News AFL Tribunal appeals board upholds Houston's 5 Week Suspension

[fuic08]

I'm not sure how anyone can look at the replays and say there wasn't head high contact.

They post an early frame that doesn't look as bad. They all know it hit him high.

 

[TubbsFarquhar]

If the bump hit his chest and not head at all, it’s just a good hard bump and should get zero weeks. The concussion is just bad luck.

McAdam got three games last year for a body hit due to the "potential to cause injury".

 

[Erakor]

Your opinion doesn't change facts no matter how much you refuse to believe it.

And you calling facts as facts doesn’t actually make them so.

Your argument is essentially ‘Rankin was in a vulnerable position and therefor the bump was illegal and that’s a fact and anyone who argues against this is arguing against facts and therefor wrong’.

It’s circle rational.

 

[Gunner886]

I'm not sure how anyone can look at the replays and say there wasn't head high contact.

Because they're looking at the best angles/stills available not that bullshit you posted.

 

[CrowToon]

Calling someone illiterate on the internet without actually arguing against my rebuttal…. Ohhh how original dude.

Good discussion.

There is no point engaging in what is to follow if you have not arrived at the baseline fundamentals.

And you calling facts as facts doesn’t actually make them so.

Your argument is essentially ‘Rankin was in a vulnerable position and therefor the bump was illegal and that’s a fact and anyone who argues against this is arguing against facts and therefor wrong’.

It’s circle rational.

People have literally posted the rules multiple times in this thread where it clearly states body contact is still rough conduct etc etc and there are still people such as yourself that are refusing to acknowledge that.

Vulnerable and defenceless comes from many tribunal statements regarding decisions

But yeah, I'm just making it up.

Spend 15 minutes trying to actually learn about the topic and I'll debate you.

 

[ashep]

5 at least to ensure he doesn't play again this year

3 oughta do it.

 

[Drakescoffeecake]

Dude he plays for Port not an MCG tenant there will be no leniency.

Yes, everyone is against Port. Take your conspiracies to the media shakes head thread.

 

[Underarm]

Because they're looking at the best angles/stills available not that bullshit you posted.

1000 (or 2) stills where there isnt head high contact doesnt prove anything. You just need 1 still that proves it and that's the ball game.

 

[CrowToon]

And you calling facts as facts doesn’t actually make them so.

Your argument is essentially ‘Rankin was in a vulnerable position and therefor the bump was illegal and that’s a fact and anyone who argues against this is arguing against facts and therefor wrong’.

It’s circle rational.

My argument is that Rankine was knocked out as a result of Houston's bump. Once that is established you then scrutinise the bump e.g. did he have any alternatives?

Im not sure you understand this topic at all

 

[Orange crush]

McAdam from the crows got 3 for a similar bump against the giants in the opening round last year …. Gonna be the same result here

 

[SC_Power]

I'm not sure how anyone can look at the replays and say there wasn't head high contact.

It’s a side on photo. Proves its in camera sight line, but not that there’s contact.
Just like this one doesn’t prove that there wasn’t head high contact.



Post a few other angles and you’ll see it’s not as cut and dried as you think.



(Again I’ll post that I think that Houston will get 5-6 weeks).

 

[Erakor]

Mate if we want to start using real life analogies then this sort of foreseeable continuity is why one-punch killing laws were reformed to stop blokes getting away with a lesser charge.

If you punch a bloke and his head hits the concrete and he dies from that you are cactus.

Yeah of course. Because punching is not legal unless you can prove self defence.

Bumping is not illegal.

Apples and oranges.

 

[Bald]

Has to be 5, imo.

 

[Kenny Dee]

Go watch golf

Was that tough from Houston in your eyes?

 

[Gunner886]

Was that tough from Houston in your eyes?

Yes

 

[fuic08]

McAdam from the crows got 3 for a similar bump against the giants in the opening round last year …. Gonna be the same result here

McAdam hit him in the ribs a winded him, still got 3

This bump knocked him out cold.

 

[CrowToon]

Yeah of course. Because punching is not legal unless you can prove self defence.

Bumping is not illegal.

Apples and oranges.

Once again, I'm not equating one action to the other, it was demonstrating another example where causation applies.

You don't have to respect to even acknowledge someone's point and then cry when they treat you the fool

 

[Quinz]

Did Houston elect to bump? Yes
Did Rankine get concussed from the event? Yes

All severe impact contests go straight to the tribunal where they set any penalty they like. The contact is severe, that is certain.

Anything else doesn't actually matter. If they grade it intentional or careless, if they grade it body or high, doesn't mean anything.

They'll ask for 7, Port want 3, they'll compromise at 5 so he has no chance to play this season.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

‘rough conduct’ seems to be AFL code for ‘we know what you did was not against the rules, but the result was not what we desire, so you are getting weeks’.

No one ‘earns the right’ to not be fairly bumped when the ball is live.

It’s consistent all season long. This is a 4 week minimum and it will end that way. Do we want star players getting whacked out of the game? He’s not a dirty player so he’d be filthy on himself but he’ll pay with a month out and that’s more than fair. Look at the ones that have triggered 4 weeks this is on par (at least)

 

[RandB]

It can't be argued on any level as being a 'football act' so immediately the AFL will view the bump and resulting head injury as avoidable. This is regardless of whether Houston made head high contact or not in the initial bump.

How the AFL incorporate this into the wording of the rules and how many weeks Houston gets is anyone's guess.

I'd be surprised with anything under 4 weeks.

 

[ozaddy]

I think you'll find that you are responsible which is the whole point - choose to bump you better make sure they don't get concussion

Look I wouldn't call what Houston did a snipe or dirty, but he's ****ed up by knocking our best player out for the game (and next week too)

You're best player is your captain by far, and should that even be in your argument. What happens if it was your worst player like Rachelle?

 

[ElectricG]

4 seems right. But at the same time, why should we accept anything other than zero after the Maynard incident?

 

[ozaddy]

It can't be argued on any level as being a 'football act' so immediately the AFL will view the bump and resulting head injury as avoidable. This is regardless of whether Houston made head high contact or not in the initial bump.

How the AFL incorporate this into the wording of the rules and how many weeks Houston gets is anyone's guess.

I'd be surprised with anything under 4 weeks.

Not really related, but if we see Houston get 4, I want to see Thilthorpe get 2 for tunnelling.

 

[Pappagallo]

McAdam got three games last year for a body hit due to the "potential to cause injury".

That was a garbage decision especially after Pickett had just received two for launching himself into Bailey Smith’s head. The AFL have completely lost the plot on this and don’t know what’s what.

Houston will get weeks and should’ve tackled considering the zeitgeist. It was a great bump and I would argue a fair one too, but if we’re being real it’s no longer part of the game and they should just outlaw it altogether and be done with it.

He would’ve been praised for being hard but fair only a few years ago but the bump is now a relic of a bygone era and we need to let it go.

 

[SC_Power]

Here’s a stat for everyone that I only learned this morning.

40% of concussions sustained in the AFL in 2023 were from marking contests.

Surprised me.