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

[Brian McGee]

My other problem is if we are saying that a player is liable for whatever the outcome is if they choose to bump, even if a concussion is caused by a head hitting the ground, how is it that they don’t apply this consistently week to week, or even in the same game.

Riley thilthorpe chose to bump lachie jones while he was in the air attempting to mark a ball, in this game. It was a tunneling action. No free kick awarded either. Looked at him, tucked his shoulder in and took his body out, causing him to hit his head on the ground as he landed, hard enough that he was required to do a hia, which he passed. Should surely be careless, high contact and medium impact if we are applying the same standard? Yet it wasn’t even looked at.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

My other problem is if we are saying that a player is liable for whatever the outcome is if they choose to bump, even if a concussion is caused by a head hitting the ground, how is it that they don’t apply this consistently week to week, or even in the same game.

Riley thilthorpe chose to bump lachie jones while he was in the air attempting to mark a ball, in this game. It was a tunneling action. No free kick awarded either. Looked at him, tucked his shoulder in and took his body out, causing him to hit his head on the ground as he landed, hard enough that he was required to do a hia, which he passed. Should surely be careless, high contact and medium impact if we are applying the same standard? Yet it wasn’t even looked at.

Thilthorpe isnt integral to a non Vic team in an upcoming finals series.
So much easier to get the result your biggest market wants when you can legitimately let the tribunal do the hard work for you.
They always manage to find a way to free their own when it matters, change the rules to appear to care and make an example that helps their cause.

Crows fans are rejoicing in the aisles at their post game success but its only a matter of time before the same outcome from over the border goes against them, like Cotchin getting off for the '17 GF despite carrying enough points to get a week, nothing surer.

 

[GROTTO]

6+

Adz2332 you had a right to laugh at my post. I got it wrong.

 

[Rabish Binney]

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.

1. Well known and high profile player
2. Plays for Collingwood

 

[Brian McGee]

1. Well known and high profile player
2. Plays for Collingwood

I hate to be a vic bias conspiracy theorist but how can you see it any other way?

 

[GROTTO]

I personally think that 5 is one too many, especially given that the majority of them will be finals.

The fact that he got 5 games given unofficially its well known the tribunal takes into consideration the heavy weighting of finals when applying penalties tells you the AFL is sending a clear message about high contact when bumping.

Houston's 5 week ban is equivalent to 6 to 8 if it was only H&A games.

 

[Brian McGee]

The fact that he got 5 games given unofficially its well known the tribunal takes into consideration the heavy weighting of finals when applying penalties tells you the AFL is sending a clear message about high contact when bumping.

Houston's 5 week ban is equivalent to 6 to 8 if it was only H&A games.

Except in their reasoning they clearly state that finals doesn’t come in to the equation. Except when it has in the past.

 

[GROTTO]

Except in their reasoning they clearly state that finals doesn’t come in to the equation. Except when it has in the past.

Thats why I said "unofficially".

 

[Brian McGee]

Thats why I said "unofficially".

I think that 5 was conveniently the amount of possible games that were left in the season so they rolled with it, rather than the other way around.

 

[_Mike_]

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

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

Posters here need to look beyond the Houston and Maynard tribunal cases, and look to the bigger picture of what's at risk to the AFL if they do not take measures to protect players from concussion.

I would not be surprised to see Brayshaw lodge a application through the class action against the AFL


This is an example of what the AFL is facing, re: class action for

Max Rooke brings this proceeding in his own right and as a representative proceeding under Part 4A of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic).

11. In so far as the claim is brought as a representative proceeding, Rooke brings this proceeding on behalf of all persons who:
(a) played in the AFL Competition during the period; and
(b) during the course of matches or training sustained head knocks; and
(c) after sustaining head knocks, suffered from temporary loss of normal brain function or symptoms consistent with temporary loss of normal brain function, known as concussion ( ); and
(d) suffered an acquired brain injury after sustaining concussion/s the injured players .


12. Further, Rooke brings this proceeding on behalf of and for the benefit of the estates of persons within the meaning of section 29(1) of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) who would have come within the definition of and have died (the deceased players) .

13. Further, Rooke brings this proceeding on behalf of persons who were dependants of the deceased players at the time of their death within the meaning of Part III of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) the Wrongs Act ).

14. Further, Rooke brings this proceeding on behalf of persons who:
(a) were in a close relationship with the injured players or the deceased players within the meaning of section 73 of the Wrongs Act; and
(b) have suffered pure mental harm by way of a recognised psychiatric illness because of the injury of the injured players or death of the deceased players.

