What? As dieter said, FMD! So much for all those weasel words of Gill's a few weeks back about not liking punching in the game. Now you can knock a bloke out cold and get less than Lewis or Trengrove did, or elbow one in the chin at half-time and get off scot-free! It seems they are doing their best to undo a lot of good work over the past couple of decades, which has seen a lot of the behind-the-play thuggery taken out of the game.

I guess this also gives everyone suspended by the MRP a licence to appeal, as the Tribunal appears to be as weak as water.

What next? Clarry getting cited for chinning Schofield in the elbow? It seems the AFL couldn't find the plot if it bit them on the backside ...

Edited June 27, 20178 yr by Red and Bluebeard
grammar

1 hour ago, Red and Bluebeard said:

...

What next? Clarry getting cited for chinning Schofield in the elbow? It seems the AFL couldn't find the plot if it bit them on the backside ...

No, the only logical extension is Clarrie getting charged for staging. The MRP have a watertight case, now the hit has been judged as insignificant. And part of me hopes that the media goads them into doing it. Just to emphasise the farcical nature of the whole thing.

If i was Houli, and i was being held where he appeared to be being held, i would have belted the "quit" from Carlton much harder...

 With Oliver,I think MFC will look at this decision, probably can it, (they may fight it) and move on. The boys are one solid unit now. "Robbo" to his credit in my book, has spoken up about two important issues and put out there the way he feels. For him, and where he is, that takes courage. Good on him.

Schofield elbowed Oliver in the jaw, if this type of behavior continues i will personally put a fence up between WA and the rest of OZ and make them pay for it. The royalties should cover it.   

7 hours ago, Akum said:

I reckon it all depends on the Tribunal being able to find a BS explanation for why Clarrie got hit but it was of insufficient force. A "BS explanation" means that it doesn't have to be true or honest or anything silly like that, it just has to be remotely plausible.

They'll find a way to get this dog off. After all, it's worth sacrificing the Tribunal's integrity to let off such a valuable player who got 3 effective disposals for the whole match and assaulted a kid at half time.

DAmn, can you tell me the tatts numbers as well. 

Defence argued that Oliver's sore jaw was the result of running into his back when he came back in to remonstrate after being knocked down.  Tribunal felt this was reasonable. 

The MRP strikes back! http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-28/mrp-member-queries-houli-good-bloke-defence

Nathan Burke:  "MATCH Review Panel member Nathan Burke has criticised the use of character references from Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and media personality and academic Waleed Aly in Bachar Houli's defence ...If somebody goes in next week and does exactly the same thing, but doesn't know Waleed Aly, doesn't know the Prime Minister, does that mean they get three or four weeks?"

As Daniel Harford notes - discount for good behaviour is one thing but wheeling in the big names in town is another.

The Age also takes issue with this: "Turnbull and Aly offered such strong character references for Houli it prompted the AFL tribunal to abandon normal thinking and cut his sentence"

"Woods reasonably extrapolated from the punishment schedule that if an offence of intentional, to the head and medium impact was three weeks then an offence worse than that must begin at four weeks and slide upwards depending on the circumstances. It was not envisaged it would slide down".

"Indeed it was the same penalty a player would get if they didn't take the MRP's offer of a plea and instead challenged a light brush to the jaw from a deliberately thrown elbow and lost. That's right: someone like Will Schofield going to the tribunal and losing".

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/bachar-houli-its-absurd-that-a-prime-minister-got-a-footy-players-suspension-cut-20170627-gwzxjy.html

The Tribunal has made a rod for the MRP's back.  Anything goes now!

Anyway, it is good to see some outrage on this issue - may take some heat off Clarrie.

Edited June 27, 20178 yr by Lucifer's Hero

It's us against them.

This is what makes a good team a premiership team.

Fark the lot of them.

I read that the tribunal said it was "rare" to come across someone with Houli's "character".

What a load of garbage.

Just now, ProDee said:

I read that the tribunal said it was "rare" to come across someone with Houli's "character".

What a load of garbage.

The character to punch someone in the face, knock them unconscious and say that was so unlike me.

2 minutes ago, ProDee said:

I read that the tribunal said it was "rare" to come across someone with Houli's "character".

What a load of garbage.

Houli's a great character, no doubt. Just don't run up behind him and annoy him.

MRP have shown they are a totally inadequate body to be hearing these cases, favour name players and big clubs. Two wrong decisions in the one night. They should be dismantled and replaced with something else.

I've deliberately avoided commenting on MRP / tribunal decisions this year, other than those avoid Melbourne players, but the Houli decision is just wrong and an utter disgrace. If the AFL was serious about cleaning up the game they would appeal this decision.

Three questions arise from this:

1. If Jed Lamb had knocked Bachar Houli out in a similar cowardly act of thuggery, how many weeks would he have received? Clearly he wouldn't receive the benefit of representing the religion of peace, or having the PM in his corner, so 4 weeks? 6?

2. Will the concession applied to both Schofield & Houli from not looking at their opponent whilst striking them apply for just this week, or for the remainder of the season? If Lewis & Hogan had been facing away from their Carlton opponents, would they have reduced the sentences accordingly? Or is just because Houli is a good bloke with the right background?

