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

[Sarcoidevo]

So the AFL is telling us ... if you choose to Bump and the player hit is injured in anyway ... doesnt necessarily have to be a head knock .... then be prepared to be suspended

They wont say it exactly but ..... the Bump is dead .... Long live the Bump!!

 

[melanChronic]

I find it fascinating Port are crying foul over this.

The AFL has made it well known for at least a decade it will suspend players in these circumstances. Houston knew this going into the bump. Its not a surprise. The AFL are not punishing Port for fun. Houston royally screwed up. He also failed to show any remorse and his statement about reaching out to Rankine added more fuel to the fire that he really didnt care.

Also he clearly hit Rankine high. The back of his shoulder hit him in the head and he lifted himself into the hit. He didnt jump but he made sure to hit Rankine with force. He may not have intended to hit him in the head or knock him out but he did. All could have been prevented with a tackle.

He is lucky to receive 5 imo. Players clearly arent paying attention to the AFL directive not to hit opponents in the head either by their own body or by the ground. I think players will be on notice next year. Could end up being 10 weeks if this continues.

I think most Port fans agree that it should be a hefty suspension. It's just the first case in the new post Maynard era where the inflated terms of suspension will impact finals. They've been happy to throw extra weeks on all year, but now those extra 1-2 weeks punishment are potentially costing a GF. I don't think weighting should change for finals, but it's hard not to feel like Houston is a guinea pig in this brave new world after all the hoops that have been jumped through to get other players off at the pointy end in the recent past. Let's see if the AFL stick to their guns in future cases.

Also not sure what you mean about lack of remorse? He clearly conveyed that in his statement. Again, I don't think that should be something that impacts the suspension, but it magically wiped a week off for De Goey last year...

Lastly, I don't really see how endlessly ratcheting up the weeks on these types of incidents will do anything except rob the comp of first-choice players for large chunks of the season. A month off for an in-play incident is already a huge punishment and if that is not deterring players then I don't think extra weeks will.

 

[hippyhippy]

So the AFL is telling us ... if you choose to Bump and the player hit is injured in anyway ... doesnt necessarily have to be a head knock .... then be prepared to be suspended

They wont say it exactly but ..... the Bump is dead .... Long live the Bump!!

They've been telling you this for at least 3 years now... Not sure what you've been watching

 

[Sarcoidevo]

They've been telling you this for at least 3 years now... Not sure what you've been watching

Then just outlaw the Bump .... but hey ..... they won't do it

Why do players choose to Bump?

They choose to Bump in order to inflict some pain ... stop someone in their tracks and hurt them .... its been like that for over 100 years

I have been bumped and I have chosen to bump in the shitty grades I played and in every instance you do it to hurt the player coming at you

If the AFL don't want players hurt then outlaw the Bump .... come out and say if you choose to Bump... period .... its a free kick against and/or a suspension

 

[HugeJohnson]

And I'll raise you Marshall.

Todd Marshall? Who's missed multiple games over the last few years from concussion due to putting his body on the line? Please, Rachele is probably the softest player in the comp at the moment.

 

[ABAB]

Todd Marshall? Who's missed multiple games over the last few years from concussion due to putting his body on the line? Please, Rachele is probably the softest player in the comp at the moment.

Maybe you should tell that to a majority of your supporters.......

 

[Tugga27]

Then just outlaw the Bump .... but hey ..... they won't do it

Why do players choose to Bump?

They choose to Bump in order to inflict some pain ... stop someone in their tracks and hurt them .... its been like that for over 100 years

I have been bumped and I have chosen to bump in the shitty grades I played and in every instance you do it to hurt the player coming at you

If the AFL don't want players hurt then outlaw the Bump .... come out and say if you choose to Bump... period .... its a free kick against and/or a suspension

Think it's pretty clear.
You can bump, you just can't knock blokes out.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Again, the AC joint is consider high and then contact to the neck.

Like to see how you explain how a bump between two players standing up right manages to hit on top of the shoulder...

Houston popped Rankine's AC joint by hitting him front on, not from above on top of his shoulder.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Why are Port fans over the site thinking this is BS. He left the ground and bumped a player in the head causing concussion and an AC joint injury.

5 weeks is about right for that.

Except Houston never left the ground in bumping Rankine. It was Rankine that jumped.

And see that's the thing, Houston has copped a heavier suspension than players who did leave the ground to bump their opponent.

