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

[Maddo11]

That makes it pretty subjective and open to manipulation though doesn’t it.

One of the tribunal guidelines pretty much states that they don't need to be consistent between incidents.. it's designed this way purposefully

 

[bonehilda]

Anyone notice the language around the incident has started to soften by certain media.
Its like they go hard to get the big sentence, its handed down, the appeal is lodged and now they've softened in anticipation of the downgrading.
Always looking to be instep, meanwhile, the outraged nufties soak it up only to be left looking stupid when sanity prevails.

Take the tinfoil hat off

 

[Soggy2112]

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.

Being a vicious thug and receiving a hefty suspension are not the same thing. A part from a few hysterical Crows fans I don’t think anyone is actually claiming Houston is a thug in the same way Rankine isn’t.

The AFL has two choices really. Embrace that concussions are a part of the sport and go down a similar route to managing it the way boxing and mma does, or do what it can to minimise them. You can never fully eradicate the risk but you certainly can minimise them. Personally I don’t think the former is a sustainable solution long term in a team sport for a variety of reasons.

If it takes hefty suspensions to change player behaviour then so be it.

 

[_Mike_]

Plus, I thought the whole point of organised sport at common law was that you accept the risks of the sport when you voluntarily elect to play it. I guess that doesn't apply when its an employment setting..

This is really the crux of the issue, the court is being asked to determine whether concussion is an acceptable risk, as foreseeable as the injury is from heavy knocks to the head.

 

[sobrave]

Being a vicious thug and receiving a hefty suspension are not the same thing. A part from a few hysterical Crows fans I don’t think anyone is actually claiming Houston is a thug in the same way Rankine isn’t.

The AFL has two choices really. Embrace that concussions are a part of the sport and go down a similar route to managing it the way boxing and mma does, or do what it can to minimise them. You can never fully eradicate the risk but you certainly can minimise them. Personally I don’t think the former is a sustainable solution long term in a team sport for a variety of reasons.

If it takes hefty suspensions to change player behaviour then so be it.

So, banning the bump then? Because what they're essentially saying now is you're allowed to bump, but only if your opponent doesn't get hurt.

 

[drcollossimo]

Take the tinfoil hat off

Yea look there’s a bit of hyperbole in his reply but don’t let that detract from the overall point

Cripps elects to bump, concussion, gets off
Maynard elects to bump, ends a career, get off (as has been pointed out earlier the match review officer had to be pushed to even be charge him I mean WTAF)
Cotchin, dives at the ball smashes Shiels head, concussion, gets off


Rankine bumps off the ball, concussion, 4 weeks
Houston bumps in play not high, concussion, 5 weeks

Don’t pretend Melbournians don’t punish the provincials when it suits

The AFL would genuinely be content if the league was like EPL soccer with flags rotating between Essendon, Richmond, Collingwood and Carlton with occasional flags thrown to QLD/NSW teams for interest in the game and West coast

The rest can GAGF

 

[Soggy2112]

So, banning the bump then? Because what they're essentially saying now is you're allowed to bump, but only if your opponent doesn't get hurt.

I wouldn’t go as far as banning the bump necessarily, there’s still a place for it to be utilised in say, a marking contest where players are shoulder to shoulder/wrestling.

However in terms of bumping off the ball or in the fashion Houston did then yeah, ban it. As you said, miss by 10cm and your opponent is ****ed.

 

[sigur]

I don't think he gets weeks for this incident if Rankine bounces back up. We've seen big hits get celebrated this season, where the player that got hit didn't get knocked out.

See McAdam last year - Wehr wasn't concussed, played out the game (after a 10 minute test) - still a three week suspension.

Bumping to knock the ball clear or clear a path for another player is still OK. But - due to concerns about concussions - excessive force, even for a 'legal' action - will get you weeks. This was front on contact to a player taking the ball in the air - if it was a marking contest then would we even be discussing it?

 

[Purple7x08_24]

Indeed.. The AFL is ****ing bricks because of these cases before the Courts

And yet theyre still failing with regard to concussion testing.

They should already have invested at independent doctors at games with the Arc being used to idemtify players who need to be assessed. Jezza could have been assessed as he should have been with no bias from the club.