3. If a random Melbourne player KOs Lance Franklin in the opening minute on Friday night, who can we call as a character witness to get him a reduced sentence? The Dalai Lama? The ghost of Mother Teresa? Tom Cruise?

From The Age "As Woods pointed out to the tribunal, the AFL tribunal guidelines state that "intentional strikes with a raised forearm or elbow will usually not be classified as low impact even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low. Such strikes will usually be classified at a higher level commensurate with the nature and extent of the risk of serious injury involved."

Interesting snippet. The the Tribunal not actually refer to the tribunal guidelines last night?

46 minutes ago, poita said:

I've deliberately avoided commenting on MRP / tribunal decisions this year, other than those avoid Melbourne players, but the Houli decision is just wrong and an utter disgrace. If the AFL was serious about cleaning up the game they would appeal this decision.

Three questions arise from this:

1. If Jed Lamb had knocked Bachar Houli out in a similar cowardly act of thuggery, how many weeks would he have received? Clearly he wouldn't receive the benefit of representing the religion of peace, or having the PM in his corner, so 4 weeks? 6?

2. Will the concession applied to both Schofield & Houli from not looking at their opponent whilst striking them apply for just this week, or for the remainder of the season? If Lewis & Hogan had been facing away from their Carlton opponents, would they have reduced the sentences accordingly? Or is just because Houli is a good bloke with the right background?

3. If a random Melbourne player KOs Lance Franklin in the opening minute on Friday night, who can we call as a character witness to get him a reduced sentence? The Dalai Lama? The ghost of Mother Teresa? Tom Cruise?

Dalai is taken

According to the HUN, the Tribunal took only 5 minutes to deliberate before coming to the conclusion that Schofield could walk away sott free.  Didn't question Clarrie, don't appear to have questioned the reporting umpire, just took the word of Schofield's QC at face value (that is, that Clarrie's tender jaw might just as easily have occurred slightly later in the scuffle when his jaw bumped Schofield's back).  Mlnd boggling justice!

13 hours ago, monoccular said:

Is this April 1st?   So basically they are saying that Oliver is a stager.  They have impugned his character forever.  Unforgivable.

Really, if our Dees were going as they had been the past decade, I would be right out of AFL altogether.  It is a sham!!

My thoughts exactly about the Dees.  We're up and I want to be a part of it after all the bad times,, but the AFL is fast becoming a joke ....from rule changes and interpretations changing weekly, to the MRP, to biased commentary, fixturing etc.  I would be out too if it wasnt for the love of where my club is heading!

I just wrote an email to Gillon McLaughlin, regardless of Oliver acting or not, deliberate contact was made to a players head, if the AFL are serious they will stop this kind of rubbish. They squealed a couple of weeks ago yet sit on their arses for a deliberate hit? Come on! Time to make an example of all this BS. Schofield 1 week and Oliver gets questioned. Also wrote about Houli who should get 4 for knocking a bloke out. Umpiring, MRP, Tribunal is corrupt and its becoming for obvious by the week.

From what I am reading everywhere Oliver is a worse bloke for allegedly "staging" than Houli is for deliberately punching a guy unconscious........

I’m amazed that the prime minister of Australia doesn’t have anything better to do than to play favourites with footie players. I guess this clip was truer than even we knew

Richmond when they found out about Houli’s initial 4 week suspension:

 

Sep Blatter would not look out of place on the AFL tribunal.

After the disgusting Houli decision what do you think the tribunral were going to do with McKenzie. Give him 2 weeks as well ????

What I want to know is how does a b grade journo and a poliutically correct sydney  politicaian got to do with the AFL. Absolutely nothing so they shouldn't have been given any input into houlis appearance at the tribunral.

6 minutes ago, Chook said:

I’m amazed that the prime minister of Australia doesn’t have anything better to do than to play favourites with footie players. I guess this clip was truer than even we knew

 

don't think he made a character reference specifically for tribunal. his comments were just lifted from a separate multicultural event on this week where houli was present.......more of a coincidence jumped on by richmond

at least that's how i read it

2 hours ago, loges said:

MRP have shown they are a totally inadequate body to be hearing these cases, favour name players and big clubs. Two wrong decisions in the one night. They should be dismantled and replaced with something else.

... especially if clubs can so easily intimidate them by bringing in the QC.

It's ridiculous that only one party to the incident gets to present evidence too.

12 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

don't think he made a character reference specifically for tribunal. his comments were just lifted from a separate multicultural event on this week where houli was present.......more of a coincidence jumped on by richmond

at least that's how i read it

Correct.

2 hours ago, poita said:

...

3. If a random Melbourne player KOs Lance Franklin in the opening minute on Friday night, who can we call as a character witness to get him a reduced sentence? The Dalai Lama? The ghost of Mother Teresa? Tom Cruise?

Has anybody on D'land got anything on Georgie Pell? He's pretty good when it comes to avoiding responsibility.

Apparently the AFL is considering appealing the lenient Houli sentence.  Why aren't they also considering appealing the Schofield farce??!!