Three down to two.This
IMO, Houli was being held and he threw his arm back to dislodge the hold, unintentional, no penaltyAgree'd, he was trying to break the hold. Unfortunate for both Houli and Lamb that it resulted in a concussion.
Hopefully the MRP will do what Hardwick cant:clapping
Hopefully the MRP will do what Hardwick cant:clapping
Careless, high and high = 3 down to 2
Intentional, high and high = straight to tribunal
Would think high contact is clear and high impact is logical considering he was knocked out. Comes down to the intention which I reckon they'll say he was careless. Swung the arm to free himself, not to clock him in the side of the head
My animus to his proselytising is widely known, but, no-one could say he is a dirty footballer. There is no way he intentionally hit Lamb in the gob....I reckon he did intentionally mean to hit him. He turned around to get his bearings right and threw the arm back. What he didn't intend was the result.
Yep straight to the tribunal
Thoughts now? Weeks
Just interested how these fools come up with these conclusions
Quote from: Francois Hackson link=topic=26437.msg602155#msg602155
Yep straight to the tribunal
Thoughts now? Weeks
Just interested how these fools come up with these conclusions
2 weeks
Strane as it might sound straight to the tribunal might actually work in his favour
Lamb is an infidel anyway.:lol
Here's the actual MRP statement:4 down to 3
Bachar Houli, Richmond, has been charged with striking Jed Lamb, Carlton, during the first quarter of the Round 14 match between Richmond and Carlton, played at the MCG on Sunday June 25, 2017.
Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the Carlton Football Club, the incident was assessed as intentional conduct with high impact to the head. The incident was referred directly to the Tribunal for its decision, with no early plea available to the player. The player has no record which impacts the penalty.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-26/match-review-panel-full-statement-round-14
Not a fan of Houli but if he keeps on knocking out players I will have to change my opinion of him. :thumbsup
Not a fan of Houli but if he keeps on knocking out players I will have to change my opinion of him. :thumbsup
Careless, high and high = 3 down to 2
Intentional, high and high = straight to tribunal
Would think high contact is clear and high impact is logical considering he was knocked out. Comes down to the intention which I reckon they'll say he was careless. Swung the arm to free himself, not to clock him in the side of the head
Yep straight to the tribunal
Thoughts now? Weeks
Just interested how these fools come up with these conclusions
Bachar got two weeks . Lucky .agree
Yeh look, he totally meant to drop the little prick and imo, it's the best thing he's done in his entire tenure.
We should be celebrating his attitude, not tiptoeing around it.
Fk carlton and fk lamb.
He obviously deserved it.
Shalom.
LMAO with Balme saying that "of course Hall got off, he played for Sydney!" when the 2005 Prelim hit was brought up by Richmond and quickly shelved by the tribunal. :clapping:lol
Bless you Houli, 2 weeks is still a travesty. A pox on all their families for this outrage
The Waleed Aly effect in full swing
Anyone think the dogs will appeal?
Now that that part is sorted can we please have some penalties placed on the Carlton FC for their fans racist anti-Islamic booing every time Houli got the ball.
A loss of draft picks would be fair
Anyone think the dogs will appeal?
Anyone think the dogs will appeal?
They have appealed. That fat little private school hack that stuffen finally got the job after 3 attempts can GAGF
'Manifestly inadequate': AFL appeals Houli ban(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSutI-nQP2HfL5un9UpfS4_ze_BiR3vJkr16PN9f-Yw15KnZu1ZoA)
THE AFL is appealing Bachar Houli's two-game suspension for striking Carlton's Jed Lamb on the grounds the sanction is "manifestly inadequate".
The AFL announced shortly after Wednesday's noon deadline that it had lodged an appeal.
"The AFL wishes to advise that general manager football operations Simon Lethlean today notified the AFL Appeal Board and the Richmond Football Club that the AFL would appeal the two-game suspension imposed on Richmond’s Bachar Houli for striking Carlton’s Jed Lamb during the first quarter of Sunday’s round 14 match at the MCG," the League said in a written statement.
