Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 20

Thread: Bachar Houli Suspension

  1. #1
    Senior Player Matty10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Southbank, VIC
    Posts
    1,323

    Bachar Houli Suspension

    The suspension of Houli by the AFL Tribunal is a little worrying in some respects - and so was his defence.

    Bachar Houli's suspension halved thanks to Malcolm Turnbull and Waleed Aly

    It seems a bit rich that Houli, as reported, received a lesser penalty by 2 weeks based on references related to his off-field character. This should not play any part in the penalty. The only consideration should be how he has conducted himself on the field over his career, which has essentially been in the spirit of the game. I would have been happy for him to receive a 3 week suspension (4 week grading knocked down to 3 based on his on-field record).

    It seems bizarre that he was graded 'intentional', but not to the head, when Lambs arm was alongside Houli and the fact that he turned his head before swinging with force.

    Sure, he might not have meant to knock him out, but he did. It was an act of frustration and possibly mindlessness, but it was not a football act intended to simply stop Lamb from holding on. His action was designed to punish him, whether consciously or not, and this should have been the starting point.

    Is the precedent at the tribunal such that you can present famous individuals as character references to receive a lesser penalty?

    It is a ridiculous outcome.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #2
    Two weeks for this is ridiculous. That's a clear 4-6 week incident. The panel were probably scared of inflicting a deserved penalty for fear of being labelled as racist.

    Maybe Barry Hall should appeal his hit on Brent Staker? This incident was just as bad as Hall's hit. The incidents were similar as both recipients were hanging onto the offender. The only difference being that Hall used his fist and Houli used his elbow.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by S.S. Bleeder View Post
    Two weeks for this is ridiculous. That's a clear 4-6 week incident. The panel were probably scared of inflicting a deserved penalty for fear of being labelled as racist.

    Maybe Barry Hall should appeal his hit on Brent Staker? This incident was just as bad as Hall's hit. The incidents were similar as both recipients were hanging onto the offender. The only difference being that Hall used his fist and Houli used his elbow.
    Really horrible decision. It's a 4 week penalty, 3 weeks with early guilty plea. If character and past history are now factors in getting a set penalty reduced, the tribunal have just created a lot more work for themselves. Maybe they are paid by the hour?

  4. #4
    Senior Player Matty10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Southbank, VIC
    Posts
    1,323
    ...and now the AFL has appealed the Tribunal's decision:

    'Manifestly inadequate': AFL appeals Houli ban - AFL.com.au

  5. #5
    Goodesgoodesgoodesgoodes! Industrial Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Doughnuts don't wear alligator shoes
    Posts
    3,266
    Any comparison between that hit and Halls on staker are ridiculous.

    Having said that, Hodge got two weeks for his atrocious hit on wingard a year or two ago. That was a front on targeted hit to the head. That should have got more weeks(still one of the most dangerous things I've seen on a footy field - but still in a different category to Hall), but it ended up with two.

    In this case you'd think Houli should get longer, but I don't think any result between 2-4 weeks is cause for outrage.

    With his heritage it sets off both aggressors and apologists so it's even harder to land on a rational result.

  6. #6
    Senior Player Matty10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Southbank, VIC
    Posts
    1,323
    Quote Originally Posted by Industrial Fan View Post
    In this case you'd think Houli should get longer, but I don't think any result between 2-4 weeks is cause for outrage.

    With his heritage it sets off both aggressors and apologists so it's even harder to land on a rational result.
    It was the manner in which the decision was reached that has caused most of the outrage.

    Having said that, I do find it funny that the panel on Monday night's Talking Footy and Robbo on 360 all thought that two weeks was a reasonable outcome and are now screaming about the decision.

    However, I do find Houli's action inconsistent with his words. You cannot claim something is not in your nature (or part of the life you choose to lead) if you actually do it.

    Houli certainly seemed concerned with the outcome after the game, but he actually stopped short of apologising (from what I have gathered from the interviews he made - it is possible he said these words privately). But it is not as if he stopped in his tracks after decking Lamb, or put his hand up to call the trainers - he kept on running. There is an incongruity with these actions and his suggestion that he was "shocked" Lamb was on the ground. I am not sure where else he could have been.

    The more I watch the reply the less inclined I am to give him the benefit of the doubt (as to intent). His insistence at the tribunal that it was not intentional lacks the sense of contrition that his action warrants.

