"Basher" Houli straight to tribunal

[saynta]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/b ... wzxjy.html

" Bachar Houli ban: It's absurd that a prime minister got an AFL player's suspension cut


These might have been the only words from Malcolm Turnbull to have persuaded anyone this year.

The Prime Minister argued on Bachar Houli's behalf. That unprecedented advocacy at the tribunal delivered an equally unprecedented result.

Or perhaps it was Dr Waleed Aly's spirited defence of Houli that turned their heads. For certain Aly's was the only doctor's advice the AFL tribunal was convinced by on Tuesday evening.

Turnbull and Aly offered such strong character references for Houli it prompted the AFL tribunal to abandon normal thinking and cut his sentence.

Houli was found guilty of deliberately hitting Jed Lamb and knocking him out with a blow that struck him in the head. It was intentional, it was high impact and it was to the head.

This is about as serious a charge as the tribunal gets. Amazingly the punishment that serious charge received was about as low as it could get. In fact it was much lower.

Houli's two-match ban was at the very best cut in half because of his outstanding character and at worst he might have been banned for more than three times that. On the identical charge Barry Hall got seven matches."

[stevie]

I don't watch any of the garbage that tv serves up but I've heard of this Aly being a s*** stirrer who thinks he has a platform to opinionate

[saynta]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/m ... ee58c77cd6

"COLLINGWOOD president Eddie McGuire has raised concerns over the precedent set by the AFL Tribunal on Tuesday night in allowing character references to influence Bachar Houli’s ban.

Houli copped two weeks for striking Carlton’s Jed Lamb after the tribunal weighed up his record and standing in the community following references from Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Gold Logie winner Waleed Aly.

“This is ridiculous by the tribunal to take this into account,” he said. “I don’t mind that this was an underlining that Bachar Houli is a really good character."


"“Now that we are starting to look at what people do in their private lives in giving a suspension for what happens on the ground is totally ridiculous and out of control.

“This is a precedent.

“You can be Mother Teresa but if you knock somebody out on the ground you get four weeks. Simple as that.”

The AFL has until noon today to decide whether it will challenge the suspension, with former tribunal member Daniel Hardford declaring there is “no doubt” it will challenge."




I reckon 4 weeks, plus an extra two weeks for embarrassing the tribunal in having two clowns give character evidence.

[oh when the]

Afl appealing

[Enrico_Misso]

AFL showing some sanity in appealing their own tribunal's stupid decision.

Perhaps they need to sack the fools on the tribunal that made that ill conceived decision.

[Moods]

I'm staggered by people who believe he meant no malice in what he did. He thumped a bloke, behind play, knocking him out cold before he even hit the ground. Laughable that the tribunal chairman tries to insist that it was 'in play' merely because Houli was trying to make position, THEN mentions Barry Hall case some 12 years ago and suggests that no-one makes mention of it as it was obviously flawed. The circumstance are almost identical.

To be honest - who cares whether Houli is a good bloke or not. Address the act before the character. The act, in my opinion was worthy of a 5 week suspension, downgraded to 4 for a good record. Since when in our great game do you get to belt blokes behind play rendering them unconscious and miss just 2 games. The AFL for the sake of the game and their own credibility HAVE to appeal this

[dragit]

More crazy hijinks from the amateur hour that is the AFL.

[Fidelis]

Glad to see that the AFL have appealed the sanction.

While I'm impressed with Houli's work outside the footy arena, my view is that it's irrelevant to his suspension.

The tribunal already have a 'character test' that we take into account when they deliberate on penalties; it's called a clean record discount.

The trouble with this as a precedent is that it introduces a completely new layer over the top of the current process. Once we've ruled on intent, force and point of contact, now we'll have to debate whether or not each player fits the 'good character test for a 50% discount.

Best, as Nathan Burke argues, to keep "character" out of it altogether and focus on the act and the record.

I hope the appeal is upheld.

[terry smith rules]

Houli banned for two weeks

WTF??

Looking after minority groups.

What a wank.

The POS committed a dog act off the ball. Minimum 3 weeks should be 4.

Looking after minority groups... haha honestly some people.

It was a bad act but he clearly didn't mean for it to be as bad as it turned out in my opinion. Wasn't looking at the player and was running towards the ball. He misses the Saints game, will be a big loss for them.

It IS looking after Muslims.

Houli has met the PM. The PM loves Houli as he is the type of role model Muslim leader type that helps keep the peace in the current environment. Waleed Ally is a big Muslim media activist and if someone is inside with both of those then what they say/want has massive influence.

The tribunal advocate against Houli stated he wanted a 4 week ban after the guilty verdict. PC bulltish (above) forced the AFL's hand to reduce it to two weeks (implied not actual force I mean)

Quick question. If you believe the AFLs hand was forced. Then why is it appealingl the decision?

[terry smith rules]

What is wrong with it is bringing in outside "celebrities" to testify and reduce his sentence.
This is wrong.

Do we want the tribunal to be about who we know and who has the best contacts?
Or do we want it to be about fairness?

I will be expressing my distaste for this abuse of process by booing Basher next week and I hope others do the same.

Yes, it's ridiculous and shouldn't be permitted. What a player is like off the field is irrelevant to what they do on the field.

I assume Basher will be booed when he returns (not next week) and the media will report that we have a problem with Islamophobia.

Sigh

Well if you read some comments on here and elsewhere then yes it will be because he is Muslim. Even the very mention of Waleeds name send some into a spin. Let alone that he could be a character referee. I refer you to Stevie post above.