He's copped a heavier suspension than an off the ball snipe on an unsuspecting opponent while the ball is out of the play.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Let’s look at the ones this year Wright fractionally late, got 4 weeks,

Yes lets look at these. Houston lowered his body and leave the ground in bumping. Wright jumped in the air ensuring that he got his opponent high. Peter Wright was a late hit on a guy in a marking contest something you're not allowed to do. Houston bumped a player who had possession of the ball something you are allowed to do.
So by definition Wright did more wrong than Houston did.

Peter Wright 4 weeks. Dan Houstin 5 weeks for doing less wrong.

But somehow you think 5 is bang on? By bringing up Wright, you just basically argued that Houston should've gotten 3.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

How dumb of Rankine for not protecting his head when getting shoulder charged and going to ground... I mean, how silly of him to try and mark the ball

It is pretty silly to try and mark the ball when a teammate punching it was the last touch...

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Also he clearly hit Rankine high. The back of his shoulder hit him in the head and he lifted himself into the hit. He didnt jump but he made sure to hit Rankine with force. He may not have intended to hit him in the head or knock him out but he did. All could have been prevented with a tackle.

He didn't hit him in the head.

The AFL also found that Houston took actions to avoid hitting Rankine in the head by staying on the ground and lowering his body.

 

[RonnieRaven]

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

The same reason blues won the free kick count against the eagles @ Optus(something that never happens) on the weekend.
The same reason a ball can be touched off the boot rebound off an arm travel 12m and be called a mark!
How many “coincidences” do we need before it becomes contrived

 

[Saint12]

I think most Port fans agree that it should be a hefty suspension. It's just the first case in the new post Maynard era where the inflated terms of suspension will impact finals. They've been happy to throw extra weeks on all year, but now those extra 1-2 weeks punishment are potentially costing a GF. I don't think weighting should change for finals, but it's hard not to feel like Houston is a guinea pig in this brave new world after all the hoops that have been jumped through to get other players off at the pointy end in the recent past. Let's see if the AFL stick to their guns in future cases.

Also not sure what you mean about lack of remorse? He clearly conveyed that in his statement. Again, I don't think that should be something that impacts the suspension, but it magically wiped a week off for De Goey last year...

Lastly, I don't really see how endlessly ratcheting up the weeks on these types of incidents will do anything except rob the comp of first-choice players for large chunks of the season. A month off for an in-play incident is already a huge punishment and if that is not deterring players then I don't think extra weeks will.

Simples....Houston is an easy fall guy....just like Webster was. Not saying they should not have got weeks but we all know the known players would get significantly less or no weeks.

 

[_Mike_]

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

barrister did enough to bamboozle the appeals board into the position that raised enough doubt in whether Maynard‘s act was intentional.

 

[Antonio_RooLife]

The tribunal needs a complete revamp next year… not saying this is the wrong call, but bloody Peter Wright got 4 and this got 5, how pathetic, yet Rosas elbows someone deliberately and only gets 1.

This sport is becoming ruined and Houston will be a big bloody loss, for a team who is searching for a premiership.

 

[_Mike_]

He's copped a heavier suspension than an off the ball snipe on an unsuspecting opponent while the ball is out of the play.

The AFL’s position where players are concussed is a reactive and punitive measure. These measures are a direct result of the concussion class action against the AFL. Had Rankine got up and passed a test the most Houston would have gotten was a week or fine for rough conduct IMO.

The AFL has set a clear mandate that any careless or reckless act which is avoidable that results in concussion will be punished. They determined Houston’s action was avoidable

 

[Bearded Clam]

So if a player flies for a mark and knees an opponent standing under the ball, in the head, and had the option not to do that, what happens?
Marking contests result in 40% of concussions to AFL footballers. Wait for it.

Lowered his body, even the AFL tribunal admitted that.

No one is arguing against the injury from the bump and any penalty wrapped up in that, it’s the luck of what happens afterwards. So many times we see collisions where the player does not hit the ground with their head and get concussed, and no one is calling for 5 matches.

I still can’t believe we’re talking 5 for this, even though I knew as soon as the Melbourne media kicked off their campaign it was never going to be 2 or 3. Have a look at what else has received 5 or more in the past and stack this one up against them. It just doesn’t add up, except the AFL taking a further step towards non contact football.

If youre going for a mark then you are going for the footy.

Houston had no intention to go for the football.. he never once even bothered about the actual football. His sole intention was to lay a bump on Rankine.