We need full transparancy with concussions especially repeat incidents like Todd Marshall and how repeat concussions are affecting the playera.

 

[Stax on the mill]

The AFL would genuinely be content if the league was like EPL soccer with flags rotating between Essendon, Richmond, Collingwood and Carlton with occasional flags thrown to QLD/NSW teams for interest in the game and West coast

Your theory doesn’t really stack up, given that Carlton haven’t won a flag for 29 years, Essendon for 24 years, Pies and Tigers 3 each in 35 years. AFL certainly hasn’t had a lot of success in manipulating the outcome, have they?

if nothing else, I do admire you though. Anyone who can lug around those 2 huge chips of red gum permanently araldited across both shoulders deserves respect.

 

[The Hobo]

See McAdam last year - Wehr wasn't concussed, played out the game (after a 10 minute test) - still a three week suspension.

McAdam left the ground, bumped upwards and resulted in a head into shoulder impact as well.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

I don't think he gets weeks for this incident if Rankine bounces back up. We've seen big hits get celebrated this season, where the player that got hit didn't get knocked out.

Whilst I agree it's Houston's duty of care here - and that he should get some weeks, I would consider that this would then be a lesser penalty than those that would get weeks regardless of if there was a concussion or not - ie. actual high contact to the head.

By that, I mean he hasn't left the ground, he's lowered himself somewhat (acknowledged by AFL), tucked arm in etc - ie done everything by the book.

Then you get the alternate of Webster, who's come flying in late, left the floor, arm raised - the whole polar opposite of what you're SUPPOSED to do, and he's only copped 2 weeks extra. Seems highly disproportionate.

Punish the action AND the outcome. If you do the right thing and get a bad outcome > you still cop weeks, fine. But it should be proportionate to doing the wrong thing and getting a bad outcome.

If Houston is 5 weeks, Webster should be 10.
If Webster is 7, Houston should be 3 or 4.

They simply do not correlate correctly in my mind.

Folks conveniently forgetting the below from round 1 last year. McAdam got three weeks for “potential to cause injury”. Wehr got up and played on (went off with an unrelated injury late in the game).

The tribunal has been sending clear messages not to shirt front for over a year now. Houston lucky to only get 5 given the severity of the concussion to Rankine.

 

[The Hobo]

Folks conveniently forgetting the below from round 1 last year. McAdam got three weeks for “potential to cause injury”. Wehr got up and played on (went off with an unrelated injury late in the game).

The tribunal has been sending clear messages not to shirt front for over a year now. Houston lucky to only get 5 given the severity of the concussion to Rankine.

McAdam jumped up and into Wehr and there is head contact to McAdams shoulder.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

Question here ..... if you bump your opponent fairly ... with no high contact .... but you say break a rib / puncture a lung / stuff their ac joint up ..... is that suspendable?

Or is a bump only deemed OK ... if ..... you don't hurt/injury your opponent?

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Question here ..... if you bump your opponent fairly ... with no high contact .... but you say break a rib / puncture a lung / stuff their ac joint up ..... is that suspendable?

Or is a bump only deemed OK ... if ..... you don't hurt/injury your opponent?

Depends who 'you' plays for.

 

[_Mike_]

Port Adelaide make AFL Appeal Board decision in wake of Dan Houston

5

Dan Houston

Age

27

Ht

186cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.2

5star

K

11.8

4star

HB

6.4

4star

M

4.9

5star

T

3.0

5star

MG

289.2

4star

D

17.6

4star

K

11.6

4star

HB

6.0

3star

M

3.3

3star

T

3.4

4star

MG

319.9

5star

D

16.6

4star

K

12.4

5star

HB

4.2

4star

M

7.0

5star

T

2.6

4star

MG

279.8

5star

’s Tribunal verdict​

The All-Australian defender was slapped with a five-week suspension on Tuesday night.

Port Adelaide has decided to challenge the AFL Tribunal's process and decision to hand defender Dan Houston

5

Dan Houston

Age

27

Ht

186cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.2

5star

K

11.8

4star

HB

6.4

4star

M

4.9

5star

T

3.0

5star

MG

289.2

4star

D

17.6

4star

K

11.6

4star

HB

6.0

3star

M

3.3

3star

T

3.4

4star

MG

319.9

5star

D

16.6

4star

K

12.4

5star

HB

4.2

4star

M

7.0

5star

T

2.6

4star

MG

279.8

5star

a five-game suspension for rough conduct, with a meeting at the AFL Appeals Board to take place this week.