"Mr Lethlean said the AFL had appealed the two-game suspension on the grounds the sanction imposed was manifestly inadequate."
The appeal will be heard on Thursday night at 5.30pm by three members of the Appeals Board, which consists of Peter O'Callaghan (chairman), Brian Collis QC (deputy chairman), Brian Bourke, Michael Green, Stephen Jurica and John Schultz.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-28/manifestly-inadequate-afl-appeals-houli-ban
The Club acknowledges the AFL is appealing the Bachar Houli decision and we are currently considering our options.
https://twitter.com/Richmond_FC/status/879900915947458560
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. :banghead. 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
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. :banghead. 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. :shh :lol
........... 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. :rollin
But let's learn more about Islam so we can all learn the songs they sing. :clapping
... 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. :shh
Well said the two 'T's'. :thumbsup. But hey, speak against this crap and for our traditions, you'll be surprised how much support you will get.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. :banghead. 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. :shh :lol
........... 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. :rollin
But let's learn more about Islam so we can all learn the songs they sing. :clapping
... 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. :shh
Tigeritis is spot on here.
This is happening everywhere not just in kinders.
Its happening in our schools as well and in every community.
The traditions we used to know are going.
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.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. :banghead. 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. :shh :lol
........... 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. :rollin
But let's learn more about Islam so we can all learn the songs they sing. :clapping
... 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. :shh
Fair call...but the 'god void' will, for whatever reason, always be filled. Sometimes even by the state - Communism. It's a case of 'choose your poison' for the majority of the masses.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.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. :banghead. 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. :shh :lol
........... 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. :rollin
But let's learn more about Islam so we can all learn the songs they sing. :clapping
... 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. :shh
Correct Georgie but this is trial by media didn't you know.The head is sacrosanct and the penalty was manifestly inadequate. There was also the appearance of political and media meddling. The Afl had to act it had no choice. Initially I thought it was a case of just throwing his arm back but if you look closely at the replay he has a very quick glance, straightens back up then let's go. It was intentional, dangerous, head high and cowardly.
These flogs are irrelevant so in order to become relevant created a story and the afl fell for it.
Out of all the incidents this is the one they chose to appeal. FMD
Hard to see how he will get anything less than 4 now, possibly more proving the afl is just one big joke of a business
This is what is really annoying about AFL.NFI mate.
Anyone could see it wasn't an intentional hit, he wasn't even facing Lamb, in fact if he swung and hit Lambs arm, no problems.
In fact Lamb was the protagonist, if he did not try to hang onto Houli, no problems.
It could be argued it was the umpires fault for not calling what was clearly a holding freekick, if they paid all free kicks. :lol
IMO it was an accident and get over it. No penalty.
This sort of stuff happens all the time, it is a game that encourages flat track bullies who cry when they get hurt.
Watching Cotchin run back to the centre square after a goal against Sydney, he was knocked to the ground three times. His restraint was amazing I thought....yet no free kick was paid in what was clearly a breach of the rules of the game and what I would consider to be immoral conduct :whistle
How can you call something intentional when it all happened in a few tenths of a second?Wowee!
What is relevant here is the crime. Not who gave character witnesses, religious beliefs etc etc.What the hell has speed got to do with it!!
The crime IMHO was misjudged. Yes, he hit Lamb and hit him hard. That is high impact and severe impact. However, the argument from Richmond should be that that there is no way this was intentional. It was careless/reckless. There is no way in the world that in a few tenths of a second that Houli formed an intention to hit Lamb. As Houli said, he felt someone grappling him and he quickly glanced back, saw it was an opponent and threw his arm back to break the tackle. His arm bounced off Lambs shoulder into his head and knocked him out. The way he threw his arm back was careless as can be seen by the outcome. How can someone intend to cause so much damage when their focus was in running forward with the play and in a split second have the capacity to size up an opponent and intend to hurt them? Showing things in super slow motion gives the idea that Houli had several seconds to assess the situation and form an intention to hit. The fact is things happen in real time and not in super slow motion. They should always show replays of incidents at tribunals in real time only.
