Dan Houston

Remove this Banner Ad

sobrave said:
Lol acting like the Rankine bump was some sniping shot. It was off the ball but a light shepherd, ol mate just wasn't paying attention at all.

In terms of impact it was way lower, if the player saw Rankine it would have been nothing
Click to expand...
lol it was a bump and he hit starcevich in the head who was concussed.. strange you think it's not as bad to concuss a bloke off the ball but you do you.. my point is that it doesn't appear that houston hit old mate in the head, ball was in play it's just that it was too hard the punishment shouldn't be more than rankines but i'm sure it will be..
 
Scodges said:
What’s your definition of a good bump ?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Click to expand...

One that doesn’t result in the opposition being taken off the ground on a stretcher.

Houston didn’t mean to cause the head knock but that’s the risk you take.

Doesn’t matter if the actual bump was body on body. It resulted in him slamming his head into the turf which he has a duty to prevent when he bumps.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Chewy316 said:
Well the bump was on the player possessing the ball and contact was made to the shoulder. One could argue it was the "perfect" bump.

It is a contact sport. Accidents happen. If the contact was to the head and that was the reason for the concussion, he'd rightly have the book thrown at him. But that's not the case on both counts. And hence, people are up in arms because he executed the "perfect" bump and people want him punished because he hit Rankine too hard.

I'm not suggesting this at you by any means, but people need to understand that concussions can be caused by contact not made to the head. And the AFL has not outlawed the bump but rather said players need to avoid head contact.

I maintain the assertion if he was wearing black and white stripes of a different kind of Saturday night he would be free to play this week. Then again, given how many Victorians confuse the prison bars with the black and white stripes of Collingwood, maybe Houston will get off after all.
Click to expand...

It would have been the perfect bump if it wasn’t for his head slamming into the ground due to the force. It wasn’t intended, however these days in the eyes of the AFL that’s irrelevant. He wouldn’t have hit his head if Houston didn’t bump him and causing the concussion, there for that = Houston is responsible for the concussion.

Not saying i agree with the interpretation that the AFL takes but it is what it is. I wish it was the action and not the outcome that was judged but unfortunately it’s not.

Believe this is one of the most cut and dry cases we’ve seen this year.

Best case if they are generous being finals is 3 but I think it will be 4 or 5.
 
Here is the stupid thing, Port people = Houston in trouble, that’ll be 3-8 depending on the tribunal that weekend. Houston knowing he is in trouble, quite emotional.

The rest of the AFL if it was their team or themselves, Didn’t hit him high, ball was there, should get off as it’s not a free kick so not an illegal act.

I said SPP shouldn’t have been felt so harshly for the preseason suspension, but because the player was turned into his line by a third party.

Unsure why we hold ourselves to a higher standard than the rest of the comp with regards to morality and self awareness regarding the rules, but be berated for the same thing for on field expectations
 
powerrrrrrrrrrrr said:
It would have been the perfect bump if it wasn’t for his head slamming into the ground due to the force. It wasn’t intended, however these days in the eyes of the AFL that’s irrelevant. He wouldn’t have hit his head if Houston didn’t bump him and causing the concussion, there for that = Houston is responsible for the concussion.

Not saying i agree with the interpretation that the AFL takes but it is what it is. I wish it was the action and not the outcome that was judged but unfortunately it’s not.

Believe this is one of the most cut and dry cases we’ve seen this year.

Best case if they are generous being finals is 3 but I think it will be 4 or 5.
Click to expand...

The AFL have not outlawed the bump, but they've made it clear that if you choose to bump, you cannot make contact with the head.

Whether or not Houston actually made contact with Rankine is seemingly irrelevant in the context of media discussion - the AFL are essentially extending the interpretation such that if you choose to bump and cause a concussion, you are to be suspended even if the concussion is not due to head trauma directly caused by the offender (ie shoulder to head contact).

The tribunal is going to be forever flawed so long as the AFL punish the player for the outcome as opposed to the action.
 
powerrrrrrrrrrrr said:
It would have been the perfect bump if it wasn’t for his head slamming into the ground due to the force. It wasn’t intended, however these days in the eyes of the AFL that’s irrelevant. He wouldn’t have hit his head if Houston didn’t bump him and causing the concussion, there for that = Houston is responsible for the concussion.

Not saying i agree with the interpretation that the AFL takes but it is what it is. I wish it was the action and not the outcome that was judged but unfortunately it’s not.

Believe this is one of the most cut and dry cases we’ve seen this year.

