Richmond to argue tribunal got it right

RICHMOND will today argue the AFL tribunal had every right to use “exceptional and compelling circumstances” to hand Bachar Houli a twomatch suspension.

The league will break new ground with its appeal against a tribunal sentence the first in the history of football’s judiciary.

An appeal heard by Peter O’Callahan, Brian Collis and Michael Green will sit after the league objected on the grounds that the penalty for Houli’s hit was “manifestly inadequate”.

But it is understood the Tigers will argue Tuesday night’s tribunal panel followed processes in coming to an outcome.

His hit last Sunday on Carlton’s Jed Lamb was deemed an intentional strike worthy of a four-game base sanction, but the tribunal halved it given his unblemished record and character.

Richmond will argue the case was heard by an independent panel that did not err in law or execution of tribunal directions, so the penalty should stand.

The tribunal guidelines state: “Where there are exceptional and compelling circumstances ... the tribunal jury may impose such sanction or sanctions as they in their absolute discretion think fit.”

Former tribunal member Daniel Harford said yesterday the AFL had been forced to appeal to protect players and the image of the game.

Harford said under tribunal protocols the minimum suspension Houli should have been handed was three matches.

The former Hawthorn and Carlton midfielder said the ruling was embarrassing given Port Adelaide’s Tom Jonas was last year suspended for six games for a spoil on Andrew Gaff that was in play.

“The penalty was manifestly inadequate and the AFL needed to do something about it,” he said.

“I get that he had played 162 games without incident, but I don’t care if he’s a good bloke and the appeals board shouldn’t care that he’s a good bloke. You already get a discount for a guilty plea.

“Even how he got a threeweek penalty is a good question. The AFL couldn’t say they were serious about cracking down on head-high incidents and then not appeal.”

The Tigers used character evidence from TV personality Waleed Aly, AFL official Ali Fahour and ex-coach Mark Williams. They also used an extract of a quote in support of his character from Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

The AFL’s Simon Lethlean made clear the appeal was based on Houli’s soft penalty.