2017 MRP/Tribunal

The tribunal found it was intentional and was a hit to the head. In addition to concerns about character discounts unrelated to on field behaviour, the AFL could also be mindful of its potential liability for concussion. Does anyone recall the last penalty for an intentional hit to the head?

Jones was given 6 weeks for his hit on Gaff last year.
No character references.

1 Like

Around 1988 Terry Daniher knocked out all of Peter Daicos front teeth with a clear elbow - happened right on the boundary line at Waverley I reckon.

TD got a character reference from Ted Whitten of all people, & he got off! Even if it was argued it was a forearm instead of an elbow, he should have got weeks (mind you, Daicos should have been wearing a mouth guard too).

But I reckon it was a clear elbow & was gobsmacked he got off - the tribunal made up for it though after the 90 GF.

So after this does it go to CAS?

1 Like

Next it goes to The Project, Aly W presiding using gold Logie as gavel.

Ten needs the $$$$.

I thought it was going straight to parliament, where Malcolm will legislate to make it all ok.

What I don’t get is that you can intentionally bump a guy and accidently get him in the head and it’s classified as reckless but if you strike a guy aiming for his chest and accidently hit him in the head it is intentional.

But then Parker hit bags’s body in the chin so these Turkeys just make up whatever the fark they want.

Was Butler and Parker classified as reckless or intentional?

The best way would be to have the MRP toss a coin.

“Heads” and the player gets off.

“Tails” and two umpires are nominated to fight to the death.

ok, so i’m not the only one. so much unwarranted whinging in this story.

penalty was wrong, fix it, move on. who cares.

3 Likes

Going by the chart on the AFL site, for what it has determined to be intentional high impact high contact by Houli , the tribunal has given Houli the equivalent of the MRP base sanction for intentional medium impact body contact and less than the base sanction for intentional high impact body contact.
This should be fun, as AFL rules do not prescribe or appear to guide tribunal sanctions, rather that a case of high to severe impact for high/ groin contact goes to the tribunal.

but then how do i cry about waleed?

Has anyone claimed he got off lightly because he’s a muso yet?

AFL appealing on the basis that he played for Essendon previously

5 Likes

In case you hadn’t noticed, . the comments about Waleed are from the usual suspects.

(Did someone say racist?? )

When you look at the footage, it looks,- as Ivan said, - to be Bachar swinging his arm back to try and knock away the chasing players arm trying to retard him,. and it comes off that outstretched arm and/or shoulder and glances up to cop him in what must be a bit of a glass jaw, to drop as he did, out cold.

What was Lamb doing holding him in the first place?

It’s something that’s given me the shitts for a while now in this game, … there used to be a rule called holding the man, and you weren’t allowed to hold a player if he didn’t have the ball. If they actually policed it, Houli wouldn’t have had to try and break the grip from the arm illegally holding him.

Looking at it, as far as I can make out,… I think the case could be made not only for simply reckless, but completely accidental,… and would have been happy enough if they found that to be the case, and gave him nothing but a reprimand, adding “The Carlton player Lamb, should not have been illegally holding him, as player Houli wasn’t in possession of, and in fact, was not even within 5 metres of the ball” “We believe this should serve as a lesson for any player that chooses to illegally retard a player”

Does anyone here truly think Bachar intended to whack him in the chops?

What instrument does he play?

4 Likes

When you swing an arm like that it doesn’t matter what you want to guess his intention were - he hit him in the head. Even if you believe that contacting high was purely an accident its still the result of a reckless act that caused a severe impact on the player - he has to be judged on that. If the tribunal thought it was totally intentional then the penalty should be 6-8 weeks because the impact is similar to Hall on Staker. Houli’s obviously not as big as Hall, but a roundhouse swing like that can carry as much as a king hit. If you look at the MRP points, even giving Houli the benefit of the doubt, a negligent, high contact, severe impact charge is a level 4 offence which is 550 base points = 5 weeks before discounts

If he had Jeff Kennett and Tony Abbott as referees he would have got 8 weeks.

Hang on, so you are saying because Lamb was holding on to him it is okay for him to knock him out cold? That is a viable excuse?

Also he does not have a glass jaw, he got hit with one of the hardest parts of the human body to the side of the head, that would knock out even the most experienced boxer. One punch hits kill people so an elbow to the head could have been fatal.

While I agree that Houli didn’t intend to hit him in the head he did intend to hit him with a back arm swing. His attack was intentional, where he hit him wasn’t. But just because he got the wrong part of the body doesn’t negate the intent to hit. Based on intent and based on the dangerousness of his hit I can understand why people are saying 2 weeks isn’t enough.

2 Likes

Of course it was racist. He got the PM as a character reference partially as a result of his race and he has a reference by that turd from channel bankrupt partially because of his race. The tribunal was clearly influenced by those references. It’s difficult to argue therefore that race did not influence the decision.

I know you will take the PC route with everything but seriously take the blinkers off. You are happy to suggest that he was being provoked so it’s OK (imagine if that was a valid defense - every player would use it) but ignoring the impact (that type of hit can affect people in later life and could actually kill), the fact that it was not in play and even if it was accidental in an in play bump would have attracted more weeks. Clearly you are so wrong that even the PC AFL are seeing this as an inadequate penalty.

I know the type of responses I’ll get for posting this but happy to call it how it is.

From my perspective it’s at least a 6 week penalty. He deserves some leniency because his record is clean so should end up with 4-5.

3 Likes

I don’t care about Richmond’s defense.
But are you seriously suggesting Houli’s offence was as bad as this?
Incomparable, in my opinion. If Houli deserves five then Bickley should have got ten.