Yeah his years likely done. What an idiot.
-
LIVE: Sydney v Port Adelaide - 7:40 / 7:10 Fri
Squiggle tips Swans at 57% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
-
LIVE: Geelong v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Cats at 54% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Prelim Finals
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round SF Winner: And_ROOS
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
News AFL Tribunal appeals board upholds Houston's 5 Week Suspension
- Thread starter 1990crow
- Start date
- Tagged users None
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Yeah 100%. I wouldn’t mind the rugby union rule being enforced basically it’s a send off for 20mins (so the bunker can do an analysis whether it fits the parameters of a send off offence) then you can replace the player (in our game the sub used)
Madas
Norm Smith Medallist
- Aug 16, 2020
- 6,928
- 9,040
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Yellow and red cards like the ammo’s and round ball
Easy
- Oct 19, 2020
- 24,326
- 34,174
- AFL Club
- Richmond
3 weeks is fair
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
How on earth is it worth less than a number of incidents that got 4 weeks? 4 weeks is ridiculously light he’s taken Rankine out for next weeks game.
Gut feel it ends with 5 weeks so he can’t play a GF.
- Apr 24, 2013
- 2,714
- 6,961
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
I think in extreme cases ump's should have the ability to eject players for particularly violent, illegal actions. But the problem is that trying to sell this will just result in the media halfwits scaring people with the idea of out-of-control umps handing out red cards like candy.
That's why I think my suggestion is better as a first step towards sanity.
They did not end up with a free kick, take your rubbish elsewhere. The ump said it wasn't high and the continuing play seen Port mark the ball.
Last edited:
- Oct 19, 2020
- 24,326
- 34,174
- AFL Club
- Richmond
He didn't hit the head from what I saw. It was the whiplash that gave him concussion imo.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Doesn’t matter he’s liable for any head contact direct or indirect. It’s a bare minimum of 4 weeks as being subbed out triggers an automatic severe loading which is a 4 week minimum. Doubt they want him available for a grand final it’s a por look so give him 5, done
- Oct 19, 2020
- 24,326
- 34,174
- AFL Club
- Richmond
The tribunal have a record of giving less weeks when finals are involved.
Houston is usually a ball player, he's no Maynard.
Ump said it wasn't a free, so how is it outside the rules?
Dude he plays for Port not an MCG tenant there will be no leniency.
bartlettsbaldpatch
Draftee
- Jul 23, 2022
- 11
- 34
- AFL Club
- Richmond
I have just watched this 5 times, and I cannot see any breach of the rules, Unfortunate yes, but seems like fair play.
Kbroome
Club Legend
- May 10, 2024
- 1,509
- 1,545
- AFL Club
- Sydney
This is the rule that means even if they deem he didn't directly contact the head that the same ruling under the rubric will apply. I think it will be 5 but could +-1 on that
jdeezy
Premiership Player
- Jul 6, 2013
- 4,732
- 13,085
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
I did some digging on the Webster incident and posted it over on the Port board, thought it might be interesting to some of you so I'll chuck it up here too.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...o/news-story/bc39d1d9917dcb3506a539a1eb6fa842
I went and did some digging into the MRO / Tribunal guidelines and the sanctions for Webster earlier this year.
I would've assumed since he chose to bump it would be deemed intentional. But apparently Webster's was deemed careless, maybe because it's a football act?
All of this quote
"This incident was entirely avoidable. Webster launched into a relatively defenceless Simpkin. He had time to consider his alternatives. The impact was violent and the consequences for Simpkin were heavy. Nonetheless, the offence was graded careless."
could and probably would be applied to Houston's action. So I reckon you tick off careless and severe.
Maybe it's possible to argue it's body contact? I don't think so though, given Rankine appears out before he hits the ground. That being said, Looking at Houston's compared to Webster's, the ball is closer by the time Houston bumps and he stays on the ground with no stray elbows. It doesn't even draw a free. So even though I reckon it'll be considered head high I reckon they'll be able to argue it deserves less weeks than Webster's.
I reckon it shakes out at 6 but I could see a world where it gets down to 4 or 5. Can't see it getting any lower, but can't see it getting equal to or higher than Webster's 7.
But who knows
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...o/news-story/bc39d1d9917dcb3506a539a1eb6fa842
I went and did some digging into the MRO / Tribunal guidelines and the sanctions for Webster earlier this year.
I would've assumed since he chose to bump it would be deemed intentional. But apparently Webster's was deemed careless, maybe because it's a football act?
All of this quote
"This incident was entirely avoidable. Webster launched into a relatively defenceless Simpkin. He had time to consider his alternatives. The impact was violent and the consequences for Simpkin were heavy. Nonetheless, the offence was graded careless."
could and probably would be applied to Houston's action. So I reckon you tick off careless and severe.
Maybe it's possible to argue it's body contact? I don't think so though, given Rankine appears out before he hits the ground. That being said, Looking at Houston's compared to Webster's, the ball is closer by the time Houston bumps and he stays on the ground with no stray elbows. It doesn't even draw a free. So even though I reckon it'll be considered head high I reckon they'll be able to argue it deserves less weeks than Webster's.
I reckon it shakes out at 6 but I could see a world where it gets down to 4 or 5. Can't see it getting any lower, but can't see it getting equal to or higher than Webster's 7.
But who knows
Since it ain't the rule of the week I'm sure it'll get like 2 weeks or something. As is the blind dartboard throwing tribunal tradition.
div12ressie
Senior List
- Jul 13, 2024
- 237
- 424
- AFL Club
- Essendon
so if someone bumps someone fairy (not saying Houston did), and the other player’s head hits the ground and gets hurt its a suspension? Why havent AFL made bumping illegal then..
Our sport is so stupid hahah
Our sport is so stupid hahah
Gee people carry on. Acting like he lined him up and raised an elbow. He will get weeks but wasn’t that bad
- May 3, 2007
- 38,669
- 22,537
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Man City, Valencia, Lazio, Panthers
I am sure it will be Byron Pickett LoL
Based on this, IF Port can show its body contact only its either high or severe contact and careless - 1-2 weeks. (possibly tribunal adds more)
- Oct 19, 2020
- 24,326
- 34,174
- AFL Club
- Richmond
The young man Rankine was ok as he went off the ground unlike Brayshaw when hit by Maynard.
Careless lol.
div12ressie
Senior List
- Jul 13, 2024
- 237
- 424
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Hypothetically if it was body contact only why shouldnt he be free to play? Contact sport end of the day
- Apr 17, 2010
- 7,696
- 10,939
- AFL Club
- Sydney
It can be "reasonably foreseen" that choosing to bump may have caused high contact, and choosing to bump was "unreasonable in the circumstance" because Rankine is holding the pill so tackling him is an option instead
Basically even if the bump was otherwise legal if you have an alternative and you ko them, you have committed an offence
Similar threads
- Poll
