Houli reported; suspension doubled from 2 to 4 weeks after AFL appeal [updated]

[Owl]

you seriously think he tried to knock him out, stuff off
and I have boxed and ill tell you from experience you don't fight with your back to your opponent 

[Francois Jackson]

johnny ralph has spoken to the afl. all good now

trying to make amends for missing out on the top gong is ralphy and is slowly turning into a flog much like the rest of them.

[(•))(©™]

Basher.

Say no more

[tony_montana]

I just saw that the AFL is funding the 'Bachar Houli' Academy. A component of its charter is to impart Muslim Identity and 'Religious' studies.  . My first year back as a member in 4 years will be my last. I'll not be party to this treachery.

http://www.aflcommunityclub.com.au/index.php?id=1907

The Academy is all about giving opportunities and providing a pathway for young Muslim men aspiring to play AFL football. The program focuses on strengthening player’s leadership abilities, build a brotherhood and provide a unique football development opportunity for young Muslim men, as well as giving the participants the opportunity to learn about their identity and Religion.


Total silence from the SJW's on why it's so non inclusive of all people groups. 

........... meanwhile my wife (a kinder teacher) isn't allowed to sing or teach any "religious" or "Christian sounding" Christmas carols at this years end of year kinder Christmas production for the kindergarden graduates because it might offend people. 

But let's learn more about Islam so we can all learn the songs they sing.

... Better yet let's bring in Waleeds Mrs to teach the kids if their not Muslim they are second class citizens and even worse if they happen to be women. 

Even better,  keep Christian or any other cult songs out of kinders or school, do it in church, leave the magical thinking in the temples and don't indoctrinate children, let them grow up and make their own choices.

You want to get rid of christmas for the kiddies? 
scrooge has nothing on you

[big tone]

How can you call something intentional when it all happened in a few tenths of a second?

Wowee!
Are you serious?

If it isn't intentional what is it? Did he mean to swing his are and hit Lamb?

Or did his arm accidentally swing back and hit Lamb in the face and knock him out before he hit the ground?

The facts are if you swing your arm, which is the same as throwing a punch, and it hits someone in the face and the player gets knocked out, you are in trouble. Arguing that he potentially try to hit him somewhere else is plain stupid.
He did the crime and needs to do the time and 2 weeks is ridiculous.

I'd like to know what you would think if it was your son on the receiving end of the same incident?

The AFL has done the correct thing in appealing this.

Really? If it was my son, I would accept the players word for it. The fact is, the AFL has this careless vs intentional differentiation. They need to be consistent. Nat Fyfe knocked a guy to the ground with swinging an elbow back. Just because he didn't get knocked unconscious is through luck not intent. Fyfe didn't get a single week as it was deemed careless. What's the difference? Buddy took Edwards out running past the ball and got off as it was deemed careless.

Come on mate, we know you hate Houli but the AFL must show consistency. That is there only way of being credible.

I do dislike Houli, no question but this is about him throwing his arm back to strike Lamb and he knocked him out. Simple!
It's like if you decide to bump instead of tackle and you get the player high, you will be reported and suspended. It's your decision of what you do.
Houli made the DECISION (intentional) to throw his arm back and he got Lamb high with enough force to knock him out. It doesn't matter if Lamb was bent over, falling over, it's irrelevant, he got him in the head and he didn't take any more part in the game.
The AFL is consistent about protecting the players head, that is why this has been appealed.
4 weeks at a minimum imo.

[lamington]

The head is sacred notion that gets peddled around a lot is a crock of poo. How many players get a knee to the face or the back of the head in a speccy? But the speccy is a good way to sell the game so a knee to the back of the head is ok.

If Fyfe got off and Toby got one week I think 2 weeks fits the crime. A harsher punishment sets a precedent to allow players to scrag and play the man not the ball also knowing the person they are trying to take out of the play can't retaliate

[wayne]

There has been jumper punching for years, then Cotch does it against Freo and all of a sudden there is outrage.

There has been staging for free kicks for years, then Rance does it against Sydney and all of a sudden there is outrage.

Now this Houli incident. Why are we in the gun so much?

