You didn't answer the question
-
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.
Round FW1 Winner: TBA!
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 3 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
News AFL Tribunal appeals board upholds Houston's 5 Week Suspension
- Thread starter 1990crow
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Reasons:
Izak Rankine was waiting under a high ball, he moving in the same direction as the ball, his eyes were on the ball, and he was exposed and vulnerable to any forceful contact from an opposing player.
An opposing player has a clear duty of care in these circumstances not to commit an act which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a reported offense.
Houston breaches that duty of care, and his breach was significant.
He had time to think, he had time to weigh up his options. He had time and the clear opportunity to tackle. He chose to run at speed for several meters and forcefully bumped Rankine.
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.
Although Houston's feet did not leave the ground, and he appears to have made some attempt to lower his body, the time he had to decide not to bump, the vulnerability of Rankine and the speed and force of his impact, lead us to conclude that this was a serious breach of the duty of care.
Rankine could have expected to be tackled, he could not reasonably have expected to be bumped high.
The sanction is to be determined in the Tribunal's discretion. We’ve taken into account Houston's guilty plea, among other things, including his good record, his contrition and the need for consistency compared with other recent comparable Tribunal decisions.
Having done so, we consider the appropriate sanction is five weeks for the reasons set out above.
His carelessness was significant, the impact was severe. The immediate consequences for Rankine were evident, he was concussed, it appears his shoulder was hurt and there was the potential for more serious injury.
We do not consider the circumstances give rise to exceptional and compelling circumstances.
We do not consider the consequence of missing finals and potentially a grand final impacts the sanction that should be imposed, particularly for such a serious breach and such a significant injury.
Izak Rankine was waiting under a high ball, he moving in the same direction as the ball, his eyes were on the ball, and he was exposed and vulnerable to any forceful contact from an opposing player.
An opposing player has a clear duty of care in these circumstances not to commit an act which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a reported offense.
Houston breaches that duty of care, and his breach was significant.
He had time to think, he had time to weigh up his options. He had time and the clear opportunity to tackle. He chose to run at speed for several meters and forcefully bumped Rankine.
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.
Although Houston's feet did not leave the ground, and he appears to have made some attempt to lower his body, the time he had to decide not to bump, the vulnerability of Rankine and the speed and force of his impact, lead us to conclude that this was a serious breach of the duty of care.
Rankine could have expected to be tackled, he could not reasonably have expected to be bumped high.
The sanction is to be determined in the Tribunal's discretion. We’ve taken into account Houston's guilty plea, among other things, including his good record, his contrition and the need for consistency compared with other recent comparable Tribunal decisions.
Having done so, we consider the appropriate sanction is five weeks for the reasons set out above.
His carelessness was significant, the impact was severe. The immediate consequences for Rankine were evident, he was concussed, it appears his shoulder was hurt and there was the potential for more serious injury.
We do not consider the circumstances give rise to exceptional and compelling circumstances.
We do not consider the consequence of missing finals and potentially a grand final impacts the sanction that should be imposed, particularly for such a serious breach and such a significant injury.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Where’s the bloke that was trying to tell me for the last 4 days it wasn’t a 5 week ban?
Seriously easy decision. Worse than the SPP/Rankine bans and not as bad as Parker (due to injury) or Webster (who should have got 10)
Seriously easy decision. Worse than the SPP/Rankine bans and not as bad as Parker (due to injury) or Webster (who should have got 10)
- Apr 27, 2002
- 16,095
- 12,836
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Edmonton Oilers, Newcastle
So you admit he's a fair player, and yet I'm pretty sure I've seen you hanging shit on him and Port in various threads.
- Thread starter
- #556
He chose to bump because it was team instruction to do so.
Blame your thug coach.
- Apr 17, 2010
- 7,680
- 10,887
- AFL Club
- Sydney
On what grounds?
Admitted he bumped him. "High contact" is defined as top of the shoulder / neck / head which there was clearly contact to, and the outcome was clearly severe.
Straight to be appeals board we should go. 5 matches for that is as bad as Toby Bedford getting 3. Borderline corrupt.
Didn’t realise that it was incumbent on Port Adelaide to prove that he didn’t get Rankine high, thought it would be required on the AFL to prove he did. I didn’t read anything to this effect apart from a statement from the AFL.
