Review R23: The Good, Bad and Ugly vs. Port Adelaide

[Elder van Berlo]

It doesn't matter if he did or didn't does it? The concussion was the result of the bump so same difference (in the eyes of the tribunal and by the rules as I understand them)

The rules say this

Contact shall be classified as High where a Player’s head makes contact with an object such as the fence or the ground as a result of the actions of the offending Player.

What that deals with though is the classification of the offence once it has been established to be rough conduct.

It doesn’t automatically deem something to be a reportable offence just because someone’s head hits the ground as a result.

I’ve also never seen it applied to a bump to the body which has knocked a player over and their head has hit the ground. On a literal reading it would apply to that situation. But the causation is pretty remote and arguably not for the better (when compared to more direct causation eg a sling tackle).

It might be a thorny issue for the Tribunal at some point (whether this case or another)

 

[steve9798]

Too hard to prove, surely?

Funny thing about Sport: if the hits by Peppapig on Keane, Rankine on Starcevich, Houston on Rankine, the punch by Gaff on Brayshaw and many others happened on a busy night in Hindley Street, the perpetrator would find themselves in Criminal Court.
If Toby Greene had not found footy as an outlet for his anger issues, he'd be in jail today (and others).

It wouldn't surprise me if it happens in the future. Alot of players become disgruntled with their previous club.

 

[GROTTO]

Power mascot got punched by a kid....

Youre making light of it, its poor form.

I have found the vision of the kid, its serious.

 

[CrowBloke]

Reckon Luko could become an elite goal-kicking F50 deliverer wingman.

Not while we have Nicks.

 

[Elder van Berlo]

Yes, it's relevant for a bump to the body... but it's irrelevant when it's a high bump - which it was in the case of Houston/Rankine.

Quoting the wrong rule means that the rest of your case collapses.

For a high bump, these are the considerations:

Houston was opting to bump - he was not contesting for the ball. Nor was the contact the result of unforeseen circumstances.

You are too dumb to argue with.

When assessing whether something is intentional, you have to consider what they intended to do, not what actually happened.

Pages and pages ago I said that if he intended to get him in the head, it is obviously intentional rough conduct.

But if he intended to get him in the body (which he almost certainly did), then to determine whether he committed intentional rough conduct, you have to consider the rules about Bumps to the Body to determine whether the thing he intended to do was a reportable offence.

 

[BRL121]

Need a poll: most likely poster to punch the mascot?

Bearded Clam odds-on for mine

From the Gold Coast?

 

[CrowBloke]

I’m yet to be convinced he got him high

Take a break, go feed your seeing-eye dog .

 

[PeterSalt]

Can one of the older posters on here inform me, didnt Dave Granger back in the 80s was instructed by the coach to take out Cornes?

The Port Adelaide Way.

Its inbred in their DNA.

Yes .. and the story is he didn't want to do it .. told them he'd get rubbed out for ever

Club told him "no worries m8, we'll look after you"

Then when the heat came on afterwards the special club thru him under the bus

 

[Brasher]

Houston never had intention to contest the ball though, he was lining up Rankine as per Ken's instructions pre game to target him.

Umpires failed to protect him before the incident.

Exactly. That's why McAdams suspension is the minimum.

 

[Vader]

You are too dumb to argue with.

When assessing whether something is intentional, you have to consider what they intended to do, not what actually happened.

Pages and pages ago I said that if he intended to get him in the head, it is obviously intentional rough conduct.

But if he intended to get him in the body (which he almost certainly did), then to determine whether he committed intentional rough conduct, you have to consider the rules about Bumps to the Body to determine whether the thing he intended to do was a reportable offence.

... except that's never the way the AFL does it.

The Houston situation is no different from Rankine's. Both intended to bump their opponent. Neither intended to get their opponent high, but both ended up doing so. Both bumps were significant enough to constitute Rough Conduct. There is no difference.

 

[PeterSalt]

If we had a look and compared G20 countries to AFL football teams .. the port abelaide power would without a doubt be russia

lying, grifting cheats .. throw their own under the bus .. always play the victim .. when they feel a little low, threaten the world with "we're a nuclear power" .. basically shit human beings

 

[BunjiMC]

Good to see the umpires protecting players. No free here either. Play on.

 

[BRL121]

Port supporter here, tell me to f off and I will - but not looking to troll or anything like that. This looks like a genuine conversation which is why I thought i'd like to chip in.

IF it's proven that Rankine's head did indeed whiplash into Houston's shoulder, then it's high contact and it's a big suspension.

However, I have read the post you quoted, that suggests that Rankine's head moving back violently after initially having his body taken from under his head, however I would put forward that his head would violently move back regardless of if it bumped Houston's shoulder or not.

Obviously I have teal coloured glasses on, but i'm not convinved that he has made contact with his head at all - there certainly is a possibility he did, I just don't think the vision is conclusive one way or another. I've seen many people post still images where it may seem like there's high contact, but there's a thing called forced perspective, and I think that applies here. Without the supporting alternate angle, Houston could be well clear of his head and the image would look the same.

