![](https://images.bigfootymedia.com/icons/mobile-bullets/port_adelaide.png)
You mean when South Melbourne and Bloods culture took up the battle against the West Coast Eagles?Barry Hall, '05. That off season what was deemed "in play" was tightened up again
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: GWS Giants v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Lions at 65% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Semi Finals
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
AFLW 2024 - Round 3 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
You mean when South Melbourne and Bloods culture took up the battle against the West Coast Eagles?Barry Hall, '05. That off season what was deemed "in play" was tightened up again
Exactly this scenario might even play out this finals series the most frustrating part of it all will be no parallels will be drawn to Houston or if they do it will be “pwoah gee <insert VFL team player here> was lucky to get off when you look at the precedent set with Houston”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.
What? You are also held accountable for your action, I was "salivating" for 6 weeks but after reading your BS posts to justify what happened to Rankine with an illegal shoulder bump and your crowd booing and sending off Rankine on a stretcher, I was "salivating" for 8 weeks.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.
I’m with you ABAB when Rankine sniped Starcevich off the ball I was salivating for 6 weeks tooWhat? You are also held accountable for your action, I was "salivating" for 6 weeks but after reading your BS posts to justify what happened to Rankine with an illegal shoulder bump and your crowd booing and sending off Rankine in a stretcher, I was "salivating" for 8 weeks.
Accidental head clash as Rankine didn't protect himself with going shoulder first 2m out like HoustonI’m with you ABAB when Rankine sniped Starcevich off the ball I was salivating for 6 weeks too
I get the hate I really do
I’m with you ABAB when Rankine sniped Starcevich off the ball I was salivating for 6 weeks too
I get the hate I really do
I also love the outrage when it’s one of your own but when Rankine does it glory be it’s unfair
I don’t think rankine deserved 4, even though that’s what the mro matrix has as the minimum suspension for his offence. I also don’t think that Powell pepper or Peter wright deserved four. Both had extenuating circumstances to their contact. Just as I think 5 is too many for Houston. Suspensions are getting longer and longer for split second decisions and body positioning mistakes of less than 10cm.Was there really that much outrage about the Rankine suspension?
I thought it was unfair that in the same week as that we saw deliberate strikes receive fines or only a week, but I thought four weeks was correct for Izak.
Unlucky because it was a head clash, but the bump was not needed and he deserved what he got. Same as Houston deserves his 5. I do think Houston’s needs a more severe penalty because of the speed of the hit.
For the guy that was guilty of intentional rough conduct with high contact, and severe impact getting the same suspension as others who were guilty of careless rough conduct with high contact and severe impact?Was there really that much outrage about the Rankine suspension?
I thought it was unfair that in the same week as that we saw deliberate strikes receive fines or only a week, but I thought four weeks was correct for Izak.
Unlucky because it was a head clash, but the bump was not needed and he deserved what he got. Same as Houston deserves his 5. I do think Houston’s needs a more severe penalty because of the speed of the hit.
The conduct/impact/contact system is just a guideline for the MRO and tribunal, then each incident is assessed individually; some might be tackles, some might be bumps. Careless, severe and high is 3 games or more, Webster’s was graded the same and he got 7 weeks. This argument that every incident graded that way needs a uniform amount of weeks makes no senseFor the guy that was guilty of intentional rough conduct with high contact, and severe impact getting the same suspension as others who were guilty of careless rough conduct with high contact and severe impact?
Yeah that was a shitty call of the MRO/Tribunal not being consistent and keeping up the hard stance that was set earlier in the year.
Actually it does, or you allow biases to enter the decision making at the critical point of the season.The conduct/impact/contact system is just a guideline for the MRO and tribunal, then each incident is assessed individually; some might be tackles, some might be bumps. Careless, severe and high is 3 games or more, Webster’s was graded the same and he got 7 weeks. This argument that every incident graded that way needs a uniform amount of weeks makes no sense
They don't want to deal with the uproar and outrage of banning the bump. So they do it by stealth like this.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.
That makes it pretty subjective and open to manipulation though doesn’t it.The conduct/impact/contact system is just a guideline for the MRO and tribunal, then each incident is assessed individually; some might be tackles, some might be bumps. Careless, severe and high is 3 games or more, Webster’s was graded the same and he got 7 weeks. This argument that every incident graded that way needs a uniform amount of weeks makes no sense
I don’t think rankine deserved 4, even though that’s what the mro matrix has as the minimum suspension for his offence. I also don’t think that Powell pepper or Peter wright deserved four. Both had extenuating circumstances to their contact. Just as I think 5 is too many for Houston. Suspensions are getting longer and longer for split second decisions and body positioning mistakes of less than 10cm.
The bold is where I don't get the threats of lawsuits. Need to see how it plays out but I can't understand how an organization where head high contact / dangerous tackles have been free kicks / outlawed throughout this period. I don't particularly understand why suspending a player after the fact for an accident mitigates or prevents the occurrence of concussions, and even if you were to argue it did what is the difference between a player being suspended for one week and a player being suspended for 5?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.
Interesting how these Collingwood guys get treated, ain’t it?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.
That’s fair enough, and I respect that opinion. But my view is 5 weeks is nearly a quarter of a season. For an action that is legal, but either mistimed or misplaced. I would get it for deliberate off the ball actions, but the afl has already managed to stamp that sort of thing out of the game.I think the hefty suspensions are valid for two reasons.
A) the amount of time a player has to miss for a concussion is increasing.
B) we are learning more and more about the severe impacts of concussions.
It’s only fair that suspensions be high for players who put their opponents at an increased risk of concussion. I get that these are split second decisions, but in both the Rankine and Houston hits both players had other options. Bumping wasn’t necessary, so ther argument that they only missed by 5-10cm is not relevant in my view.
Id go as far as to say they leave it grey, like many of the rules, so they can pull the lever if/when faux outrage is required.They don't want to deal with the uproar and outrage of banning the bump. So they do it by stealth like this.
Another example of not wanting to deal with the uproar.Id go as far as to say they leave it grey, like many of the rules, so they can pull the lever if/when faux outrage is required.
It amazes me that they overlook a raised knee that all but severes a spleen and leaves a player with ptsd, yet get a bump wrong and youre out for 5.
I think the hefty suspensions are valid for two reasons.
A) the amount of time a player has to miss for a concussion is increasing.
B) we are learning more and more about the severe impacts of concussions.
It’s only fair that suspensions be high for players who put their opponents at an increased risk of concussion. I get that these are split second decisions, but in both the Rankine and Houston hits both players had other options. Bumping wasn’t necessary, so ther argument that they only missed by 5-10cm is not relevant in my view.
And that introduces the question of intent.It's a contact sport though played at high speed and high intensity. Concussions will happen sometimes and players accept that risk. It doesn't mean the player who did it is a vicious thug and needs to miss a quarter of season.
Gary Rohan knocked out Jeremy Cameron in a marking contest. If he'd played for the opposite team he would have got rubbed out for that, but since it's his teammate we accept it's an accident.