[Knighter]

There has been jumper punching for years, then Cotch does it against Freo and all of a sudden there is outrage.

There has been staging for free kicks for years, then Rance does it against Sydney and all of a sudden there is outrage.

Now this Houli incident. Why are we in the gun so much?

We're everyone's Grand Final that's why

[eliminator]

Caution should be exercised in commenting on this matter. Unless the Tribunal publishes its judgement the general public and the members of the media who were not in attendance at the hearing are not privy to the entirety of the evidence the Tribunal heard nor are they privy to the entirety of the Tribunal's reasoning. Speculation by the media on how the Tribunal reached its decision is not helpful and simply causes confusion and angst.

[Knighter]

Caution should be exercised in commenting on this matter. Unless the Tribunal publishes its judgement the general public and the members of the media who were not in attendance at the hearing are not privy to the entirety of the evidence the Tribunal heard nor are they privy to the entirety of the Tribunal's reasoning. Speculation by the media on how the Tribunal reached its decision is not helpful and simply causes confusion and angst.

Can you please send that to every football journo, media personality and supporter in Australia with an opinion

[mat073]

What a circus

[Ruanaidh]

you seriously think he tried to knock him out, stuff off
and I have boxed and ill tell you from experience you don't fight with your back to your opponent 

Aikido isn't boxing...in fact it isn't anything . If you box you only need a split second to know what the head is doing by body positioning. He went for his head alright, using a 'backhand hammerfist'. Dangerous, if you are half expecting it but deadly if you are not. After careful consideration and multi-angle replays the judiciary judged it thus as well.

[YellowandBlackBlood]

you seriously think he tried to knock him out, stuff off
and I have boxed and ill tell you from experience you don't fight with your back to your opponent 

Aikido isn't boxing...in fact it isn't anything . If you box you only need a split second to know what the head is doing by body positioning. He went for his head alright, using a 'backhand hammerfist'. Dangerous, if you are half expecting it but deadly if you are not. After careful consideration and multi-angle replays the judiciary judged it thus as well.

That is incorrect. The judiciary was told that because it was "not in play" it must be then judged as being deliberate.
Carelessness was then taken out of the equation.

Ridiculous.

[Ruanaidh]

you seriously think he tried to knock him out, stuff off
and I have boxed and ill tell you from experience you don't fight with your back to your opponent 

Aikido isn't boxing...in fact it isn't anything . If you box you only need a split second to know what the head is doing by body positioning. He went for his head alright, using a 'backhand hammerfist'. Dangerous, if you are half expecting it but deadly if you are not. After careful consideration and multi-angle replays the judiciary judged it thus as well.

That is incorrect. The judiciary was told that because it was "not in play" it must be then judged as being deliberate.
Carelessness was then taken out of the equation.

Ridiculous.

Agreed, that sort of arbitrary distinction (if it indeed happened that way) would be unfair. However, that aside I still stand by what I personally observed on the replay.

[one-eyed]

Waleed Aly, an avid Richmond Tigers supporter, took to The Project to explain his decision after his co-host Peter Hellier sent an email to the show questioning his involvement in the process.

A well-known Collingwood supporter, Hellier, who is on currently on leave, argued character testimony should not be used to decide how guilty players are of an on-field act.

However, Aly said he felt the controversy surrounding the suspension was more about the tribunal's decision rather than his role in providing a good character reference for Houli.

"This is not an uncommon thing," Aly said. "You do get character references in courts all the time. That is a really common thing. The tribunals are based on a court. These are the rules that they have had in place."

"They have used them before I think in tribunal settings. It is not like this was something that was dreamt up by Richmond or by the lawyers or anything like that. It is a standard procedure."

"So, if they are trying to figure out whether the person involved intended to hurt somebody or whatever, then it is relevant to that or it can be relevant to that that a court figures out is this the kind of person who is likely to have intended to do something like that?"

The league believes strong character evidence should only mean the penalty does not move to be greater than four matches, not that it could be cut below that minimum threshold.

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/waleed-aly-defends-bachar-houli-afl-tribunal-involvement-20170628-gx0rq2.html