Houligan

bluebo baggers · **Posted:** Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:52 pm

camelboy wrote:

I certainly wasn't surprised that it barely got a replay from the WA FoxFooty team though. Equally, it would be all over the papers in Perth today if was a Carlton player that did that to Medhurst.

That enlightened piece of journalistic brilliance that is the West Australian has the following paragraph.

"The video police will determine whether Paul Medhurst's bump on ADAM Houlihan was above board"

:roll:

camel · **Posted:** Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:47 pm

No mention of Medhurst in this article.

http://carltonfc.com.au/default.asp?pg= ... eid=256255

Sydney Blue · **Posted:** Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:50 pm

camelboy wrote:

No mention of Medhurst in this article.

http://carltonfc.com.au/default.asp?pg= ... eid=256255

Nor the bloke who decked Murphy

Medhurst was a cheap shot if he gets away with that its a joke.

Its times like this Pagan should draw the media's attention to it

NTBlue · **Posted:** Mon Apr 10, 2006 2:12 pm

camelboy wrote:

Deano Supremo wrote:

camelboy wrote:

Back to Houla, anyone reckon the match review panel might take some interest in Medhurst's actions?

I hope not. It was a perfectly delivered legal H & S.

Except that he hit a player in the head, with a raised elbow and no eyes for the ball.

I'm a bit 50/50 on it though. I won't be surprised if it is let go, and I won't be surprised if he gets a week.

I certainly wasn't surprised that it barely got a replay from the WA FoxFooty team though. Equally, it would be all over the papers in Perth today if was a Carlton player that did that to Medhurst.

I'm with WBY on this one.

I was peeved with the commentators at the time who dismissed the action as being quite OK.... they just said " hip and shoulder with no raised elbow." I do agree that the elbow was not raised until after he connected, but he clearly targetted Houla's head by jumping off the ground so that his shoulder made contact with the head. Clear case of a deliberate head high tackle that should get looked at IMHO. And just for the record I am not advocating that the rules keep going down the soft path of recent times where any incidental contact has been rewarded with a free. But deliberate attack on the head should be reported.

keogh · **Joined:** Fri Jul 29, 2005 6:36 am **Posts:** 6476

I have backed him to win the Brownlow about 6 weeks ago and happy to have done it.If anyone got a vote it would of been Fev last Sat night.If Houli doesnt get injured he will poll very well.

BlueWorld · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:28 pm **Posts:** 3768

Medhurst a week.

Josh Carr got off for hitting Murphy due to lack of vision.

Looks like those biased commentators don't even know the rules, saying Medhurst would be OK because you can't hit someone in the head without looking at the ball. :roll:

Chitty's Finger · **Posted:** Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:41 pm

BlueWorld wrote:

Medhurst a week.

Josh Carr got off for hitting Murphy due to lack of vision.

A week for cannoning into someone's head?

Seems just another craphole decision. Did the guy pull up when he saw Houlihan on his knees? No - if anything he sped up.

Dirty lowlife swine sucking pig.

Shoshie · **Posted:** Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:45 pm

I heard that. I was like "wow I didn't think he'd get a week", but looking at the replay again, looked high for sure.

Upset about the incident on Marc Murphy though, was knocked out, but damn the lack of vision.

BlueWorld · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:28 pm **Posts:** 3768

Athorn the Wonderkid wrote:

BlueWorld wrote:

Medhurst a week.

Josh Carr got off for hitting Murphy due to lack of vision.

A week for cannoning into someone's head?

Seems just another craphole decision. Did the guy pull up when he saw Houlihan on his knees? No - if anything he sped up.

Dirty lowlife swine sucking pig.

It's sort of 2 matches (2.25) but gets reduced to 1 (1.6875) if he pleads guilty. :roll:

Quote:

The incident was assessed as reckless conduct (two points), medium impact (two points), in play (no points) and high contact (two points) equating to 225 demerit points and a two-match ban which will reduce to just 168.75 points and a one-game suspension if he pleads guilty.

So the fact that he didn't KO Houla & he got up & kept playing makes it medium impact.

showbag · **Joined:** Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:44 am **Posts:** 2664

ThePrez wrote:

camelboy wrote:

I reckon after the game against Freo the "spotlight" should be moved to Nick Stevens.

Back to Houla, anyone reckon the match review panel might take some interest in Medhurst's actions?

they F@%&#! better.

i also want to see Carr go up for stiking Murphy behind play - F@%&#! coward is Carr

It's a red letter day Prez...we agree on something

Deano Supremo · **Posted:** Tue Apr 11, 2006 8:05 am

camelboy wrote:

Deano Supremo wrote:

camelboy wrote:

Back to Houla, anyone reckon the match review panel might take some interest in Medhurst's actions?