Go the bump and cause a concussion injury and you pay the consequences.

he’s lucky he only got 5 weeks..

Your desperate attempts to muddy the waters are just pathetic.

 

[croweater 41]

So the AFL is telling us ... if you choose to Bump and the player hit is injured in anyway ... doesnt necessarily have to be a head knock .... then be prepared to be suspended

They wont say it exactly but ..... the Bump is dead .... Long live the Bump!!

The AFL have been "saying" (I say it that way as I agree with you) this for a while.

I don't think there was anything wrong with Houston's bump that's football its contact, its fast, its a lot of things, but now the AFL are more worried about the consequences than the action. The problem lies within the fact (and whether Houston tackled or bumped) that Houston is responsible for anything that happens to Rankine which 99/100 the person can not control in a game when 1001 things are happening already. This isn't a law system that is innocent until proven guilty it's guilty until proven innocent and its a lot harder to prove innocence.

The closest one to this was McAdam on Wehr last year or the year before where McAdam got 3 for potential to cause injury Wehr was fine and no injury but I'd hate to think of what he would have got if he was concussed. I tend to think if in the instance of Houston or McAdam had have tackled and broke the opposing players ribs and punctured a lung there is nothing that is said about the issue. Player is still hurt and misses time though, I'm not saying at all that any action that causes an injury should be suspended but to me why is that any different to a head knock? Someone like Petracca who ends up on near death bed (albeit not in the a incident that was reportable) but could easily happen to someone who is open and gets tackled/bumped but it would not get looked at.

Do I think 5 is fair? No. But under the way that the AFL want the game to happen the penalty is right.

 

[_Mike_]

If youre going for a mark then you are going for the footy.

Houston had no intention to go for the football.. he never once even bothered about the actual football. His sole intention was to lay a bump on Rankine.

Correct,

Hindsight is a wonderful thing which can't undo what is already done.

 

[JackFlash]

The bump has been on life support for years, the AFL won't admit it, but they want it out of the game. Players will be instructed to pull up in contests in future and as much as that goes against what every coach wants you to do, it's an inevitability that the bump will be banned altogether very soon. Aussie Rules in 2024 is a shadow of the great game it once was.

 

[ABAB]

Like to see how you explain how a bump between two players standing up right manages to hit on top of the shoulder...

Houston popped Rankine's AC joint by hitting him front on, not from above on top of his shoulder.

Are you blind? Watch the collision in slow motion and you can clearly see Houston lead with his shoulder so hit Rankine's AC joint and neck at an angle, they weren't both standing up right.

 

[ABAB]

Yes lets look at these. Houston lowered his body and leave the ground in bumping. Wright jumped in the air ensuring that he got his opponent high. Peter Wright was a late hit on a guy in a marking contest something you're not allowed to do. Houston bumped a player who had possession of the ball something you are allowed to do.
So by definition Wright did more wrong than Houston did.

Peter Wright 4 weeks. Dan Houstin 5 weeks for doing less wrong.

But somehow you think 5 is bang on? By bringing up Wright, you just basically argued that Houston should've gotten 3.

Except he didn't lower his body which is why he collected Rankine in the AC joint and neck.

 

[Doggy Dan]

Then just outlaw the Bump .... but hey ..... they won't do it

Why do players choose to Bump?

They choose to Bump in order to inflict some pain ... stop someone in their tracks and hurt them .... its been like that for over 100 years

I have been bumped and I have chosen to bump in the shitty grades I played and in every instance you do it to hurt the player coming at you

If the AFL don't want players hurt then outlaw the Bump .... come out and say if you choose to Bump... period .... its a free kick against and/or a suspension

This is ridiculous, bump’s can be used effectively and strategically to put a player off balance without the need for them to be over the top. Shepherding, marking contests, both going to for the same ground ball, etc. Anyone going out there to intentionally inflict an injury or trauma on an opponent should not be out there.

 

[Brian McGee]

I personally think that 5 is one too many, especially given that the majority of them will be finals. Also acknowledge that I look at it through bias eyes. My beef is with the tribunal process itself. They come up with a figure and literally choose the narrative to make it fit.

Case in point degoey last year, the afl wanted 4 weeks, but the tribunal saw fit to give him only the minimum 3 because he showed remorse and that they believed the media coverage around his incident had already punished him enough. How we are expected to take this process seriously when they bring for the reasoning like that I have no idea.