[repta]

that was reckless and not malicious. Players throw arms back like that regularly to avoid niggling. Houli just managed to connect perfectly.

Probably deserves 2 weeks (although 3 would be better).

AFL tribunal has been doing the 'Good Boy' - 'Bad Boy' for years.

Steven Baker 11 weeks for a couple of hand taps (if you are medically fit to go on the ground you are fair game, otherwise it is medical incompetence)
Barry Hall - Bad (as Saints player), Angel (with Swans)
Judd - They were just confused about .... eye gouging, nerve pinching (but could do no wrong .....)
Fyfe - but we cant have him winning the Brownlow and being rubbed out .... let him off ....

[dragit]

Ironic that this comes in the same week as premiership hero Barry Hall is inducted to the hall of fame… what a joke.

[saynta]

that was reckless and not malicious. Players throw arms back like that regularly to avoid niggling. Houli just managed to connect perfectly.

Probably deserves 2 weeks (although 3 would be better).

AFL tribunal has been doing the 'Good Boy' - 'Bad Boy' for years.

Steven Baker 11 weeks for a couple of hand taps (if you are medically fit to go on the ground you are fair game, otherwise it is medical incompetence)
Barry Hall - Bad (as Saints player), Angel (with Swans)
Judd - They were just confused about .... eye gouging, nerve pinching (but could do no wrong .....)
Fyfe - but we cant have him winning the Brownlow and being rubbed out .... let him off ....

Judd. Chicken wings.

[WellardSaint]

Houli's defence team used parr of a speech from the PM out of context.

That's plain dishonest.
Speech was when Turnbull gave $650k to a muslim Houli Academy.
Nothin to do with the charge.
Liars liars all lawyers are liars

[remboy]

AFl to appeal. Wow! Did they think it was Bakes?

[remboy]

Can somebody tell me how many points you get for off the ball(I'm assuming there's no Barry Hall rule), high impact, high contact and negligent (I'm going easy on him by not grading it as intentional). Must be worth more than 300 even with a guilty plea.

[thejiggingsaint]

If this "sentence" (2 weeks suspension) stands, influenced as it (apparently) was by "celebrity character references" then what happened to Adam Goodes will be tame compared to what Houli will cop from opposition crowds. A dumb, truly dumb decision by the tribunal, in my humble opinion.

[saintspremiers]

If this "sentence" (2 weeks suspension) stands, influenced as it (apparently) was by "celebrity character references" then what happened to Adam Goodes will be tame compared to what Houli will cop from opposition crowds. A dumb, truly dumb decision by the tribunal, in my humble opinion.

Agree.

Also a dumb decision to move this thread considering we play Richmond in two weeks and the length of suspension directly impacts us.

[stevie]

couln't give a tinkers if Houli or this Aly are Muslims - have never watched his show only read about his opinions. Shouldnt have a say about footy same as Turnbull if it affects tribunal decisions.

[perfectionist]

Can somebody tell me how many points you get for off the ball(I'm assuming there's no Barry Hall rule), high impact, high contact and negligent (I'm going easy on him by not grading it as intentional). Must be worth more than 300 even with a guilty plea.

The points system disappeared a few years ago. The MRP and Tribunal processes and penalties are set out in the document below - not that I expect anyone to read it - it's far better to talk from ignorance in our world these days than with knowledge.

Much has been written and said about "the fact" that the minimum he should have got was 4 weeks according to Tribunal rules. There is no such "fact" in the document. Whilst the number of weeks is specified for MRP determinations, the Tribunal had absolute discretion in the penalty although it would be reasonably expected that penalties would be higher than those imposed by the MRP. But that will depend on the case. As we saw last week, what the MRP thought was overturned on appeal, as indeed this current decision may well be.

Continuing ignorance and misinformation is being thrown around in the media about the use of character references. Many still are saying that this has just been introduced for this case, despite what I have written earlier in this thread. References have always been permissible and, in many instances, given at Tribunal hearings. I will quote but two examples from the past of significance. Carl Ditterich in 1966 and Neville Crowe in 1967. Neither were successful in getting penalties reduced to allow them to play in the GF.

http://www.aflcommunityclub.com.au/file ... elines.pdf

[Sainternist]

Too bad Steven Baker didn't have Malcolm Turnbull as a character reference after the Jeff Farmer incident.

[thejiggingsaint]

"Character references" shouldn't come into it whatsoever. Nathan Burke is SPOT ON, it's the ACT that should be judged, not the character of the alleged offender. I reckon Houli should have considered his words more carefully, bringing in the issue of "hitting someone being against my religion" as providing grounds of some sort of mitigation, was not (in my humble opinion) the way to best serve his case.

[SaintPav]

"Character references" shouldn't come into it whatsoever. Nathan Burke is SPOT ON, it's the ACT that should be judged, not the character of the alleged offender. I reckon Houli should have considered his words more carefully, bringing in the issue of "hitting someone being against my religion" as providing grounds of some sort of mitigation, was not (in my humble opinion) the way to best serve his case.

So why even have character references in the first place then? Every situation/incident is different.

Did the tribunal actually say that his character references influenced the suspension? or was that the way it was reported by the media so people just automatically made the link.

As usual, this sounds like a complete media beat up.

[thejiggingsaint]

"Complete media gear up"? Sounds more like a complete tribunal c**k up to this little bloke!

[SaintPav]

"Complete media gear up"? Sounds more like a complete tribunal c**k up to this little bloke!

And the AFL appealed so the process works.

Beat up.