I hope not. It was a perfectly delivered legal H & S.

Except that he hit a player in the head, with a raised elbow and no eyes for the ball.

The elbow didn't raise until after impact.

Getting a week for a hip and shoulder is a load of shit. I'd be screaming the house down if it was the other way around.

thegezman · **Posted:** Tue Apr 11, 2006 8:35 am

contact was high deano.

reckless contact to the head in any form should be a reportable offence. i'm sorry.

you cant hip n shoulder a bloke in the head. guys have broken necks as a reuslt of this. i was surprised houla got back up to be honest. was a top effort that he did. i sure wouldn't have

2 weeks is about right.

Wild Blue Yonder · **Posted:** Tue Apr 11, 2006 8:43 am

It was a long way from a legal H&S Deano and you know it. Blokes got his head over the ball and gets hit head high - that ain't a legal hip and shoulder.

Not even worth arguing about - the AFL have made the rule patently clear for some years now.

Deano Supremo · **Posted:** Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:05 am

Houlihan's head wasn't over the ball.

The elbow was tucked in until after contact.

Houlihan's head contacted Medhurst's shoulder as a result of the initial impact.

There is such a thing as legal head high contact - the last god knows how many mark of the years wouldn't have existed without it.

We'll have to agree to disagree - I didn't see anything wrong with the bump, and if that is now illegal then our game has lost something very special.

Wild Blue Yonder · **Posted:** Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:10 am

Houlihan's head contacted Medhurst's shoulder?

righto Deano, that confirms your opinion is very different from mine (and the AFL's)

thegezman · **Posted:** Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:13 am

Deano Supremo wrote:

Houlihan's head wasn't over the ball.

The elbow was tucked in until after contact.

Houlihan's head contacted Medhurst's shoulder as a result of the initial impact.

There is such a thing as legal head high contact - the last god knows how many mark of the years wouldn't have existed without it.

We'll have to agree to disagree - I didn't see anything wrong with the bump, and if that is now illegal then our game has lost something very special.

this line here summed up why he was reported and suspended "Houlihan's head contacted Medhurst's shoulder as a result of the initial impact." it was actually medhursts shoulder that made contact with houla's face.

if you didn't notice deano, medhust was not trying to take mark of the year :roll:

he was trying to take out houla, plain and simple. medhust could have simply tryed to play fro the ball or tackle houla but instead leaped of the ground and made full force with houla head, with the full weight of momentum behind him.

he did do the right thing by keeping the elbow in otherwise he be out for 6 weeks.

you can't simply jump into a blokes head in an attempt to take him out.

as for flying for a mark thats a different situation altogether, atleast they went for the footy

Deano Supremo · **Posted:** Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:20 am

I'll bookmark this thread, and when a Carlton player gets done on a similar charge we'll see if opinion differs.

Medhurst, although he's a knob, was stiff I reckon.

Orangewhip · **Joined:** Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:00 am **Posts:** 6154

Sydney Blue wrote:

Its times like this Pagan should draw the media's attention to it

But why? It's little more than a BOO-HOO or 'attracting attention to yourself.' The boys are generally green and are learning to hit hard. This involves also being hit hard in return. Cop it sweet, no matter how cheap and whether the AFL review panel get's it right or wrong.Who cares?

Why? Because, before other teams know it, Carlton are going to be hitting twice as hard again and not thinking twice about it. And if the other team wants to have a sook, the Blues will see this as a weakness and treat their opposition as such.

Let them evolve into a no-whinge team of players who are commited and hard-hitting. Respect in football comes from that ethic, not crying foul.

TheSheik · **Joined:** Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:03 pm **Posts:** 940

Deano Supremo wrote:

The elbow didn't raise until after impact.

Getting a week for a hip and shoulder is a load of shit. I'd be screaming the house down if it was the other way around.

I'm with you here Deano, I have watched the vision of the hit 2-3 times and thought it was just a solid bone-jarring hip & shoulder. Houlihan left himself open and Medhurst took the opportunity and applied the shepherd (albeit a vigourous one). The incident was within 10 metres of the ball and there was no raised elbow etc, all legitimate as far I can see.

I'm sure Blues fans would be squealing like stuck pigs if one of our players was rubbed out for the same.

Orangewhip · **Joined:** Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:00 am **Posts:** 6154

TheSheik wrote:

I'm sure Blues fans would be squealing like stuck pigs if one of our players was rubbed out for the same.

You'd know about squealing. You're the girls-blouse of TC.

Houligan

Who is online