It was definitely careless. That being so, the penalty should have been three weeks, downgraded to 2 for his good record. No religion or character references needed.
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.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.
What you are saying is that there is no such thing as careless. If that is so, then they should remove it from the decision making process. I have no problem with that. However, since it is there and the player himself under oath(?) stated that he had no intention of hurting Lamb, then we must believe the player. Of course time/speed thus becomes important. If Houli walked up to Lamb and threw a punch at him then he could not plead carelessness. He would have had time to contemplate his actions. In this incident, it all happened so fast, it is impossible to say he intended to hit and hurt him. Because of this, we must believe the player's testimony or why the hell have a testimony at all if you are going to just ignore it?What is relevant here is the crime. Not who gave character witnesses, religious beliefs etc etc.What the hell has speed got to do with it!!
The crime IMHO was misjudged. Yes, he hit Lamb and hit him hard. That is high impact and severe impact. However, the argument from Richmond should be that that there is no way this was intentional. It was careless/reckless. There is no way in the world that in a few tenths of a second that Houli formed an intention to hit Lamb. As Houli said, he felt someone grappling him and he quickly glanced back, saw it was an opponent and threw his arm back to break the tackle. His arm bounced off Lambs shoulder into his head and knocked him out. The way he threw his arm back was careless as can be seen by the outcome. How can someone intend to cause so much damage when their focus was in running forward with the play and in a split second have the capacity to size up an opponent and intend to hurt them? Showing things in super slow motion gives the idea that Houli had several seconds to assess the situation and form an intention to hit. The fact is things happen in real time and not in super slow motion. They should always show replays of incidents at tribunals in real time only.
It was definitely careless. That being so, the penalty should have been three weeks, downgraded to 2 for his good record. No religion or character references needed.
You can make decisions in split seconds.
He INTENTIONALLY hit Lamb. Maybe he didn't think the outcome would be what it was but he INTENTIONALLY swung his arm to hit Lamb.
Having taken that look back he would know exactly where his head would be. Have you ever boxed? Why then didn't he hit his arm! He lied and his ideology gives him permission to do so...in fact it compels him to do so.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.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.
Come on mate, we know you hate Houli but the AFL must show consistency. That is there only way of being credible.
His arm deflected off Lamb's shoulder onto his head. Lamb also was falling/bending forward as he was grappling Houli so throwing his arm back was going to be difficult to miss anything except the upper part of his body/head.Having taken that look back he would know exactly where his head would be. Why then didn't he hit his arm! He lied and his ideology gives him permission to do so...in fact it compels him to do so.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.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.
Come on mate, we know you hate Houli but the AFL must show consistency. That is there only way of being credible.
Bachar is being Lambasted :lolVery good :rollin
Cmon YBB I value your opinion but you are sounding like an apologist.His arm deflected off Lamb's shoulder onto his head. Lamb also was falling/bending forward as he was grappling Houli so throwing his arm back was going to be difficult to miss anything except the upper part of his body/head.Having taken that look back he would know exactly where his head would be. Why then didn't he hit his arm! He lied and his ideology gives him permission to do so...in fact it compels him to do so.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.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.
Come on mate, we know you hate Houli but the AFL must show consistency. That is there only way of being credible.
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.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. :banghead. 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. :shh :lol
........... 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. :rollin
But let's learn more about Islam so we can all learn the songs they sing. :clapping
... 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. :shh
I do dislike Houli, no question but this is about him throwing his arm back to strike Lamb and he knocked him out. Simple!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.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.
Come on mate, we know you hate Houli but the AFL must show consistency. That is there only way of being credible.
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?
