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

[greatwhiteshark]

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.

Can there be an argument the AFL endorses the bump as it is not illegal, the AFL accept the bump is fine in the game as long as the outcome is not concussion.
How on earth can players play under such ambiguity? knowing I am allowed to bump but I will get in trouble if I bump.
The AFL need to take some responsibility.

 

[Maddo11]

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?

Barry Hall, '05. That off season what was deemed "in play" was tightened up again

 

[SSwans2011]

Can there be an argument the AFL endorses the bump as it is not illegal, the AFL accept the bump is fine in the game as long as the outcome is not concussion.
How on earth can players play under such ambiguity? knowing I am allowed to bump but I will get in trouble if I bump.
The AFL need to take some responsibility.

I don't think there's as much ambiguity as what you're suggesting. If you bump another play and they end up concussed, you're going to receive a hefty suspension.

Players will eventually adapt and either tackle or corral where it's unsafe to bump. As someone pointed out earlier, the vast, vast majority of bumps are fine and don't even get looked at. These big bumps generally occur when there was either no caution or limited caution exercised by the player, like in Houston's case.

 

[Underarm]

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?

Bedford and Cameron about 6 weeks ago?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I don't think there's as much ambiguity as what you're suggesting. If you bump another play and they end up concussed, you're going to receive a hefty suspension.

Players will eventually adapt and either tackle or corral where it's unsafe to bump. As someone pointed out earlier, the vast, vast majority of bumps are fine and don't even get looked at. These big bumps generally occur when there was either no caution or limited caution exercised by the player, like in Houston's case.

Thee would be lucky to be 3 bumps per game. So just make it totally illegal to bump.
Shoulders rubbing up against each other is not bumping. Bumping a player off the ball comes with all sorts of risks now so just make the bump totally illegal and all will be fine.
Saying something is legal but continuing to suspend players for performing this legal action is ridiculous.
If I was a modern day player I would want it totally illegal as it’s to much for be to ask to ring my lawyer on the field in that split second to see if it’s ok.

 

[SSwans2011]

Thee would be lucky to be 3 bumps per game.

I disagree with this.

So just make it totally illegal to bump.
Shoulders rubbing up against each other is not bumping. Bumping a player off the ball comes with all sorts of risks now so just make the bump totally illegal and all will be fine.
Saying something is legal but continuing to suspend players for performing this legal action is ridiculous.
If I was a modern day player I would want it totally illegal as it’s to much for be to ask to ring my lawyer on the field in that split second to see if it’s ok.

I mean, if a player is paranoid about the outcome of bumping, they can just not do it?

I also wouldn't really have a problem if they outlawed it anyway, I don't think it's a necessary part of the game. There would be a lot of public outcry though. AFL fans tend to be big into traditions, as I've learned every time I've suggested they should scrap the bounce and just throw the ball up.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

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.

And you reckon this is all decided during the hearings, lol.
They decide on a result and work backwards to make it look like its all the process and the Vic media tell us how they got there with authority.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Barry Hall, '05. That off season what was deemed "in play" was tightened up again

20yrs sgo, compared to how many in favour of Vics in the last 10, Cotchin, Cripps, Maynard, im sure theres more

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Bedford and Cameron about 6 weeks ago?

Neither impacting finals or awards.

But I'll add Reid to my argument

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I disagree with this.

I mean, if a player is paranoid about the outcome of bumping, they can just not do it?

I also wouldn't really have a problem if they outlawed it anyway, I don't think it's a necessary part of the game. There would be a lot of public outcry though. AFL fans tend to be big into traditions, as I've learned every time I've suggested they should scrap the bounce and just throw the ball up.

My original point however stands, if the AFL say it is legal to bump the. How can they keep suspending players who do it?

 

[El_Scorcho]

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.

While what you're saying is fine, it's frustrating to repeatedly see certain players get lighter suspensions or off entirely for specious reasons, but when it happens to another club we hear "oh well we can't just let everyone off because of previous bad decisions".

Do we honestly think in our heart of hearts that if Collingwood were sitting in 2nd in round 22 and Nick Daicos completed the same bump as Houston that he's getting 5 weeks? Why doesn't Houston and his flawless disciplinary record get the same access to the "good bloke" discount that Cameron or DeGoey got? Or the "shit we don't want to cost this guy a flag" discount that Maynard or Cotchin got.

