Re: Bachar "The Nice Guy" Houli
mrposhman said:
This is the key point for me and impacts a lot on future reports. What exactly do they mean by intentional?
1 - Intentionally hit Lamb
2 - Intentionally hit Lamb in the head
Big difference between the 2 IMO. If its 2 then fine, intentional. If its 1, then if he intentionally hit him but accidentally hit him in the head, is it still graded intentional?
Big impact going forwards, think of the bump. Every bump intentionally targets a player, just unfortunate that sometimes this hits the player high. The AFL have history with this and rarely grade these as intentional. Therefore you choose to bump but if we think you accidentally hit the player in the head then the MRP will grade it careless, but for Bachar, not so. They had to be confident that he meant to hit him in the head. I can't see where they can be sure of that, so sort of indicates that if you intend to hit someone and just happen to hit them in the head then this should now be classified as intentional.
Thats a big change from the way any sort of incident has been graded in the past.
A couple of weeks ago on radio, Jimmy Bartel explained the parameters.
If an incident occurs within 5 meters of the ball, it is construed as being 'in play' and can be assessed as careless or reckless.
Further from play than this and it MUST be graded as intentional.
Hence, Buddy can wade through a pack all elbows and ass and the most he'll ever get is a lower end charge, .....if anything.
The strict application of the rule was brought in to stop off the ball incidents, usually by serial thugs, and unfortunately cleanskin Bachar was caught in the dragnet because there was only one definition that could apply, even if an anomaly.
Too much has been made of the character witness statements, which are accepted testimony under the AFL's own provisions. They have been earned through action and purpose, and to not provide them would have been negligent.
His playing record is exemplary, and deserved the merit it afforded him.
So although the tribunal was constrained by literal interpretation which could be appealed if not applied, I think their judgement was just and far from manifestly inadequate.
Contrast it to this -
Article posted on Journos board, " perspective on Houli..." - , which goes a fair way to explaining why Nathan Bourke may be frothing all over the media, and in my opinion would have provided grounds for appeal by us.