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

[Francois Jackson]

Correct Georgie but this is trial by media didn't you know.

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

[Ruanaidh]

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.

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.

[Ruanaidh]

Correct Georgie but this is trial by media didn't you know.

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

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.

4 weeks no discount. Personally, I'd rub him out for the season.

[Damo]

Let's say it was worth 3-4
Players have been getting discounts for good records for ever in the day and still do at the MRP

Let's say 3-4 becomes 2-3.

The furore is because of the involvement of that idiot Waleed and the fact Houli himself brought religion into it (which is irrelevant and wrong).

Where does that line stop and what makes his religion more special than anyone else's religion?

When Rance got rubbed out for the Watt's thing, he didn't play the "I'm Jehovah's Witness and I'm a peaceful person because of that religion and all round champion bloke and here's a bunch of references" card.

The whole thing doesn't sit well with me at all.

[big tone]

This is what is really annoying about AFL.

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.

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

NFI mate.
Award goes to Mint for the most ridiculous post of 2017.
Congratulations!

[YellowandBlackBlood]

What is relevant here is the crime.  Not who gave character witnesses, religious beliefs etc etc.

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.

[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.

[big tone]

What is relevant here is the crime.  Not who gave character witnesses, religious beliefs etc etc.

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.

What the hell has speed got to do with it!!
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.

[YellowandBlackBlood]

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.

[YellowandBlackBlood]

What is relevant here is the crime.  Not who gave character witnesses, religious beliefs etc etc.

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.

What the hell has speed got to do with it!!
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.

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?

[Ruanaidh]

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.

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.

[YellowandBlackBlood]

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.

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.

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.

[MintOnLamb]

Bachar is being Lambasted

[Ruanaidh]

Bachar is being Lambasted

Very good

[Ruanaidh]

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.

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.

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.

Cmon YBB I value your opinion but you are sounding like an apologist.