    3 weeks is fine, 2 is ridiculous (particularly in the way that the decision was reached). The footage speaks volumes and his on-field record should count for something, but the verdict should not have been halved.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #7
    They should never have removed the word "reckless" from their charge options. Houli's case fits squarely into that category IMO. He wasn't trying to hit him where he did but it was a reckless action, which means above careless but below intentional. Reckless action, high impact then it fits squarely into the 4-5 week grading I'd guess.

    I have no problem with him getting a discount on the grounds of him never having been reported or charged before though. I also have no problem with him getting character references. His defence can do whatever it likes, it's up to the Panel to decide which evidence they'll admit and consider.
    Today's a draft of your epitaph

  8. #8
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717

    Bachar Houli Suspension

    Quote Originally Posted by Matty10 View Post

    3 weeks is fine, 2 is ridiculous (particularly in the way that the decision was reached). The footage speaks volumes and his on-field record should count for something, but the verdict should not have been halved.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    The verdict wasn't halved (you are not the only one saying this). The MRP assessed the incident as intentional conduct with high impact to the head for which there is no set penalty. It goes straight to the Tribunal for their assessment, and any penalty determined by the Tribunal is at their absolute discretion.

    I also note that 2-match penalty is the same as Melbourne's Hogan got for an unquestionably intentional, behind-the-play punch in the head of Sam Rowe. Admittedly Rowe played out the match but he was diagnosed with delayed concussion. (I don't recall if Rowe played the subsequent week.)

  9. #9
    I'm doing ok right now, thanks Danzar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Inner West
    Posts
    1,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Industrial Fan View Post
    Any comparison between that hit and Halls on staker are ridiculous.

    Having said that, Hodge got two weeks for his atrocious hit on wingard a year or two ago. That was a front on targeted hit to the head. That should have got more weeks(still one of the most dangerous things I've seen on a footy field - but still in a different category to Hall), but it ended up with two.

    In this case you'd think Houli should get longer, but I don't think any result between 2-4 weeks is cause for outrage.

    With his heritage it sets off both aggressors and apologists so it's even harder to land on a rational result.
    Hodge seems to carry the aura of a permanent, standing character reference.

    I won't comment on whether the length of the suspension is fair, but the basis of the decision is wrong and sets a huge precedent for any influential club or player to secure a reprieve in future tribunals.
    Captain, I am detecting large quantities of win in this sector

  10. #10
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717
    Danzar, if by 'the basis of the decision' you are referring to the character references, then I point out that the MRP Guidelines specifically allow for that, as below:

    "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."

    And:

    "The Tribunal Jury will determine the appropriate sanction for a Direct Tribunal Offence in its absolute discretion."

    My interpretation of the verdict is that the Tribunal probably found the act of the strike to be intentional (as by Houli's own statement he was trying to shake off Lamb's hold on his jumper by striking his arm) but they did not believe Houli had intentionally hit Lamb in the head.

    In support of that view I note that Matt Stevic was called upon to give evidence. It was said that he wasn't the controlling umpire at the time and was about 35m away from the contest, with what he said was an unobstructed view. Stevic said he believed it should have been graded careless because Houli wasn't looking at Lamb.

    Had the strike been graded as careless, with high contact and high impact the MRP would have assessed it as a 3-match penalty down to 2 with an early plea, without referral to the Tribunal.

    I suspect the Tribunal took into account Houli's unblemished record (in lieu of being able to offer a one-match discount) in determining the 2-match penalty.

    All of this is just assumption on my part of course.

    And re a comment above by Matty10, Houli did apologise - he got Lamb's number from a Carlton staffer and sent Lamb an apology after the match (as well as apologising to two Carlton players).

  11. #11
    I'm doing ok right now, thanks Danzar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Inner West
    Posts
    1,961
    Both the character references and the response to those references, which on the optics of the referees, sets a precedent.

    It's tough, but you have two extremely high profile people giving a character reference in a sports tribunal hearing that leads to a big reduction in a penalty. We can debate penalty all we want, but this brings in an element into sport that we haven't seen at this level. I'm not saying there has never been referees from high profile people, but the PM, even Waleed? How well do they know Bachar such that it warrants them providing a reference, knowing full well it would attract such attention?

    It doesn't sit well and opens the pathway to other players to secure high profile referees to back character in a hearing.
    Captain, I am detecting large quantities of win in this sector

  12. #12
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717
    Actually the PM didn't provide a reference to the Tribunal: the words of praise of Houli that the PM had used at an Eid event to celebrate the end of Ramadan were tendered to the Tribunal.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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