I guess the Victorian club “let me off I wanna play finals” card didn’t work for us. Only good news for Dan is that next time he’ll be with a Victorian club and will probably get off.
Didn’t realise that it was incumbent on Port Adelaide to prove that he didn’t get Rankine high, thought it would be required on the AFL to prove he did. I didn’t read anything to this effect apart from a statement from the AFL.
I guess the Victorian club “let me off I wanna play finals” card didn’t work for us. Only good news for Dan is that next time he’ll be with a Victorian club and will probably get off.
The Power are basically going over the reasons why this was not high contact and why this falls well below other incidents that have received equal or larger bans than five matches.
- Thread starter
- #560
Rubbish.
Elixuh
See you on the 9th green at 9
Good outcome, we don't want thugs like Houston in the game
I seem to be in the vast minority of Port supporters where although it’s hugely disappointing to lose him for finals and will impact us a lot, thought it looked pretty cut and dry 4-5 weeks based on what we’ve seen this year.
Only hope was that with his clean record and finals they may take it into account and give him 3. However with such an emphasis on concussion at the moment, that was always unlikely.
Expected as to the letter of the “law”. Not sure what the grounds for argument against can otherwise be.
Huge loss for us though.
Only hope was that with his clean record and finals they may take it into account and give him 3. However with such an emphasis on concussion at the moment, that was always unlikely.
Expected as to the letter of the “law”. Not sure what the grounds for argument against can otherwise be.
Huge loss for us though.
I've never call him an unfair player, I said his statement was cringe as (go and read it without bias). He was clearly under instruction to rough up Rankine as the entire side was that night and he made a big mistake.
- Apr 27, 2002
- 16,095
- 12,836
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Edmonton Oilers, Newcastle
"Thugs" like Houston? Wtf? First offense of any kind in his entire career. You're a complete joke.
- Apr 17, 2010
- 7,680
- 10,887
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Nup.
How so?
If he’s charged with high contact, doesn’t the AFL have to prove he was hit high?
Again, they may have done so, but haven’t read anywhere apart from “we believe he did”, a charge Port Adelaide rejects.
- Mar 3, 2022
- 5,729
- 7,842
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Lucky to get 5 but happy that they werent going to go the corrupt route for a potential GF (will want to see this reflected for next player at Big Vic club too)
Hopefully now the nuffies in the thread now understand why being vulnerable is a relevant factor in decision making.
Hopefully now the nuffies in the thread now understand why being vulnerable is a relevant factor in decision making.
Again, the AC joint is consider high and then contact to the neck.
- Sep 30, 2015
- 3,608
- 5,501
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I don't know about that, Ricciuto and Pickett were pretty cool players.
5 weeks would be perfectly understandable if it was going to be 5 H&A games, but surely the fact that he’s going to miss a bunch of finals ought to come into it.
I mean surely missing a grand final for instance is worth 5 regular season games on its own, so the difference between 4 and 5 games here could be monumental.
I reckon a 5 game ban now- for a guy who’s team is pretty much guarantee to play at least two finals- is the equivalent of at least a 10 game ban earlier in the season, or in the preseason. Probably more like 12.
It’s seriously harsh and IMO out of proportion.
If “good blokedness” can come into it, surely the certainty that you’ll miss finals ought to.
I mean surely missing a grand final for instance is worth 5 regular season games on its own, so the difference between 4 and 5 games here could be monumental.
I reckon a 5 game ban now- for a guy who’s team is pretty much guarantee to play at least two finals- is the equivalent of at least a 10 game ban earlier in the season, or in the preseason. Probably more like 12.
It’s seriously harsh and IMO out of proportion.
If “good blokedness” can come into it, surely the certainty that you’ll miss finals ought to.
- May 2, 2011
- 14,496
- 7,600
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- AUFC, CDFC, MUFC, Redbacks
How did maynard not get a ban for a worse hit?
- Apr 17, 2010
- 7,680
- 10,887
- AFL Club
- Sydney
The proof of high contact is in the measurable outcome of Rankine being KO'd. The MRO believes he got him high (remember this just need to be above the point of the shoulder) and its up to Houston to prove he didn't.
Which without 4k slow mo vision is practically impossible.
Houston out for the rest of the year and port will do another straight sets exit
Similar threads
- Poll