15. Each of the persons identified in paragraphs 11 to 14 above is a group member within the meaning of section 33A of the Supreme Court Act 1986 group members and at the commencement of this proceeding there are more than seven group members who make the claims set out in this Statement of Claim against the AFL.

The case will argue that

• the AFL had a duty of care
• the the AFL did not meet the standard of care
• there was a foreseeable risk of concussion
• the AFL did not take reasonable precautions to mitigate or prevent its occurrence
• had the AFL implemented measures the probability of the harm occurring would be reduced
• the AFL owed the players a duty of care in relation to concussion management

This is a long process and could take years to get a ruling on, the AFL will do itself no favors in the meanwhile if it ignores the issue of concussion and does nothing. A finding against the AFL for negligence can see potential damages against the AFL in the $100's of Millions in compensation. This is why we're now seeing mandatory sidelining of concussion cases to have proper medical checks done.

https://margalitlawyers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/FINAL-Jarad-Rooke-Statement-of-Claim-6-December-2023-1.pdf

 

[GinniWiz33]

I believe 4 weeks is plenty for the hit on rankine, and the tribunal needs a revamp definitely

 

[Duckimus Prime]

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

The Tribunals finding literally says that Houston lowered his body in performing the bump.

And nothing has said that Rankine's AC joint was hit. The medical report says it was injured. You know how players most often injure their AC joints? Landing on an arm when falling to the ground and pushing their shoulder up. Or that Houston's bump was actually under Rankine's arm and pushed his shoulder up injuring the AC joint.

 

[ABAB]

The Tribunals finding literally says that Houston lowered his body in performing the bump.

And nothing has said that Rankine's AC joint was hit. The medical report says it was injured. You know how players most often injure their AC joints? Landing on an arm when falling to the ground and pushing their shoulder up. Or that Houston's bump was actually under Rankine's arm and pushed his shoulder up injuring the AC joint.

I told you to watch the footage in slow motion (AC joint is upper shoulder and neck).

"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."

 

[Deadlift Pro]

Another part of the bigger picture is that these concussions and related long term brain impacts / deaths have caused hesitation in parents to let their kids play footy - hence why AFL wants to stamp it out or they will lose players to soccer/basketball/etc

 

[Duckimus Prime]

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

Which in no way addresses the point that an intentional, high contact, severe impact snipe off the ball got a lesser suspension.

Thats even more avoidable than Houston's action. You shouldn't even be looking to bump in that situation.

I'm not arguing that Houston shouldn't have been suspended, I'm arguing that 5 weeks is way out of line with what has been given for other rough conduct suspensions where the guilty party has objectively done more wrong than Dan Houston did.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

I told you to watch the footage in slow motion.

"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."

The slow motion footage that clearly shows Dan Houstin bending his knees, lowering his body as he approaches Rankine?

If Houston had done that and been tackled you lot would be sooking that he'd lowered his body to cause high contact.

 

[ABAB]

The slow motion footage that clearly shows Dan Houstin bending his knees, lowering his body as he approaches Rankine?

If Houston had done that and been tackled you lot would be sooking that he'd lowered his body to cause high contact.

He slightly bend his knee to lead with shoulder to protect himself, Rankine's eye was on the ball and then gather it for a split second before Houston bump him, in this instance only Rankine could have been hurt as there was no way he could protect himself so he got 5 weeks instead of 3 or 4 hence the ruling.

"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."

 

[SSwans2011]

5 weeks seems about right given the punishments Parker and Rankine received. The Webster one was probably unders given some of the other punishments this season.

I don't think it's worth continuing to reference the Maynard one. I think the consensus is that it's a massive farce that he got off anyway, so it's a bit of an outlier (and also wasn't this year).

 

[SSwans2011]

Similar to the Maynard one, I'm not sure Cripps is worthy of a mention either.

Most people were outraged when he and Maynard got off and neither were the result that the AFL wanted, so what are they supposed to do - accept the clearly bad precedent that had been set and move on?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

And still to this minute the AFL allow head high contact to be rife in the sport. At least 20 free kicks for head high contact are not awarded every weekend in every single game.
Yet the head is sacrosanct??
It’s only sacrosanct after a concussion.
More head high contact in the sport than ever in the game since the AFL blamed the player with the ball for it.
Dumbest organisation ever are the AFL.