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.
you seriously think he tried to knock him out, stuff offAikido isn't boxing...in fact it isn't anything :lol. 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.
and I have boxed and ill tell you from experience you don't fight with your back to your opponent :lol
That is incorrect. The judiciary was told that because it was "not in play" it must be then judged as being deliberate.you seriously think he tried to knock him out, stuff offAikido isn't boxing...in fact it isn't anything :lol. 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.
and I have boxed and ill tell you from experience you don't fight with your back to your opponent :lol
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.That is incorrect. The judiciary was told that because it was "not in play" it must be then judged as being deliberate.you seriously think he tried to knock him out, stuff offAikido isn't boxing...in fact it isn't anything :lol. 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.
and I have boxed and ill tell you from experience you don't fight with your back to your opponent :lol
Carelessness was then taken out of the equation.
Ridiculous.
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
blah blah blah. I said I boxed, I boxed before aikido. Your a talker, back hand wankfist...geez quit while you are behind. Stick to your simplified suffragette jiu jitsu for gimps and leave the boxing and aikido to the talented. :snidegrin (https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/S/cmx-images-prod/Series/36028/36028._SX360_QL80_TTD_.jpg)you seriously think he tried to knock him out, stuff offAikido isn't boxing...in fact it isn't anything :lol. 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.
and I have boxed and ill tell you from experience you don't fight with your back to your opponent :lol
yeah yeah it's joke and a disgrace and all that but at the end of day I find it hard to be too upset about our side being Houli-free for a month....no coincidence we played our best footy without him last year too.... :shh
4 weeks
stuffin joke they are
Exactly.yeah yeah it's joke and a disgrace and all that but at the end of day I find it hard to be too upset about our side being Houli-free for a month....no coincidence we played our best footy without him last year too.... :shh
i couldnt agree more but i just cant understand how these jokers justify their positions
He got what any player would deserve for his actions imo.
The AFL has shown it has a backbone and stepped in when imbeciles got it horriblely wrong.
You can twist it anyway you want, he swung his arm intentionally and knocked a player out.
Regardless of all that, do you think they got this one right WP?He got what any player would deserve for his actions imo.
The AFL has shown it has a backbone and stepped in when imbeciles got it horriblely wrong.
You can twist it anyway you want, he swung his arm intentionally and knocked a player out.
Accept the decision
But
Let's hope this backbone you speak of is now permanent for ALL cases not just the ones the media drive.
Just want consistency
And sadly with the AFL that's not exactly a strength
Regardless of all that, do you think they got this one right WP?He got what any player would deserve for his actions imo.
The AFL has shown it has a backbone and stepped in when imbeciles got it horriblely wrong.
You can twist it anyway you want, he swung his arm intentionally and knocked a player out.
Accept the decision
But
Let's hope this backbone you speak of is now permanent for ALL cases not just the ones the media drive.
Just want consistency
And sadly with the AFL that's not exactly a strength
He got what any player would deserve for his actions imo.
The AFL has shown it has a backbone and stepped in when imbeciles got it horriblely wrong.
You can twist it anyway you want, he swung his arm intentionally and knocked a player out.
No doubt should of got suspension.When you look at what Bary Hall got off to play in Grand final.this make you wonder.My problem is with the AFL who pick and choose battles they like to fight.Been doping issues in our game over 10.years now, brushed under the carpet and tryed to cover up same with tanking by clubs deliberately not punished because there at the bottom or punished then rewarded with first round picks take a look at blues,bombers and dees.Be nice if they took the same path.
The AFL did what the system is designed to do and that is to appeal when they think the MRP get it horribly wrong.Regardless of all that, do you think they got this one right WP?He got what any player would deserve for his actions imo.
The AFL has shown it has a backbone and stepped in when imbeciles got it horriblely wrong.
You can twist it anyway you want, he swung his arm intentionally and knocked a player out.
Accept the decision
But
Let's hope this backbone you speak of is now permanent for ALL cases not just the ones the media drive.
