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

[_Mike_]

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

3-4 weeks is what I think the tribunal will hand out, however let’s not take this discussion to that topic thanks, it caused enough drama.

 

[theouthouse]

Have to always protect yourself when running with the flight of the ball.

I've said it on here before somewhere I think but the AFL needs to clarify a sort of right of way in these exact type of situations as to who has first dibs at going for the ball.

Could easily have been 2 concussed players.

 

[Mudman85]

Impact wasn't high.

His feet never left the ground.

Dan Houston

5

Dan Houston

Age

27

Ht

186cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.2

5star

K

11.8

4star

HB

6.4

4star

M

4.9

5star

T

3.0

5star

MG

289.2

4star

D

17.6

4star

K

11.6

4star

HB

6.0

3star

M

3.3

3star

T

3.4

4star

MG

319.9

5star

D

16.6

4star

K

12.4

5star

HB

4.2

4star

M

7.0

5star

T

2.6

4star

MG

279.8

5star

wasn't even there....

 

[tugga]

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?

How in the hell can you possibly tell when a player loses consciousness from a TV?
Absolutely bizarre comment.

 

[Stax on the mill]

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

In case you didn’t know they changed the rules after Maynard’s collision with Brayshaw. Oh, and that was an accidental bump, whereas Houston’s bump on Rankine was not.

Try and keep up.

 

[chickenonachain]

I’ll say this again Houston should hire the Carlton lawyers by the time they have finished with their defence it would be Rankines fault for causing contact

 

[radiojake]

I think that Houston will get 5, but could be anywhere between 4 and 6. It was a hard bump that resulted in a severe concussion, wether or not that was shoulder to head or head on ground. I don’t think that we have any recourse to argue it and he is at the mercy of the tribunal. Realistically there is a chance that he has played his last game against us, which is very dissapointing.

Do you feel the same about the thilthorpe incident though? It was tunneling. Essentially he elected to bump a player that was in the air, who then came down and hit his head on the ground hard enough to have to go off and do a hia test and miss 20 mins of the game. Bare minimum then should this be careless, high and medium?

Definitely thought it should have been a free kick at minimum
Haven't seen the replay since

 

[Daniel B]

This is the extreme false dichotomy invented by people as an excuse for not doing something more sensible. Umpires should not be able to hand out red cards purely off discretion.

What should happen is that player can only be sent off if the player on the other team has been removed from the game too. And the offending team should still be able to sub in a player, not screw the game up by making them go a man down.

Yep. For such instances, umpires should meet to discuss at the next break. If all are in agreement (think of a jury), the team would be informed that their player will no longer take the field. That will take the theatre out of it while still bringing a fairer outcome.

 

[ozaddy]

Definitely thought it should have been a free kick at minimum
Haven't seen the replay since

18.7.2 Free Kicks - Rough Conduct A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player when that Player engages in rough conduct against an opposition Player which in the circumstances is unreasonable, which includes but is not limited to: (a) (b) (c) (d) executing a dangerous tackle on an opposition Player; making forceful contact below the knees of an opposition Player or executing a forceful action towards the lower leg of an opposition Player causing the opposition Player to take evasive action; sliding knees or feet first into an opposition Player; using boot studs in a manner likely to cause injury.

so going by guidelines, the free kick should be for (e) the vibe

Understand you can get reported for something that isn't a free kick, but not sure what rule the free kick is being found from?

 

[div12ressie]

So if rankine bounced back up straight away Houston would be fine? How about we just ban bumping and not penalise based on the outcome

 

[ozaddy]

Definitely thought it should have been a free kick at minimum
Haven't seen the replay since

He'll definitely go to the tribunal, under

18.7.1 Spirit and Intention Players shall be protected from unreasonable conduct from an opposition Player which is likely to cause injury.

But unless he got him high (not in terms of MRP), then there is no free kick to be paid. Pretty sure that's what Ray was telling Crows players last night too.

 

[ozaddy]

So if rankine bounced back up straight away Houston would be fine? How about we just ban bumping and not penalise based on the outcome

Yes, Houston would not have anything to answer for.

 

[div12ressie]

Also is it time for AFL to force players to sign waivers of some sort, similar to UFC/boxing etc? Accidents/concussions happen and the players know what theyre signing up for

 

[Bearded Clam]

Impact wasn't high.

His feet never left the ground.

Dan Houston wasn't even there....

Well… there it is. The smoking gun photo. It always comes out eventually… the photo and video angle the Tribunal will point to.

And its left a shitload of egg on the faces of the “it was a fair bump.. his feet didnt leave the ground.. no contact to the head” delusional crap some muppets in this thread have been desperately trying to spin.

-No intention at all for the footy
-feet have left the ground
-arm and shoulder tucked in with no intention whatsoever of tackling
-shoulder/back of shoulder contact to the face/head.
-knocked opponent out cold and it was a horrible look with his opponent left in seizure on the ground.

Reckless. Totally and utterly reckless.

Houston wouldve known the moment he did it his season was over.
Thats why he was crying his crocodile tears on the bench in the minutes after.

His tears werent for Rankine at all, he was sooking cause he watched the replay on the bench, it confirmed his concerns and he knew instantly his finals campaign was over.

If the AFL dont give him 5 weeks minimum then they arent serious about dog acts that result in concussions.

No more discussion needed really.

 

[Daniel B]

No chance Webster only got 7.

It’s between 4-6, feel they take a middle figure and say 5 weeks just so he cannot play in a GF regardless

Our man Parker was given 6 for a hit with much less force and intent than Houston's. I'm not saying 8 would be fair; rather, if the AFL are going to be consistent, it was worse than Parker's so 7 or 8 would be about right.

 

[Bearded Clam]

Also is it time for AFL to force players to sign waivers of some sort, similar to UFC/boxing etc? Accidents/concussions happen and the players know what theyre signing up for

Signing waivers means sweet fxxk all if the AFL doesnt also do its part to stamp this kind of stuff out of the game..

Any good lawyer would have the waiver struck out by simply pointing to dog acts like this and saying “the AFL still had a duty of care regardless of any waivers signed..”

OH&S doesnt work like that.. I cant send a young bloke out onto a construction site and not also ensure I’ve done everything humanly possible I can to make sure he is going to be safe.. simply cause I may have been able to convince him to sign a waiver..

 

[Maddo11]

Yep. For such instances, umpires should meet to discuss at the next break. If all are in agreement (think of a jury), the team would be informed that their player will no longer take the field. That will take the theatre out of it while still bringing a fairer outcome.

Just get the ARC and the back up umpire to watch the vision and make a call while play continues. Doesn't matter if it takes 5 or 10 minutes, as long as they make the correct call.

 

[ElectricG]

Either way, if the PAFC have any brains they will be preparing for a finals series without Houston.

 

[radiojake]

Understand you can get reported for something that isn't a free kick, but not sure what rule the free kick is being found from?

I was talking about Thilthorpe tunnel on Jones

 

[sigur]

So if rankine bounced back up straight away Houston would be fine? How about we just ban bumping and not penalise based on the outcome

Nope. McAdam last year did a similar bump, main contact to chest not head - player went off for concussion test but was fine and played out the game. Still got 3 week suspension.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Maynard chose to bump and got let off, finals coming up has a big say on suspensions.

Helps if you're a big Vic club as well.

 

[Underarm]

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

They changed the rules at the start of the year. Keep up.

 

[ozaddy]

Either way, if the PAFC have any brains they will be preparing for a finals series without Houston.

Time for Houston to get some cosmetic surgery to look like Burton

 

[kreuze_missile]

Bump was so bad Port should be kicked out of the finals and whoever is currently 9th should take their place

 

[ElectricG]

Time for Houston to get some cosmetic surgery to look like Burton

Everyone would know something is up about 2 minutes into watching him play