The trial by media is a huge part of it. You've got former vic based players commentating who will immediately try to set a narrative after a big hit one way or the other, and the tribunal isn't immune to that narrative. They're human, they absolutely consider the wider implications of a ban and the media surrounding it. The AFL want to set a standard surrounding concussions, and that's a noble cause, but the tribunal don't apply that standard equally. And nobody is going to believe it's applied equally until a big name player from a big Victorian club gets suspended for a GF.

 

[Maddo11]

20yrs sgo, compared to how many in favour of Vics in the last 10, Cotchin, Cripps, Maynard, im sure theres more

****in Cotchin, what a joke that was..

 

[SSwans2011]

My original point however stands, if the AFL say it is legal to bump the. How can they keep suspending players who do it?

I mean, it's really the same as tackles, isn't it? You can do it, but you have a duty of care to the opponent. The only difference is you have more control tackling, so it's easier to avoid breaching that duty of care. Houston probably could have safely bumped Rankine, but he didn't exercise much caution.

While what you're saying is fine, it's frustrating to repeatedly see certain players get lighter suspensions or off entirely for specious reasons, but when it happens to another club we hear "oh well we can't just let everyone off because of previous bad decisions".

Do we honestly think in our heart of hearts that if Collingwood were sitting in 2nd in round 22 and Nick Daicos completed the same bump as Houston that he's getting 5 weeks? Why doesn't Houston and his flawless disciplinary record get the same access to the "good bloke" discount that Cameron or DeGoey got? Or the "shit we don't want to cost this guy a flag" discount that Maynard or Cotchin got.

The trial by media is a huge part of it. You've got former vic based players commentating who will immediately try to set a narrative after a big hit one way or the other, and the tribunal isn't immune to that narrative. They're human, they absolutely consider the wider implications of a ban and the media surrounding it. The AFL want to set a standard surrounding concussions, and that's a noble cause, but the tribunal don't apply that standard equally. And nobody is going to believe it's applied equally until a big name player from a big Victorian club gets suspended for a GF.

I get your point, but will save my outrage for if/when it happens again. I find it hard to assess this one in any way but being consistent with other punishments for similar actions that have been dished out this season.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

While what you're saying is fine, it's frustrating to repeatedly see certain players get lighter suspensions or off entirely for specious reasons, but when it happens to another club we hear "oh well we can't just let everyone off because of previous bad decisions".

Do we honestly think in our heart of hearts that if Collingwood were sitting in 2nd in round 22 and Nick Daicos completed the same bump as Houston that he's getting 5 weeks? Why doesn't Houston and his flawless disciplinary record get the same access to the "good bloke" discount that Cameron or DeGoey got? Or the "shit we don't want to cost this guy a flag" discount that Maynard or Cotchin got.

The trial by media is a huge part of it. You've got former vic based players commentating who will immediately try to set a narrative after a big hit one way or the other, and the tribunal isn't immune to that narrative. They're human, they absolutely consider the wider implications of a ban and the media surrounding it. The AFL want to set a standard surrounding concussions, and that's a noble cause, but the tribunal don't apply that standard equally. And nobody is going to believe it's applied equally until a big name player from a big Victorian club gets suspended for a GF.

Exactly!

They could have left it at the 4 week tribunal baseline, reduced it to 3 on appeal for the reasons others have gotten off altogether and gone some way to restoring a bit of balance to the big picture.
But they cant, they just dont have it in them.
Have to manipulate shit to suit their agenda as always.

 

[El_Scorcho]

I get your point, but will save my outrage for if/when it happens again. I find it hard to assess this one in any way but being consistent with other punishments for similar actions that have been dished out this season.

I think it's more in line with the 3 week suspensions than the higher suspensions personally. He didn't run past the ball, jump, or even get Rankine in the head. He bumped directly where the ball was in Rankine's arms.

I guess we'll save our outrage for the next time a Vic based media darling gets the good bloke discount, it's only a matter of time.

 

[ABAB]

I think it's more in line with the 3 week suspensions than the higher suspensions personally. He didn't run past the ball, jump, or even get Rankine in the head. He bumped directly where the ball was in Rankine's arms.

I guess we'll save our outrage for the next time a Vic based media darling gets the good bloke discount, it's only a matter of time.

