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

[aussierulesrules]

They targetted rankine all night and he took it way too far ... He deserved even more games. 5 was really a best case scenario for him.

You wouldn’t be saying that if the shoe was on the other foot, like when Rankine got a 4 or so week ban recently.

 

[Freomaniac]

5 weeks would be perfectly understandable if it was going to be 5 H&A games, but surely the fact that he’s going to miss a bunch of finals ought to come into it.

I mean surely missing a grand final for instance is worth 5 regular season games on its own, so the difference between 4 and 5 games here could be monumental.

I reckon a 5 game ban now- for a guy who’s team is pretty much guarantee to play at least two finals- is the equivalent of at least a 10 game ban earlier in the season, or in the preseason. Probably more like 12.

It’s seriously harsh and IMO out of proportion.

If “good blokedness” can come into it, surely the certainty that you’ll miss finals ought to.

I would of originally predicted 3 games only because it's his 1st time offence and port Adelaide probably would of done an early appeal to go from 4 weeks to 3 weeks.

 

[Adz2332]

I didn't hear the end of it when rankine got 4 matches but now the cows supporters are on their high horse

 

[backtozero]

Houston out for the rest of the year and port will do another straight sets exit

A small win for you after another embarrassing season, finishing barely above 3 of the worst teams the competition has ever seen.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Not when at least two of those games are going to be finals, and one may be a GF. Missing 3 of those games is equivalent to missing about 10 or more H&A games.

When a player commits an act should not come into it. If we hand out discounts because its finals should we have suspended Webster for 12 weeks because it was a meaningless practice match??

 

[LukeParkerno1]

You wouldn’t be saying that if the shoe was on the other foot, like when Rankine got a 4 or so week ban recently.

Most crows fans expected 4 weeks, in fact 95% plus were saying that’s a 4 week ban.

They were never going to allow a situation of Houston being available for a GF, did the same when Gaff whacked Brayshaw (yes I know it’s worse but they banned him for the rest of the year)

 

[aussierulesrules]

Then he should have used a fraction of common sense and gone for a tackle and not bumped him to next week. Rankine has a significant AC joint injury. What happens if he’s out for 2-3 himself it’s irrelevant they aren’t playing finals.

The penalty still has to fit the crime though, and no-one in their right mind would suggest that missing at least two finals is the equivalent of missing two H&A games, so a 5 week ban now is undoubtedly worth at least 10 weeks earlier in the year.

Would you have been calling for 10 or more weeks if this was 3 months ago?

If not, the penalty doesn’t fit the crime.

 

[Erakor]

What a joke.

Maynard jumps in the air, bumps a player without the ball and collects their head… no weeks. Plays finals.

Houston hits someone in the chest and gets 5.

 

[Daniel B]

How did maynard not get a ban for a worse hit?

Why you nuffies keep bringing up Maynard's entirely-different-incident as some kind of comparison is beyond me.

 

[SC_Power]

I suggest you go read the ruling and you'll get a better understanding.

I read the ruling, and it reeks of a pre prepared statement that hasn’t proven anything.

Remorseful, clean record, lowered body, at no time left the ground, got Rankine in the shoulder, did not get Rankine in the head….. and be thankful it was only 5 matches. What a crock. He didn’t king hit Rankine, it wasn’t off the ball, he didn’t jump off the ground, he didn’t lift an elbow.

All about the outcome of concussion from hitting the ground. So Houston gets the penalty.
If Rankine gets up and played on, no one would be talking about in any way apart from a big hit.
If it were about the action, we’d be watching Thilthorpe taking out Lachie Jones. But he was ok.

Waiting for the inevitable Melbourne club equivalent and the AFL tying itself up in knots to justify letting them off lightly.

 

[CrowToon]

What a joke.

Maynard jumps in the air, bumps a player without the ball and collects their head… no weeks. Plays finals.

Houston hits someone in the chest and gets 5.

A failure of the system re: Maynard doesn't make this less right. It just shows again how bad that Maynard decision was

 

[voorhees]

would of gone 4 games
but do the crime do the time!!
quick ques- if that was Dangerfield not Houston, would it still be 5 games?

 

[SC_Power]

You wouldn’t be saying that if the shoe was on the other foot, like when Rankine got a 4 or so week ban recently.

Off the ball…. With contact to the head….. amazing hey.

 

[hippyhippy]

The penalty still has to fit the crime though, and no-one in their right mind would suggest that missing at least two finals is the equivalent of missing two H&A games, so a 5 week ban now is undoubtedly worth at least 10 weeks earlier in the year.

Would you have been calling for 10 or more weeks if this was 3 months ago?

