This is probably the only time I’ll ever agree with something Eddie McGuire says about football.
There’s no disputing the fact that Bachar Houli is an incredible person. The pivotal Richmond defender is as model a citizen as the AFL has produced in eons, and the work he does in support of religious and minority inclusivity in the sport is unparalleled.
At just 29 years of age, Houli already has a tournament named after him – the Bachar Houli Cup – which sees children and teams from Australia’s Islamic schools competing in the country’s native game.
As a Multicultural Ambassador, his work to grow the game is virtually unparalleled, and his calm presence helps normalise diversity in the game and promotes tolerance.
He is, for all intents and purposes, a wonderful human being.
And if he whacks someone on the football field, he should be suspended in accordance with the laws of the game.
Houli escaped a lengthy suspension at the AFL Tribunal last night after being referred straight to the judiciary panel over an unintentional strike delivered to Carlton‘s Jed Lamb this past weekend that knocked Lamb out cold and left him with a concussion.
Houli and Lamb tangled off the ball as they were both running towards play; an altercation that Houli attempted to break by swinging his arm backwards, intending to jolt Lamb’s arm free from his grip on Houli. Instead, Houli’s arm collected Lamb in the jaw, and the young Blue was out before he hit the ground.
Bypassing the AFL‘s Match Review Panel – a group that assesses on-field infractions in the most clinical and face value manner as possible – the incident was referred directly to the Tribunal; a panel consisting of an odd mix of high-ranking, highly regarded career lawyers and barristers, league officials, and ex-players.
After a hearing that involved character references from both Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and ‘The Project‘ host (as well as devout Richmond fan, it should be noted) Waleed Aly, Houli was handed a remarkably lenient two-week suspension, sending the AFL world into fits.
The problem here being that including general character references for an on-field discretion feels a bit like the AFL officially applying the “good bloke” rule – the one that’s unofficially applied to Luke Hodge for his entire career, for example.
That Houli’s exemplary off-field, outside-of-work character and behaviour is brought into account when assessing an on-field incident – particularly given the system doesn’t traditionally show much, if any, sympathy otherwise – sets a baffling precedent.
Collingwood President/media person/career buffoon Eddie McGuire was incensed about the tribunal’s decision this morning, teeing off on the league on Triple M.
“This is ridiculous by the tribunal to take this into account. I don’t mind that this was an underlining that Bachar Houli is a really good character. The only thing that comes to me in this is ‘what is his record as a player?’ and it’s unblemished so therefore I believe he should get a discount. Whether that’s six (weeks down) to four or five (down) to three or as it’s turned out maybe four to two.”“My point is this — it should not be taken into account what happens in daily life. It underlines again that he is a good character but that should not have been brought into the determination of his penalty. 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.”
He’s got a point – and when you can say that about a McGuire rant it’s usually a pretty obvious one. The idea behind using references from Turnbull and Aly was to prove Houli’s lack of intent; that his character is such that he couldn’t possibly have intended to strike Lamb in the manner that he did.
‘Course anyone watching the footage would’ve been able to come to that conclusion themselves.
So why then is the AFL so willing to accept off-field character as a mitigating circumstance in this case? Will a lengthy Houli suspension jeopardise corporate partnerships the AFL has in place regarding its Multicultural Program? Does having him out for that long preclude him from participating in media opportunities in the lead up to Multicultural Round in 5 weeks’ time? Is the AFL so intensely afraid of being labelled racist that they’ve swung too far in the opposite direction?
Houli has a sparkling record in terms of on-field behaviour. That absolutely is a mitigating factor in a Tribunal decision.
That he’s a model citizen outside of work is not.
That hit? That’s a four week hit. Every game of the season. Every day of the week. Because of his spotless record, three weeks feels adequate.
But only two? That’s a bad precedent, particularly in a time where the game is acutely aware of head injuries.
The League has officially appealed the decision as of midday today, on the grounds that the penalty was “manifestly inadequate.”
As far their own emotionless, face-value, clinical interpretation of every case that’s preceded it is concerned, I’m inclined to agree.
Source: Herald Sun.
Photo: Adam Trafford, AFL Media/Getty.