Best case if they are generous being finals is 3 but I think it will be 4 or 5.
Click to expand...
😆😆😆😆🗑️🗑️🗑️🗑️🗑️
 
Smartys Power said:
I think Barrett mentioned it on the footy show, the bump is still a legal action. So which rule did Dan actually break to justify any suspension?
Click to expand...
Basically he has broken no rules. He’s done what is a fair action unfortunately Rankine’s head has hit the ground causing a concussion.
Legally I can’t see how they can give him any games because he’s actions are legal.
If I was Port I’d take this all the way 100%.
Let’s see if they have the Niagara Falls.
 
Last edited:
Chewy316 said:
The AFL have not outlawed the bump, but they've made it clear that if you choose to bump, you cannot make contact with the head.

Whether or not Houston actually made contact with Rankine is seemingly irrelevant in the context of media discussion - the AFL are essentially extending the interpretation such that if you choose to bump and cause a concussion, you are to be suspended even if the concussion is not due to head trauma directly caused by the offender (ie shoulder to head contact).

The tribunal is going to be forever flawed so long as the AFL punish the player for the outcome as opposed to the action.
Click to expand...

It’s so flawed.


If making contact with a player + they get concussed = suspension then why hasn’t anyone of the blokes whose hit Todd in one of his many concussions been done for it?

(And no, I don’t think they ever should be, they’ve all been football collisions)
 
pafc 1870 said:
system is flawed when rankine can bump and concuss a bloke off the ball whilst play was stopped and get 4 weeks and houston is looking at 4 weeks as a starting point..
Click to expand...

The grading system just isn't fit for purpose at all anymore.

Because of the legitimate public concern surrounding concussion issues, the AFL have decided to grade every hit leading to a concussion as severe.

Any hit leading to a concussion is also graded as head-high impact, even if you didn't hit them there, because the brain is in the head.

And basically every single hit is graded as careless, with intentional saved for off the ball strikes etc. We used to have "reckless" and "careless", and they've simplified it but there is just no granularity now at all.

If you bump someone and they end up concussed, it's severe/high/careless basically regardless of the circumstances, which gets you sent straight to the tribunal.

Once you're at the tribunal, you're fully vulnerable to the court of public opinion, which is impacted by club, state, whether it'll cost you finals, whether the commentators at the time of the incident hung you out to dry or went into bat for you. It's nuts. The tribunal can then add whatever layers of mustard they want to get the result they want, whether that's letting Maynard off scott free, or giving SPP a long suspension for an in-play bump that then locked them in to giving Webster a monster suspension.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

philthy05 said:
It’s so flawed.


If making contact with a player + they get concussed = suspension then why hasn’t anyone of the blokes whose hit Todd in one of his many concussions been done for it?

(And no, I don’t think they ever should be, they’ve all been football collisions)
Click to expand...
Because most of Todd's recent concussions have been the result of Todd hitting opponents with his head.
 
sobrave said:
Lol, the bloke who was renowned for king hits off the ball, when a regulation shirt front like Houston's would have been applauded, says we need a send off.

Maybe you should have been sent off to jail when you tried to kill Neville Bruns
Click to expand...
Also it was him and Bernie Quinlan that finished Barry Robran’s career.
He wasn’t called Lethal for nothing.
 
powerrrrrrrrrrrr said:
Houston didn’t mean to cause the head knock but that’s the risk you take.
Click to expand...
No, the risk you take is that you hit them high, which he did not do. So the act wasn't illegal, so the equation everyone is arguing over us legal contact + concussion = suspension? So what about concussion in marking contests? What if a player is concussed because they're hit by the footy?
 
El_Scorcho said:
The grading system just isn't fit for purpose at all anymore.

Because of the legitimate public concern surrounding concussion issues, the AFL have decided to grade every hit leading to a concussion as severe.

Any hit leading to a concussion is also graded as head-high impact, even if you didn't hit them there, because the brain is in the head.

And basically every single hit is graded as careless, with intentional saved for off the ball strikes etc. We used to have "reckless" and "careless", and they've simplified it but there is just no granularity now at all.

If you bump someone and they end up concussed, it's severe/high/careless basically regardless of the circumstances, which gets you sent straight to the tribunal.

Once you're at the tribunal, you're fully vulnerable to the court of public opinion, which is impacted by club, state, whether it'll cost you finals, whether the commentators at the time of the incident hung you out to dry or went into bat for you. It's nuts. The tribunal can then add whatever layers of mustard they want to get the result they want, whether that's letting Maynard off scott free, or giving SPP a long suspension for an in-play bump that then locked them in to giving Webster a monster suspension.
Click to expand...
Yep exactly this. Our best bet is to play the "remorseful" card like De Goey did to get his shocking bump last year down to 3 weeks.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Dan Houston

Similar threads

Ford Fairlane
  • Locked
News Dan Houston traded to Collingwood
209 210 211 212 213
Replies
5K
Views
200K
Ford Fairlane
Ford Fairlane

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top