There's always talk about alternatives, and clearly he could have tackled - however that only comes into play if the original action is found to be illegal. If he bumped the body, and there is no head contact, then he's performed a legal action and alternatives don't come into play.

I'm firmly of the opinion that the floor did the vast majority of the damage, and that Rankine was conscious up until that point. There is one camera angle that shows his face the entire time, and in slow motion, you can see his eyes move towards Houston as he falls back - and then his head hits the floor and his eyes shut. Obviously there is the possibility he was concussed from the bump itself - but the reverse cannot be true - ie. there's no way anyone can definitively say he was concussed before he hit the ground.

And the main reason I came on this board was to actually look for an update on Rankine and his health - haven't seen anything really posted. Hope he's well, and best wishes - what's the latest update?

I think you need to brush up on your Physics. If the hit was totally to the chest, then Rankine's head would have gone forwards, not backwards. QED

 

[Danger in Texas]

Not sure if already posted, but:



Laird sucks

 

[Elder van Berlo]

... except that's never the way the AFL does it.

The Houston situation is no different from Rankine's. Both intended to bump their opponent. Neither intended to get their opponent high, but both ended up doing so. Both bumps were significant enough to constitute Rough Conduct. There is no difference.

Except for the big and obvious difference that one guy had the ball and the other was 20 meters away from a ball stuck in a pack as the umpire blew his whistle for a ball up.

Which when assessed against that third dot point in Bumps to the Body section: “the player could reasonably expect the contact having regard to his involvement in play or ability to influence the contest”

Is actually a pretty significant difference.

 

[Bazz_27]

View attachment 2084897
View attachment 2084899
Good to see the umpires protecting players. No free here either. Play on.

If Rozzee has his jumper then what is butters doing? Got his throat?

 

[Vader]

Except for the big and obvious difference that one guy had the ball and the other was 20 meters away from a ball stuck in a pack as the umpire blew his whistle for a ball up.

Which when assessed against that third dot point in Bumps to the Body section: “the player could reasonably expect the contact having regard to his involvement in play or ability to influence the contest”

Is actually a pretty significant difference.

Yes... but not one which has any significance as far as the rules are concerned.

 

[PeterSalt]

I'm sorry mods .. but this campaigner is a ****ing clown .. just **** him off

 

[Elder van Berlo]

... except that's never the way the AFL does it.

The Houston situation is no different from Rankine's. Both intended to bump their opponent. Neither intended to get their opponent high, but both ended up doing so. Both bumps were significant enough to constitute Rough Conduct. There is no difference.

Also I apologise for the dumb comment. That was unbecoming of me.

 

[Archie87]

Aww poor Dan guys - he needed the day off according to Channel 7. Poor thing. It's all about him apparently!!!

 

[BunjiMC]

Aww poor Dan guys - he needed the day off according to Channel 7. Poor thing. It's all about him apparently!!!

Port also said he would be back tomorrow to support the other players. It sounds like they have conceded that his season is over.

 

[BRL121]

It’s not, though.

I tried to give you a hint before but since you didn’t take it, or perhaps realised that it would undermine your point so decided not to take it, when assessing whether a Bump to the Body constitutes rough conduct,



Now whether it is in play or not is not the sole criterion here, but that factor has a role to play in assessing each of those three dot points, and a particularly important role in assessing the third.

Far from being “irrelevant”, it is highly relevant to the question of whether a Bump to the Body is rough conduct or not. I would go further and say that on that test, it will be rare if ever that a Bump to the Body in a contest constitutes rough conduct.

Now when you consider that a deliberate head shot is basically dead in football - and that almost every reportable head high bump is an intended Bump to the Body gone wrong - you can easily see why the MRO almost always grades head high bumps in a contest as being careless rough conduct rather than intentional rough conduct.

Now in this case, I could see the argument either way and I’m not advocating a position (just a correct understanding of the rules).

But to describe whether the bump was in play as “irrelevant” in determining whether rough conduct is careless or intentional is just so, so wrong.

Liked for the correct use of "criterion".

 

[Geoffa32]

Aww poor Dan guys - he needed the day off according to Channel 7. Poor thing. It's all about him apparently!!!

Will only need 30 minutes to clean out his locker anyway.

Three game suspension means he will never play for Port again.

 

[The Karma Bus]

View attachment 2084897
View attachment 2084899
Good to see the umpires protecting players. No free here either. Play on.

I was going to say earlier and forgot..
This is half the problem in games or situations like the other night.

The umpires don't have any control. They paid some "in play" over zealous high tackles etc but let all of their shit like this go on. And everything escalates.

 

[Archie87]

Cornes is so outdated: apparently we lost it by playing the man meanwhile he's completely silent on Port getting away with playing the man ALL ****ING DAY and getting away with it. Also the Houston bump was fine.