Bachar Houli was trouble after AFL legal counsel showed replay of Jed Lamb concussion

JUSTICE was served when Bachar Houli was handed a four-week ban, writes JON RALPH, even if took the first ever AFL appeal to rectify a decision so bad it was one-in-one-hundred-years awful.

Bachar Houli leaves the AFL Appeals Board at Etihad Stadium. Picture: AAP

“UNCONSCIOUS before he hits the ground...”

Those six words uttered by the AFL legal counsel Andrew Woods were the hammer blow that will see Bachar Houli miss the next four games.

Thursday night’s appeal was subjected to two hours of dense and at times irrelevant legal argument.

CHARACTER REFERNCE: READ WHAT MARK ‘CHOCO’ WILLIAMS SUBMITTED TO AFL TRIBUNAL ABOUT BACHAR HOULI

TRADE SPECIAL: GARY BUCKENARA ANALYSES RICHMOND’S LIST AND NAMES TRADE/FREE AGENT TARGETS

But it was Woods’ initial 10-second replay of Houli’s hit on Carlton’s Jed Lamb that spoke louder than any withering cross examination.

That slow-mo vision showed Lamb with hands at his side, defenceless and unconscious as he plunged into the MCG turf.

It was that irrefutable fact — rather than any interpretation of the AFL’s judiciary — to which appeals board chairman Peter O’Callaghan finally returned.

Bachar short and sharp after 4 week suspension pic.twitter.com/1kC1doQxRZ

— Jon Ralph (@RalphyHeraldSun) June 29, 2017

O’Callaghan quietly ripped apart the central Richmond argument — that the “good bloke” defence could see a four-week ban reduced to two.

“Undoubtedly the evidence established Mr Houli is worthy of the highest praise and respect of which he is held by the community,” O’Callaghan said.

“But that cannot and should not distract from the objective fact that the strike was high and resulted in him being made unconscious and quite unable to play out the match.

“A blow from a person of exemplary character has just the same impact as a person of bad character.”

Bottom line: justice was served, even if took the first ever AFL appeal to rectify a decision so bad it was one-in-one-hundred-years awful.

And no matter your club allegiance or belief in the integrity of the tribunal and its right to consider exceptional circumstances, two weeks was ridiculously inadequate.

When the dust settled Richmond will realise that the brilliance of its argument on Tuesday night actually cost Houli an extra week’s suspension.

One against premiership favourite GWS at the MCG, no less.

Had the tribunal jury settled on a three-week ban it might not have passed the sniff test but the AFL would never have appealed.

Instead, as AFL footy boss Simon Lethlean said last night, he felt compelled to do so to protect the health and safety of players.

There was no sign last night of Messrs. Neitz, Henwood and McIntosh, presumably being flogged out in the stocks behind AFL House.

Malcolm Turnbull is right in that Houli does work of “extreme and extraordinary importance”.

It just isn’t relevant in a tribunal case when he can already access a discount for a guilty plea.

This was not an appeal rich in quotable quotes, more dense legal arguments.

Back in 2014 Joel Selwood helped Brent Harvey’s successful appeal when he admitted he bled like a Game of Thrones character at the slightest contact.

Back then legal counsel Jeff Gleeson QC conceded Selwood was the “league leader of bleeders”, but this appeal was dry and full of nuance.

Bachar Houli speaks to the media after receiving a four-week suspension. Picture: Getty Images

Woods stated his case then Houli’s counsel Michael Tovey spent 90 interminable minutes fleshing out why the two-week discount was appropriate.

He pushed arguments that the tribunal jury were totally within their rights to argue compelling and exceptional circumstances.

As he said of tribunal member Wayne Henwood, the former is a barrister and former AFL anti-doping board member who isn’t easily swayed by flawed arguments.

Other arguments were less successful, like when he argued: “What he’s convicted of is not an intentional strike to the head, but an intentional strike, resulting in contact to the head”.

With respect your honour, that sounded like an unadulterated slice of gibberish.

Houli is one of football’s great ambassadors who does not deserve to be booed now no matter your view on this case.

But he deserved a three or four-match ban and if it took a historic AFL appeal, then so be it.