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

[Lingsface]

This will cost Rankine any chance of making All Australian as well.

 

[The Hobo]

Careless lol.

Webster was careless, why wouldn't this be?

Any in play incident is classed as careless

 

[The Hobo]

View 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

Agreed but the penalty for a body contact offence is lower based on the matrix

 

[The Hobo]

This will cost Rankine any chance of making All Australian as well.

Didn't meet the threshold anyway

 

[div12ressie]

yeah so realistically they should just outlaw bumping all together.

Great bump by Houston though

 

[ABAB]

Webster was careless, why wouldn't this be?

Any in play incident is classed as careless

Choosing to bump has never been classified as careless.

 

[Lingsface]

Did someone handball Rankine that ball? Because if so they should be suspended as well, the position he was in was so vulnerable.

 

[JimmyBC]

yeah so realistically they should just outlaw bumping all together.

Great bump by Houston though

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.

It'll be as rare as a drop kick eventually.

 

[Young Gun #6]

 

[HugeJohnson]

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.

 

[kirky]

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?

He had the option to tackle, he chose not to.

Rankine couldn’t protect himself falling to the ground, his head hits the ground and becomes unconscious. Takes no further part in the game. Thereby the act of the bump resulted in him becoming unconscious.

He will go straight to tribunal and get 4+.

 

[Young Gun #6]

 

[kirky]

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.

Neither is Rankine a dirty player but he got 4 weeks against Brisbane.

Dan had the choice to tackle, he chose to bump. You roll the dice making that choice that everything will be ok, it wasn’t the outcome he expected but you unfortunately pay the penalty.

 

[kirky]

great bump 0 weeks. 10 years ago this is praised as great hit, snowflakes everywhere now

Ok, then perhaps you can pay the payouts when players successfully claim litigation for concussion and brain injury.

We live in different times.

 

[kirky]

Ump said it wasn't a free, so how is it outside the rules?

Yes because the umpires get every decision correct.

 

[kirky]

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)

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+

 

[CrowToon]

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

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.

Dan isn't looking at the ball, he is lining Izak up.

Compare this to a situation where Izak is running with the footy, sees Dan coming and can brace for contact, or even if he doesn't see him coming, he isn't mid-jump and therefore not totally vulnerable.


If this still isn't sinking in consider that the NRL have outlawed tackles on players midair but hAvEn'T oUtLaWeD tAcKlInG

Dan has a duty of care to Izak in that situation and by electing to bump instead of tackle, he has not upheld that duty of care. Izak getting concussed either by the bump or hititng the ground is entirely foreseeable since he was midair when collision occurred meaning he had no opportunity to defend himself.

But yes, continue making ridiculous comparisons between this and any other bump or tackle.

 

[GoldbergsGold]

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.

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.

 

[La Vache]

If there is conclusive vision that the shoulder hits the head then it’s minimum 6. I haven’t seen any yet so could be interesting.

 

[GoldbergsGold]

Will they? Doesn't happen like that in rugby league, rugby and American football.

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.

 

[sobrave]

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.

He actually should have jumped into him, the AFL tribunal set the precedent last year that if you jump you actually turn into a "human frisbee" and can't be held responsible for ending another players career.

 

[BF Tiger]

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.

Where’s this reverse angle? Post a link and let others judge.

 

[jdeezy]

Careless lol.

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+

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.

Interestingly though I just looked at the Rankine incident and they graded his intentional, and your lawyer tried to talk them down to careless and wasn't successful.

This is the Rankine decision

"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."

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".

I reckon it's all moot because careless or intentional or not I still reckon they'll end up on 6 weeks. Can't see it getting any lower than 4.

 

[radiojake]

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.

Watched the replay this morning and only just noticed that part - makes sense now but last night I couldn't comprehend how H-F ended up with the ball on the restart

 

[GoldbergsGold]

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.

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.

Not sure where this: "The AFL are perfect, and would be sensible about a sin bin" idea comes from.