 

[_Mike_]

Which in no way addresses the point that an intentional, high contact, severe impact snipe off the ball got a lesser suspension.

That's even more avoidable than Houston's action. You shouldn't even be looking to bump in that situation.

I'm not arguing that Houston shouldn't have been suspended, I'm arguing that 5 weeks is way out of line with what has been given for other rough conduct suspensions where the guilty party has objectively done more wrong than Dan Houston did.

I think it's more the case that the AFL is covering their backsides because of the negligence cases before the Supreme Court

 

[SC_Power]

Posters here need to look beyond the Houston and Maynard tribunal cases, and look to the bigger picture of what's at risk to the AFL if they do not take measures to protect players from concussion.

I would not be surprised to see Brayshaw lodge a application through the class action against the AFL


This is an example of what the AFL is facing, re: class action for

Max Rooke brings this proceeding in his own right and as a representative proceeding under Part 4A of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic).

11. In so far as the claim is brought as a representative proceeding, Rooke brings this proceeding on behalf of all persons who:
(a) played in the AFL Competition during the period; and
(b) during the course of matches or training sustained head knocks; and
(c) after sustaining head knocks, suffered from temporary loss of normal brain function or symptoms consistent with temporary loss of normal brain function, known as concussion ( ); and
(d) suffered an acquired brain injury after sustaining concussion/s the injured players .


12. Further, Rooke brings this proceeding on behalf of and for the benefit of the estates of persons within the meaning of section 29(1) of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) who would have come within the definition of and have died (the deceased players) .

13. Further, Rooke brings this proceeding on behalf of persons who were dependants of the deceased players at the time of their death within the meaning of Part III of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) the Wrongs Act ).

14. Further, Rooke brings this proceeding on behalf of persons who:
(a) were in a close relationship with the injured players or the deceased players within the meaning of section 73 of the Wrongs Act; and
(b) have suffered pure mental harm by way of a recognised psychiatric illness because of the injury of the injured players or death of the deceased players.

15. Each of the persons identified in paragraphs 11 to 14 above is a group member within the meaning of section 33A of the Supreme Court Act 1986 group members and at the commencement of this proceeding there are more than seven group members who make the claims set out in this Statement of Claim against the AFL.

The case will argue that

• the AFL had a duty of care
• the the AFL did not meet the standard of care
• there was a foreseeable risk of concussion
• the AFL did not take reasonable precautions to mitigate or prevent its occurrence
• had the AFL implemented measures the probability of the harm occurring would be reduced
• the AFL owed the players a duty of care in relation to concussion management

This is a long process and could take years to get a ruling on, the AFL will do itself no favors in the meanwhile if it ignores the issue of concussion and does nothing. A finding against the AFL for negligence can see potential damages against the AFL in the $100's of Millions in compensation. This is why we're now seeing mandatory sidelining of concussion cases to have proper medical checks done.

https://margalitlawyers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/FINAL-Jarad-Rooke-Statement-of-Claim-6-December-2023-1.pdf

40% of AFL concussions happen in marking contests
More than those sustained in tackles and bumps combined

Will be interesting to see the AFL direction on those soon

 

[_Mike_]

Will be interesting to see the AFL direction on those soon

Indeed.. The AFL is ****ing bricks because of these cases before the Courts

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Similar to the Maynard one, I'm not sure Cripps is worthy of a mention either.

Most people were outraged when he and Maynard got off and neither were the result that the AFL wanted, so what are they supposed to do - accept the clearly bad precedent that had been set and move on?

C'mon, Cripps won a Brownlow and Maynard won a Premiership, the AFL may outwardly profess that they werent happy but after the dust settled who came out in front, Vic clubs and their players.

When was the last time a non Vic clubs player got let off to win anything of significance and the AFL close the loophole used after?

 

[SSwans2011]

C'mon, Cripps won a Brownlow and Maynard won a Premiership, the AFL may outwardly profess that they werent happy but after the dust settled who came out in front, Vic clubs and their players.

When was the last time a non Vic clubs player got let off to win anything of significance and the AFL close the loophole used after?

The AFL Tribunal suspended them both. That was overturned by the Appeals Board.

Both were bad results that favoured big Victorian sides, no arguments there, but I don't think those results should just be accepted as setting a precedent when they were both wrong.

Port can appeal, but I'm not sure under what grounds they would be able to get Houston off. It seems pretty clear-cut.