grading of Houli's strike as intentional. Houli is clearly very upset about any implication that he intentionally hit Lamb to cause serious injury. However from the way the MRP guidelines are currently written, I think technically it is probably accurate to assess the strike as intentional.

    It will be interesting to see what the tribunal has to say. I do feel for Houli who seems to be a very decent man. And as he has already said to the tribunal, every week he (and other players) has an opposing player hanging on to him to impede his run.
    No idea how this topic has ended up in this forum let alone this thread.

    As far as Houli is claiming his strike was not intentional he has apparently either not received or not understood legal advice. He admits meaning to strike Lamb between his shoulder and elbow - there's the intention. The intention doesn't relate to where he intended to strike or what consequence he intended as a result. However, those things are relevant to the assessment of the penalty. If it is accepted (as seems likely) that he did only intend to strike Lamb on the arm and certainly not to hurt him/knock him out, then that goes some way to explaining the lenient sentence. I think combined with his exemplary record over a long playing career and topped up with his 'good bloke' record out of footy, that means the sentence may not be found to be manifestly inadequate. Conversely, it is fair to point out a two week ban is only a week longer than some much less serious offences and where is the consistency? It is also fair to point out that given Houli struck with enough force to knock Lamb out, there was obviously something a long way short of care for his opponent and he does deserve to be penalised accordingly. Just because you have never snapped before doesn't mean there can't be a first time.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by dejavoodoo44 View Post
    Yes, and also from the Tribunal, Schofield has been cleared, because it was decided that the contact to the jaw was negligible. Does this now mean that Oliver should be charged with diving? Or are they satisfied, that a negligible blow could cause a player to drop to the ground?
    Nice point!

  8. #404
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717
    Quote Originally Posted by bloodspirit View Post
    No idea how this topic has ended up in this forum let alone this thread.
    My fault - but earlier in this thread we had a very brief discussion of the MRP use of the term 'intentional'. I said at the time that there is a lot of confusion about it. I also commented earlier re Parker being fined for a 'careless' act in the Essendon game (which might have been assessed as 'intentional').

  9. #405
    Veterans List aardvark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Down South
    Posts
    5,676
    Afl has appealed the Houli decision as being manifestly inadequate.

  10. #406
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,096
    Quote Originally Posted by aardvark View Post
    Afl has appealed the Houli decision as being manifestly inadequate.
    I'm glad they've done this. 2 weeks was way too lenient especially when you compare to Jones last week and Hawkins the other week.

    But as Meg mentioned above, I thought Parker was very lucky. As a team we have to be careful that our aggression doesn't go over the top and cost the team.

  11. #407
    Senior Player Swansongster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    St Kilda West
    Posts
    1,260
    Quote Originally Posted by aardvark View Post
    Afl has appealed the Houli decision as being manifestly inadequate.
    Way to keep a media frenzy going (or is that the desired outcome?). I hope this doesn't descend into an islamophobic social media event to rival the racist hounding Goodesy received a few years ago. It's already getting ugly online.

    I think the MRP process got it about right. We all should have just moved on.

  12. #408
    Quote Originally Posted by Mel_C View Post
    I'm glad they've done this. 2 weeks was way too lenient especially when you compare to Jones last week and Hawkins the other week.

    But as Meg mentioned above, I thought Parker was very lucky. As a team we have to be careful that our aggression doesn't go over the top and cost the team.
    I loved Horse's comment today when asked about Zak's suspension. He said that unfortunately, Zak doesn't know any politicians or celebrities which was why he got the one week.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO