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

[SC_Power]

The problem is ..is that you come across as a "punish someone else, except us, because maybe we'll make the GF" and the world isn't fair

I’m sorry that I have an opinion that differs from others, at least I stand by mine with some honest rationale to argue against the false equivalency being written. I guess what I should do is go and look at others posting history on incidents to see whether their defense of opponents’ welfare extends that far.
What do you reckon I’d find, consistency or double standards?

 

[Bucking Bronco]

If he tackled him he probably would have concussed him a lot worse.

He was coming like an absolute freight train, and Rankine was standing stationary.

That's just what happens in that situation.

The AFL's contention that he should have tackled just shows how clueless they are.

The bump which they admit didn't hit him high that made contact for .25 of a second, vs a tackle that involves contact for 2 seconds, and involves the player directly driving the opponent into the ground.

Yeah, nah, that would have been safer for sure.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Folks conveniently forgetting the below from round 1 last year. McAdam got three weeks for “potential to cause injury”. Wehr got up and played on (went off with an unrelated injury late in the game).

As usual with Crows fans, your version of events doesn't match up with reality.

Wehr had to be helped from the ground to undertake a HIA, and then concussion test. He was off the ground for 20 minutes. He returned after that, because GWS was so lacking in rotations that they needed to have someone just go and be a warm body on the field.

The tribunal has been sending clear messages not to shirt front for over a year now. Houston lucky to only get 5 given the severity of the concussion to Rankine.

Severity of the concussion? The Crows posted a tweet of Rankine up and jogging at training after the minimum amount of time he is required to avoid that activity in the concussion protocols.

And participating in social media posts around Thilthorpe shving his beard, the injured shoulder doesn't appear to be giving him any issues.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

The AC joint is consider top of the shoulder so is classified as high which is why it also subsequently hit Rankine's neck. That's what he was trying to argue using that "lid" analogy but it was an illegal bump as it collected Rankine high as Houston lead with his shoulder and not hip.

An AC joint injury does not mean he was hit on the top of the shoulder.

In fact most AC joint injuries come from hits on the point of the shoulder (which is below that top and not considered high) or from force below the shoulder it up like when you land on your arm when falling).

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Byron Pickett got 6 for a similar act, although he did go past the ball.

Matthew Lloyd got 6 for a similar act.

The penalty is justifiable (Maynard excepted) - what’s at issue is the AFL’s laughable Appeals system.

Neither of those are similar incidents at all. Its amazing that people who want to justify the suspension of Houston keep having to say his act is similar to actions that are objectively worse than what occured.

There were people who wanted Cotchin rubbed going for the ball. Look at how Geelong are playing atm. They basically hold one arm, stand still in a tackle. This game will slowly become sanitized to the point that it will become non contact.

Cotchin should've been suspended because the AFL put in a rule that multiple low finable offences would result in a one week suspension. Cotchin had already been fined twice for punching opponents during the year.

And funnily enough we had Richmond fans defending Cotching by saying that Shiel was actually concussed by a later hit from Astbury. Who also was let off by the MRO...

How you could correlate this with any tackles that result in concussion is beyond me. A player should not be expecting full force with a bump when there going for the ball like that. A hard tackle yes and if he did try to tackle than there is nothing to see here. Houston even admits it himself he had a brain fade. Stop living in the past with this sort of mindset. This incident should always result in a suspension and it should have back in the Byron Pickett days too.

A bump on a player standing upright while competing for a loose ball is a legal part of the game. And any AFL player should be expecting contact in that situation.

Basically everyone everywhere thought 5-6 was about right, this is not some out of the blue surprise.

Write, Parker, Webster etc

Wright jumps at his opponent ensuring that he hits him in the head. Was also a marking contest where you cannot bump an opponent. Worse action that Houston. But only 4 weeks. In comparison Houston's bump should result in a lesser punishment.

Parker off the ball hit on a player who should no be expecting contact. Worse action, worse punishment.

Webster... jumps at the opponent, late hit on a player after disposal when they shouldn't be expecting contact.

**** me dead you're ******ed .. the bay could be any bay .. why did you automatically think it was 13 .. because you're a ******ed 13 bay clown

just asking

And apparently Port fans are the feral ones...

 

[Cdog71]

Prestia didn’t have the ball, Stewart made direct head contact.
Rankine did have the ball, Houston did not make head contact.

The first thing I’d say is the Stewart suspension was grossly inadequate.
And the “he’s a good bloke who’s sorry” was IMO an influence on the decision.
Should have been 6 weeks.
Also they didn’t stop the game and it took 2min to get him off the ground.
It was 17 vs 18 for two min and they won by less than a goal.
From start to finish that incident the way that was handled was farcical.

What they do have in common is that neither of those two players had the ability to protect themselves.

The fact is that now, if you choose to bump and Houston did have the option of tackling, if you choose to bump you are responsible for the consequences.

The AFL has to take that line and stay to that standard.
It’s when they don’t/didn’t put the onus on the player who bumps, lawyers and QC’s can argue their way through it and you get instances like the Maynard smother where no one was responsible or like Cripps getting off and winning a Brownlow.
IMO.

 

[Xtreme]

Kochie needs to file an injunction and help Houston realise his dream of playing in the grand final (providing Port actually makes it that far of course).

 

[Eshay187]

Maybe one of the crazier cases of oneeyiedness I’ve seen on here yet

 

[Eshay187]

Parker off the ball hit on a player who should no be expecting contact. Worse action, worse punishment.

Parker was stationary, ball was nearby, and made contact to the shoulder, there was then incidental head clash. It was a legal act.

And he deserved 5-6 weeks for the result.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Kochie needs to file an injunction and help Houston realise his dream of playing in the grand final (providing Port actually makes it that far of course).

And cop an even bigger rodgering than we normally would from the whistle, yeah, nah.
That kinda nonsense is reserved for big Vic clubs facing losing their Captain after Prelim indiscretions, just ask Eddie.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Parker was stationary, ball was nearby, and made contact to the shoulder, there was then incidental head clash. It was a legal act.

He smashed the opponent in the face. Thats why his opponent had broken cheekbones.

Worse act, deserves a signficantly worse punishment.

Also Izak Rankine was up running at training after the minimum wait period according to the concussion protocols. And back participating in social media videos for the club showing little signs of ongoing problems.

Parker's victim missed considerable amount of work due to the damage inflicted upon him.

It was a considerably worse act. And deserved a significantly worse punishment.

 

[Romeoh1]

He got what he deserved and he’s out and it’s bad luck for him but worse luck for Rankine. Get over it. Learn from your mistakes.

 

[The Mares Leg]

Neither of those are similar incidents at all. Its amazing that people who want to justify the suspension of Houston keep having to say his act is similar to actions that are objectively worse than what occured.


Cotchin should've been suspended because the AFL put in a rule that multiple low finable offences would result in a one week suspension. Cotchin had already been fined twice for punching opponents during the year.

And funnily enough we had Richmond fans defending Cotching by saying that Shiel was actually concussed by a later hit from Astbury. Who also was let off by the MRO...

A bump on a player standing upright while competing for a loose ball is a legal part of the game. And any AFL player should be expecting contact in that situation.

Wright jumps at his opponent ensuring that he hits him in the head. Was also a marking contest where you cannot bump an opponent. Worse action that Houston. But only 4 weeks. In comparison Houston's bump should result in a lesser punishment.

Parker off the ball hit on a player who should no be expecting contact. Worse action, worse punishment.

Webster... jumps at the opponent, late hit on a player after disposal when they shouldn't be expecting contact.

And apparently Port fans are the feral ones...

Not similar at all - as in how ‘not similar’?

Both front on - check
Neither player was expecting it - check
Both oppo players were playing the ball - check
Both oppo players suffered concussion - check

So how ‘not the same’? Colour of their undies? Brand of underarm? Middle names? Favourite flavoured donut? …..or just inconvenient because it doesn’t suit your narrative….such as it is….

If you don’t think I’m taking you seriously, you’d be right.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Not similar at all - as in how ‘not similar’?

Both front on - check
Neither player was expecting it - check
Both oppo players were playing the ball - check
Both oppo players suffered concussion - check

So how ‘not the same’? Colour of their undies? Brand of underarm? Middle names? Favourite flavoured donut? …..or just inconvenient because it doesn’t suit your narrative….such as it is….

If you don’t think I’m taking you seriously, you’d be right.

Lets start with Rankine was contesting a loose ball and absolutely should've been expecting contact from an opposition player.

Byron Pickett's big suspension was for a front on hit for a player that was bending over to pick up the ball. And he collected the opponents head.

Matthew Lloyd raised his arm and collected Sewell in the head with it.

Parker picked off an opponent who was not playing the ball at all.

There's something wrong with your head if you think any of those actions are at all similar to Houston's bump on Rankine.

The only one that is close is Peter Wright. And he objectively did more wrong than Dan Houston did.

 

[The Mares Leg]

Lets start with Rankine was contesting a loose ball and absolutely should've been expecting contact from an opposition player.

Byron Pickett's big suspension was for a front on hit for a player that was bending over to pick up the ball. And he collected the opponents head.

Matthew Lloyd raised his arm and collected Sewell in the head with it.

Parker picked off an opponent who was not playing the ball at all.

There's something wrong with your head if you think any of those actions are at all similar to Houston's bump on Rankine.

The only one that is close is Peter Wright. And he objectively did more wrong than Dan Houston did.

Lets not start at all….you need no encouragement.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Im just loving the Swans fans in here all righteous.
Its fine guys, we know what pi55y pants smells like, we got a whiff of it from you a few weeks ago.

 

[The Mares Leg]

Im just loving the Swans fans in here all righteous.
Its fine guys, we know what pi55y pants smells like, we got a whiff of it from you a few weeks ago.

Nothing righteous about denying blue is black champ.

 

[Waspy79]

In all seriousness, Pickett’s bump on Moore should be graded careless, severe and high. This brings the tribunal into play. The same tribunal that hung Houston for an action that was against a player with ball in hand and that was not high contact. Pickett attacked a possessionless Moore and got him in the head. The penalty on this basis, when factored in with Pickett’s recent suspension history, would in normal world situation see him cop a 7-8 game suspension. Please feel free to bookmark this post.

 

[Eshay187]

Port fans just reinforcing stereotypes at this point.