Just want consistency
And sadly with the AFL that's not exactly a strength
I originally thought 3 weeks
So yeah the decision is more right than wrong. It's how they got to it I have a major problem with
I found the Cunnington punch to the Bulldogs player just as bad. And he got a week. Punch to the throat area is mighty dangerous as well, could end someone's career
That's what I mean by lack of consistency
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-04-03/demons-jordan-lewis-jesse-hogan-dealt-double-blow-by-mrpSo you think this is worse than the Houli incident obviously?
a week more than this bloke. hahaha
He did break the guys jaw AND had a poor record which I thought counts for something.http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-04-03/demons-jordan-lewis-jesse-hogan-dealt-double-blow-by-mrpSo you think this is worse than the Houli incident obviously?
a week more than this bloke. hahaha
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-04-03/demons-jordan-lewis-jesse-hogan-dealt-double-blow-by-mrpSo you think this is worse than the Houli incident obviously?
a week more than this bloke. hahaha
"Looking at cotch not Lamb"Just before that mysterious 'wind of Allah' (insert picture of Mohammed here) lifted his arm involuntarily and swung it to strike the infidel and non halal Lamb. ::)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDeZc9nUMAAFOEU.jpg)
https://twitter.com/deathwish5666/status/880340978963324929
The AFL did what the system is designed to do and that is to appeal when they think the MRP get it horribly wrong.
You talk about consistency but even with this case people's opinions are miles apart. I think it's cut and dry but some think he should have got off because he was being held. WTF!
So consistency is what your opinion is of each case. Just because you don't agee with every decision doesn't mean they are inconsistent. Maybe you are wrong??
"Looking at cotch not Lamb"Just before that mysterious 'wind of Allah' (insert picture of Mohammed here) lifted his arm involuntarily and swung it to strike the infidel and non halal Lamb. ::)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDeZc9nUMAAFOEU.jpg)
https://twitter.com/deathwish5666/status/880340978963324929
Let it go, he still got off light.
The AFL did what the system is designed to do and that is to appeal when they think the MRP get it horribly wrong.
You talk about consistency but even with this case people's opinions are miles apart. I think it's cut and dry but some think he should have got off because he was being held. WTF!
So consistency is what your opinion is of each case. Just because you don't agee with every decision doesn't mean they are inconsistent. Maybe you are wrong??
But they thought the MRP's was "horrible wrong" as well when it came to jumper punches and what did they do? Said after the Cotchin jumper punch "it's not a good look & we'll change the rules". But for a further 2 weeks nothing changed until Hawkins from Geelong got suspended. If they were so outraged and so concerned by the litany of jumpers punches (Franklin & Cotchin being the main 2) why didn't they appeal those?
Toby Greene blatantly punches Daniel from the Bulldogs in play, has a shocking record but because Daniel is wearing that helmet thing and continues playing he cops a couple of weeks, no appeal there. He should have got 3-4
Cunnington whacks a kid in the throat and smiles afterwards and he gets 2 weeks but for an early plea it becomes a week. The bloke smiled - that isn't a good look. But we'll let that one through as well
The Lewis one, he broke a blokes jaw, behind play, he has a terrible record and do they refer that straight to the tribunal no. Nah they say "we can grade this and here's 4 weeks down to 3 with an early plea. Don't worry about your pathetic record or the kids broken jaw, it being behind the play, here's 3 weeks off you go". What does the image conscience AFL do? Nothing... why didn't they appeal that
What Houli did was stupid, it was bad. A kid got knocked out. So the penalty is right under the rules as they stand
But the fact the AFL picked this case out of 100's to appeal reeks of inconsistency, being influenced by the media. They've now set a precedent and as I said let's see if they are consistent with applying it..
History shows they won't be and that's my issue
Yet you raised an irrelevent post citing 'Muslims' on Ivan's thread - hypocritical and indicative of poor peripheral, synapse development ....and, at the end of this season I will be taking another sabbatical (pun intended) so you can 'free range' here without having your troubled mind assailed by reality......shalom (inference intended)"Looking at cotch not Lamb"Just before that mysterious 'wind of Allah' (insert picture of Mohammed here) lifted his arm involuntarily and swung it to strike the infidel and non halal Lamb. ::)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDeZc9nUMAAFOEU.jpg)
https://twitter.com/deathwish5666/status/880340978963324929
Let it go, he still got off light.
