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 2 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Webster was careless, why wouldn't this be?Careless lol.
Agreed but the penalty for a body contact offence is lower based on the matrixView attachment 2082872
It can be "reasonably foreseen" that choosing to bump may have caused high contact, and choosing to bump was "unreasonable in the circumstance" because Rankine is holding the pill so tackling him is an option instead
Basically even if the bump was otherwise legal if you have an alternative and you ko them, you have committed an offence
Didn't meet the threshold anywayThis will cost Rankine any chance of making All Australian as well.
Choosing to bump has never been classified as careless.Webster was careless, why wouldn't this be?
Any in play incident is classed as careless
They are too scared to outlaw it because it's a long standing part of the game, I'm sure they know with the crackdown it'll pretty much be coached out of kids football and be gone in 10 to 20 years.yeah so realistically they should just outlaw bumping all together.
Great bump by Houston though![]()
This is what it hinges on.
The reverse angle shows Rankine is clearly conscious until his head hits the ground.
There's absolutely nothing conclusive to show that Houston got him high.
If the concussion is a result of head hitting floor, is that a suspension, and if so - under what sanction?
One thing in Houstons favour is he hardly left the ground. So you can't reasonably say his intention was to jump up and hit Rankine as high as possible. I've no doubt he wanted to inflict some kind of hurt on him but I think he did it as fairly as possible. Unfortunately it's resulted in a concussion, if Rankine gets up straight away a bit winded and plays out the game after passing a concussion test then we all move on and call it a good hit.
I fully expect 4 weeks+ but I don't think he deserves it. If no one wants any contact in the sport, would you still watch it if it turns in to some kind of netball hybrid? No tackles, no bumps, no hangers....
The players are paid huge salaries because of these inherent dangers that they choose to accept every time they run out to play.
Huge bump but Houston is not a dirty player.
great bump 0 weeks. 10 years ago this is praised as great hit, snowflakes everywhere now
Ump said it wasn't a free, so how is it outside the rules?
Based on this, IF Port can show its body contact only its either high or severe contact and careless - 1-2 weeks. (possibly tribunal adds more)
Izak is looking at the ball, midway through a jump which makes him vulnerable and completely undefended. He has no opportunity to brace himself etc.so if someone bumps someone fairy (not saying Houston did), and the other player’s head hits the ground and gets hurt its a suspension? Why havent AFL made bumping illegal then..
Our sport is so stupid hahah
You're talking as if that's already a specific set in stone AFL rule instead of a hypothetical. The AFL are not "sensible" about the rules and would likely abuse a yellow/red card system.This is the extreme false dichotomy invented by people as an excuse for not doing something more sensible. Umpires should not be able to hand out red cards purely off discretion.
What should happen is that player can only be sent off if the player on the other team has been removed from the game too. And the offending team should still be able to sub in a player, not screw the game up by making them go a man down.
The AFL have a culture of overregulation and overreacting when it comes to the rules, they'd definitely abuse a yellow/red card system for players talking back to umpires or body language they don't like. And that's not true about Rugby League, refs are known to send players to the sin bin for talking back to them and a lot of questionable small stuff, that'd definitely be applied to The AFL if they brought that in.Will they? Doesn't happen like that in rugby league, rugby and American football.
One thing in Houstons favour is he hardly left the ground. So you can't reasonably say his intention was to jump up and hit Rankine as high as possible. I've no doubt he wanted to inflict some kind of hurt on him but I think he did it as fairly as possible. Unfortunately it's resulted in a concussion, if Rankine gets up straight away a bit winded and plays out the game after passing a concussion test then we all move on and call it a good hit.
I fully expect 4 weeks+ but I don't think he deserves it. If no one wants any contact in the sport, would you still watch it if it turns in to some kind of netball hybrid? No tackles, no bumps, no hangers....
The players are paid huge salaries because of these inherent dangers that they choose to accept every time they run out to play.
Huge bump but Houston is not a dirty player.
Where’s this reverse angle? Post a link and let others judge.It's the ground that did the damage. The reverse angle shows his head hit the ground and that's when the lights go out.
Careless lol.
I 100% would've thought that too but in the Webster one earlier in the year it was deemed "careless", that's what the post you are replying to is referring to.He chose to bump rather than tackle therefore it isn’t careless it is intentional. His intention was always to bump.
You roll the dice, you pay the consequences.
4+
Like the Webster one most of this one applies to Houston too. The main difference seems to be Rankine's is deemed off the play and when play has stopped, which given the ball is heading to Rankine in this one wouldn't be true - maybe that's where the "intentional" could be argued to "careless"."Rankine forcefully bumped Brandon Starcevich a considerable distance from where the ball was trapped in a stoppage.
Both players were running in the same direction, and Starcevich was not expecting forceful contact. He had no reason to expect that he would be bumped.
The issue is whether Rankine intended to commit the reportable offence of rough conduct. In our opinion, it is clear that Rankine intended to engage in conduct which was unreasonable in the circumstances.
It was not reasonable to stop and forcefully bump Starcevich when Rankine must have known Starcevich was not expecting to be bumped.
Play had stopped, and although the bump was almost simultaneous with the umpire’s whistle, the Crows fairly accepted that neither player could reasonably have expected that the ball was about to come their way.
Rankine moved low and bumped in an upward motion. Starcevich was running at the time, he didn’t expect the bump and did not have the opportunity to protect himself.
Rankine must have known all of these matters, and it follows He intended to engage in conduct that was unreasonable in the circumstances. We were satisfied that this was intentional, rough conduct."
Wrong, no free was paid, play continued and JHF marked the ball, at which point, play was stopped.
No we didn't. Jason Horne-Francis was took a mark and the umpires called a stop to play.
It's not "half-witted" to make a basic observation The AFL would abuse a sin bin system, since The AFL have a culture of overregulating and making bad rule decisions. Even The NRL who are less petty than The AFL have abused the sin bin with very small things like talking back to the umpire.I think in extreme cases ump's should have the ability to eject players for particularly violent, illegal actions. But the problem is that trying to sell this will just result in the media halfwits scaring people with the idea of out-of-control umps handing out red cards like candy.
That's why I think my suggestion is better as a first step towards sanity.