If not, the penalty doesn’t fit the crime.

Wtf would you consider giving out discounts for finals? Maybe he should have considered the consequences of shirt fronting a player in round 23? What a ridiculous idea.

 

[Daniel B]

Bury your face in pancakes Dan

Is that Jobe Watson?

 

[Powerade 08]

Where does a 5 week suspension for Houston rate in terms of top 5 moments in Crows history? Is it above the 07 Grand Final?

 

[aussierulesrules]

Most crows fans expected 4 weeks, in fact 95% plus were saying that’s a 4 week ban.

They were never going to allow a situation of Houston being available for a GF, did the same when Gaff whacked Brayshaw (yes I know it’s worse but they banned him for the rest of the year)

But the post I quoted said that he “deserved even more games”, so thank you for agreeing with me that they wouldn’t have said that and that they only said 4 was about right.

And again, that was 4 H&A games.

No-one in their right mind would suggest that 4 H&A games is the equivalent to missing at least two finals.

 

[SC_Power]

would of gone 4 games
but do the crime do the time!!
quick ques- if that was Dangerfield not Houston, would it still be 5 games?

They asked that about Dangerfield when Bedford got 3. And Danger got off for the same incident.

 

[CumbyCrow]

Cry harder? I can do this all night.

You do come across as the ‘cry all night’ type

As you were…

 

[div12ressie]

Had the Al-Qaeda terrorists ever committed any offences prior to 9/11?

Whether this is his first offence or his seventeenth is irrelevant, he will now forever be a thug.

rankine got his karma then too right since he's a thug by your own definition

 

[LukeParkerno1]

The penalty still has to fit the crime though, and no-one in their right mind would suggest that missing at least two finals is the equivalent of missing two H&A games, so a 5 week ban now is undoubtedly worth at least 10 weeks earlier in the year.

Would you have been calling for 10 or more weeks if this was 3 months ago?

If not, the penalty doesn’t fit the crime.

It’s a 5 week ban, said it when it happened 5-6 is right. 6 on the higher end so if anything they gave him a discount to 5 weeks. Doesn’t matter when it happens r1 or a week before finals. Don’t be thugs and tackle and not bump players into next week. Let’s look at the ones this year Wright fractionally late, got 4 weeks, the GWS bloke got 4, Webster should have hit 10-12 that was a horrible decision, Parker got 6 with a significant injury attached. 5 is perfect for this bang on

 

[hippyhippy]

You wouldn’t be saying that if the shoe was on the other foot, like when Rankine got a 4 or so week ban recently.

Most afc supporters werent complaining ... Our season was over already so nobody cared tbh

 

[Daniel B]

would of gone 4 games
but do the crime do the time!!
quick ques- if that was Dangerfield not Houston, would it still be 5 games?

Yep - Rankine would've gotten 5 for tunnelling Dangerfield.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

The tribunal admitted he didn't hit him in the head

Distinction without a difference. Contact caused severe head contact with ground that caused concussion.

Houston breaches that duty of care, and his breach was significant.He had time to think, he had time to weigh up his options. He had time and the clear opportunity to tackle. He chose to run at speed for several meters and forcefully bumped Rankine.We are satisfied he made forceful contact to Rankine's upper shoulder and neck. His forceful contact also resulted in Rankine's head making forceful contact with the ground.

Although Houston's feet did not leave the ground, and he appears to have made some attempt to lower his body, the time he had to decide not to bump, the vulnerability of Rankine and the speed and force of his impact, lead us to conclude that this was a serious breach of the duty of care.Rankine could have expected to be tackled, he could not reasonably have expected to be bumped high.The sanction is to be determined in the Tribunal's discretion.

We’ve taken into account Houston's guilty plea, among other things, including his good record, his contrition and the need for consistency compared with other recent comparable Tribunal decisions.Having done so, we consider the appropriate sanction is five weeks for the reasons set out above.His carelessness was significant, the impact was severe.

The immediate consequences for Rankine were evident, he was concussed, it appears his shoulder was hurt and there was the potential for more serious injury.We do not consider the circumstances give rise to exceptional and compelling circumstances.We do not consider the consequence of missing finals and potentially a grand final impacts the sanction that should be imposed, particularly for such a serious breach and such a significant injury.

What part of that statement is unfair or untrue?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

But the post I quoted said that he “deserved even more games”, so thank you for agreeing with me that they wouldn’t have said that and that they only said 4 was about right.

And again, that was 4 H&A games.

No-one in their right mind would suggest that 4 H&A games is the equivalent to missing at least two finals.

It took Rankine and the crows out of the finals calculations. A month was right there