Your boring references to religion render your posts as completely irrelevance
Hope he gets 6 weeks na stuff it the rest of the yr, Only way to get rid of this joker it seems.
I just heard Gillon On SEN earlier this morning mention the houli incident saying it was one of those careless situations that happen and it won't tarnish his reputation.
So what is it AFL, careless or intentional bc your mob classed it as intentional. It's a ducking circus.
I don't
"were happy to move on"replicating management and the coach.
Weak as pee our club is, no statement from Peggy or Benny making it clear the process was a joke and the treatment of the club and Bachar completely unreasonable.
No wonder our players have a history of rolling over when the heat is on. Just replicating management
Watching Dees vs Swans, very interesting to see how they handle the Bugg hit on Mills. Looks like he is out the game under concussion rule, has to compare to the Houli hit.
Watching Dees vs Swans, very interesting to see how they handle the Bugg hit on Mills. Looks like he is out the game under concussion rule, has to compare to the Houli hit.
its bloody worse. Intent was definately there and he has form
He was next to him not behind him when he wacked him.
he should get 6 weeks with a bad record but the wankers will either give him 4 or less, proving what a joke they are.
Bugg was worse imo, blatantly and intentionally putting one on someones chin is the worst look you can get for the sport. Will cop 5 or 6Yep.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/more-news/afl-diversity-manager-ali-fahour-reported-for-onfield-hit/news-story/f5cf62350dcb836dee608b3bc40dfb36
Heh...
Bugg was worse imo, blatantly and intentionally putting one on someones chin is the worst look you can get for the sport. Will cop 5 or 6Agree, but once again, he was intimidated/provoked.
Bugg was worse imo, blatantly and intentionally putting one on someones chin is the worst look you can get for the sport. Will cop 5 or 6Yep.
Houli's was bad but when you blatantly punch someone in the face in a calculated fashion and he is taken out of the game it is much worse than a reckless throwing of the arm back that unfortunately lands on your opponents face and takes him out. Both have the same outcome sure but one has 100% intent to hit the head and the other has only 100% intent to hit the players arm/body but carelessly hits the head. It's the difference in legal terms between murder and manslaughter where in both someone is killed but ones actions but in the former there was intent to kill (hit in the head) but in the latter the intent was not to kill (hit the player but the head was unfortunately hit).
Houli had turned his head to look at Cotch...get with the program.
I'm fine with that so long as you're man enough to face the music without calling in the PM and a token Muslim, would be politician, journalist to gve character reference.
Good one, ladies.http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-03/afl-diversity-manager-ali-fahour-reported-for-striking/8673898?pfmredir=sm
Bugg was worse imo, blatantly and intentionally putting one on someones chin is the worst look you can get for the sport. Will cop 5 or 6Yep.
Houli's was bad but when you blatantly punch someone in the face in a calculated fashion and he is taken out of the game it is much worse than a reckless throwing of the arm back that unfortunately lands on your opponents face and takes him out. Both have the same outcome sure but one has 100% intent to hit the head and the other has only 100% intent to hit the players arm/body but carelessly hits the head. It's the difference in legal terms between murder and manslaughter where in both someone is killed but ones actions but in the former there was intent to kill (hit in the head) but in the latter the intent was not to kill (hit the player but the head was unfortunately hit).
I'm not so sure.Houli turned his head around, looked at the bloke and smash him in the stuffing jaw with his forearm.
I'm fine with that so long as you're man enough to face the music without calling in the PM and a token Muslim, would be politician, journalist to gve character reference.We won't even bother with the third turd, the afl diversity manager (Muslim) who bashes blokes.
Should have been given 4 weeks reduced to 3 ...but the afl media department would have advised the tribunal of their imbecilic, political concerns.
It was a dog act and it brought three dogs out to play.