It was his hand for a split second after having his eye on the ball so I'm not sure what you point is? How was Rankine meant to protect himself? Houston got 5 weeks instead of 3-4 because he lead with his shoulder for the bump 2m before the collision so only Rankine could have been injured which was the ruling.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I mean, it's really the same as tackles, isn't it? You can do it, but you have a duty of care to the opponent. The only difference is you have more control tackling, so it's easier to avoid breaching that duty of care. Houston probably could have safely bumped Rankine, but he didn't exercise much caution.

I get your point, but will save my outrage for if/when it happens again. I find it hard to assess this one in any way but being consistent with other punishments for similar actions that have been dished out this season.

No, if illegally tackle a free kick or a suspension occurs, they have this year suspended perfectly executed legal tackles because the bloke tackled got suspended.
It’s become a lottery and it should not be.

 

[HairyO]

Can there be an argument the AFL endorses the bump as it is not illegal, the AFL accept the bump is fine in the game as long as the outcome is not concussion.
How on earth can players play under such ambiguity? knowing I am allowed to bump but I will get in trouble if I bump.
The AFL need to take some responsibility.

Same way tackles are ok until they arent ok.

 

[Papa G]

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

They really haven't. This argument has been around for 40 plus years. If your kid wants to play footy withhis mates then 99/100 they will play footy. Girls are pleying in droves these days. You think parents are letting girls play in record numbers but stopping little Johnny playing becaus eits too rough. Even though we live in a weakened society now, it really isnt true.

 

[Papa G]

Barry Hall, '05. That off season what was deemed "in play" was tightened up again

Pre Royal Commission/Operation Heartland. Also playing against another Non Vic Club in the GF so it didn't matter.

 

[El_Scorcho]

It was his hand for a split second after having his eye on the ball so I'm not sure what you point is? How was Rankine meant to protect himself? Houston got 5 weeks instead of 3-4 because he lead with his shoulder for the bump 2m before the collision so only Rankine could have been injured which was the ruling.

Not arguing Rankine did anything wrong or that Houston shouldn't be suspended, I just think the bump is in line with the 3 week suspensions, not the longer suspensions recently. The point is that unlike some of the others, he didn't run past the ball, he didn't jump, he didn't take Rankine's head off. That's a 3 weeker for me.

 

[ABAB]

Not arguing Rankine did anything wrong or that Houston shouldn't be suspended, I just think the bump is in line with the 3 week suspensions, not the longer suspensions recently. The point is that unlike some of the others, he didn't run past the ball, he didn't jump, he didn't take Rankine's head off. That's a 3 weeker for me.

But he lead with his shoulder 2m before the collision so it hit Rankine's AC joint and neck which is deem high contact (just like the head) instead of hip less than 1m out which would have cause less force and maybe give Rankine more time to protect himself or at least less force of the bump with Rankine in a vulnerable position.

 

[sherb]

My original point however stands, if the AFL say it is legal to bump the. How can they keep suspending players who do it?

Because the players they suspend have not executed the bump properly.

It's pretty simple really, you can bump an opposition player, but for the most part not high or front on (what used to be called a shirtfront). In other words, bump away - but there are limitations on what you can do.

Bear in mind that putting limitations on bumping is not a new concept in the game - think of tackling. You can tackle an opposition player, but with limitations - you can't tackle high, or low, or push them in the back. In more recent times the sling tackle has been added to the list of tackling no-no's.

Anyway, current players need to adapt to what they can and can't do when bumping, while players coming through the system will have it trained into them.

What Dan Houston did would have been acceptable in years gone by - I think - I might be showing my age here, but I remember the old "charging" reportable offence, and it may well have fallen under that. But either way, times have changed, the game is evolving and players and supporters need to evolve with it.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

But he lead with his shoulder 2m before the collision so it hit Rankine's AC joint and neck which is deem high contact (just like the head) instead of hip less than 1m out which would have cause less force and maybe give Rankine more time to protect himself or at least less force of the bump with Rankine in a vulnerable position.

Honest question, what do you really get out of salivating over Houston missing 5.
Do you hate us enough to want to see Vics win another flag.
Isnt that worse.
Im not a fan of your mob either but Id rather see you succeed than more of them.
Dan getting 5 wont change Saturday nights result, it wont heal Izaks injuries.

Just seems like youre obsessed with a moral victory that in reality wont help anyone.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

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

The Tribunal didn't suspend Maynard. And ex-Collingwood player Michael Christian had to be dragged along by his boss, kicking and screaming to even charge him.