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

Remove this Banner Ad

Surely it’s time?
Absurd that we have situations like Houston lining up and knocking out one of Adelaide’s most important opposition players in a tight game. Yet while Rankine is done for the day, Houston plays on.
We all know he’s done for 4+ weeks… why shouldn’t the suspension begin the moment he commits the act?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

But if Rankine has the ball and he bumps him in the chest and Rankine gets knocked out by his heading hitting the ground, that is allowed isn't it?

I wouldnt have thought so. Hes gone for a while
 
When has this ever happened
Don't know if it has or has not. May be the first time something like this has happened, if he did hit him the chest?

I wouldnt have thought so. Hes gone for a while
Which rule has he broken if he's bumped him in the chest?

I don't see why it would be, when If he tackles him but he gets knocked out by the ground it's still a suspension
The equivalent to that would be a player laying on the ground and player dives into them and knocks them out. Houston has no control over Rankine's body after the bump when Rankine was standing up, compared to a tackle where the tackler still is touching the player when they are on the ground
 
Doesn't look like he hit him in the head. 0 weeks
A genuine issue with the rule - it truly appears to be 100% whiplash from the impact to the body.

IF it's shown to conclusively be a body hit and its the whiplash that KOd him (ie body "stopping" and head keeps "going"), then its a bit of a slippery slope.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Surely it’s time?
Absurd that we have situations like Houston lining up and knocking out one of Adelaide’s most important opposition players in a tight game. Yet while Rankine is done for the day, Houston plays on.
We all know he’s done for 4+ weeks… why shouldn’t the suspension begin the moment he commits the act?
Yep. No sin bins and no send offs. It the worst aspect of the game.
 
Don’t reckon Houston had any intention bar playing hard but fair footy.

However, he got him high. The still conclusively proves that.

High contact, severe impact, he’ll be lucky to get 4, the AFL will ask for 6 and it’ll hit at 5 I reckon.
 
Hit him in the chest, didn't leave ground etc - injury caused by hitting ground. free kick, nothing in it worth a report

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Would you believe that Port ended up with the free kick?
Because they did

Crows got the first 5 frees of the night and Port had a mark not paid that should have and that was it they were always going to **** us after that

Butters somehow a bigger diver than Robbie Gray was
 
Last time a bloke in black/white hit a player high, front on and caused a massive concussion, he got 0 weeks and &$0 fine. Expecting the same here. 😝
There's distinct differences between the two acts, but also they changed the rule book so that if that same Maynard action happens again it'll be weeks

So yeah, nah
 
How the umps missed paying a free is beyond me, that was in the play - he lined him up from a mile away and got him in the head, KO'd before he hit the ground

Punishment should be a flight to Perth and 3 rounds against Volk
 
Last time a bloke in black/white hit a player high, front on and caused a massive concussion, he got 0 weeks and &$0 fine. Expecting the same here. 😝
Yeah.. but Houston plays for the “Temu” version of the black and white!.. big difference.
 
But if Rankine has the ball and he bumps him in the chest and Rankine gets knocked out by his heading hitting the ground, that is allowed isn't it?
This is what it hinges on.

The reverse angle shows Rankine is clearly conscious until his head hits the ground.

There's absolutely nothing conclusive to show that Houston got him high.

If the concussion is a result of head hitting floor, is that a suspension, and if so - under what sanction?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top