Port Adelaide make AFL Appeal Board decision in wake of Dan Houston's Tribunal verdict

The All-Australian defender was slapped with a five-week suspension on Tuesday night.

www.zerohanger.com

 

[Maddo11]

Good old Port Adeliade

 

[_Mike_]

Tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson stated in his summation that Houston's actions warranted a five-match ban and that "missing finals, and potentially a grand final" did not impact their process.


"The 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," Gleeson said of the incident.


Clubs can appeal a Tribunal's verdict on as many as four grounds, with one of the following points needing to be submitted and accepted at the Appeals Board.

• An error of law that had a material impact on the decision of the Tribunal.
• That the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it.
• The classification of the offence manifestly was excessive or inadequate.
• The sanction imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate.

The Appeal Board hearing will take place on Thursday, with a time not yet determined.

 

[JimmyBC]

Good old Port Adeliade

Bloody oath mate.

 

[The Mares Leg]

Anyone notice the language around the incident has started to soften by certain media.
Its like they go hard to get the big sentence, its handed down, the appeal is lodged and now they've softened in anticipation of the downgrading.
Always looking to be instep, meanwhile, the outraged nufties soak it up only to be left looking stupid when sanity prevails.

I think the ‘outraged nuffies’ will be the Port supporters on here who are currently mitigating like crazy - when the Tribunal upholds the sentence.

‘What ifs’ and ‘AFL agendas’ don’t mean squat - He lined him up, hit him flush and knocked him out - he’s cooked.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

I think the ‘outraged nuffies’ will be the Port supporters on here who are currently mitigating like crazy - when the Tribunal upholds the sentence.

‘What ifs’ and ‘AFL agendas’ don’t mean squat - He lined him up, hit him flush and knocked him out - he’s cooked.

I guess we'll have to wait and see then hey.
Im pretty comfortable with the result either way so there will be no outrage here.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Can someone explain to me why the AFL get to have council at a tribunal hearing? And why do the AFL get to fight for a certain ban?

Surely a professional league would have rules and penalty's in place that the tribunal get to adjudicate on.

Player reported can have representation as they are the ones accused, the League is represented by the 3 person panel on the tribunal which have a set of rules and guidelines to impose a penalty by.

How on earth do the AFl get to fight a case in a tribunal. They are a league, they should simply have rules set to provide a penalty for such instances.

I think it is wrong for the AFL to be represented at a tribunal. How did we get to this point?

 

[drcollossimo]

Your theory doesn’t really stack up, given that Carlton haven’t won a flag for 29 years, Essendon for 24 years, Pies and Tigers 3 each in 35 years. AFL certainly hasn’t had a lot of success in manipulating the outcome, have they?

if nothing else, I do admire you though. Anyone who can lug around those 2 huge chips of red gum permanently araldited across both shoulders deserves respect.

Don’t play the man play the facts
3 critical players for VFL heartland clubs all got off at the tribunal

2 critical blokes from the provinces got the book thrown at them

The fact Carlton and Essendon can’t make the most of their largesse from AFL house isn’t the point

 

[_Mike_]

Can someone explain to me why the AFL get to have council at a tribunal hearing? And why do the AFL get to fight for a certain ban?

Surely a professional league would have rules and penalty's in place that the tribunal get to adjudicate on.

Player reported can have representation as they are the ones accused, the League is represented by the 3 person panel on the tribunal which have a set of rules and guidelines to impose a penalty by.

How on earth do the AFl get to fight a case in a tribunal. They are a league, they should simply have rules set to provide a penalty for such instances.

I think it is wrong for the AFL to be represented at a tribunal. How did we get to this point?

Why,

Port Adelaide will be required to appeal on the basis of one of the following criteria

• An error of law that had a material impact on the decision of the Tribunal.
• That the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it.
• The classification of the offence manifestly was excessive or inadequate.
• The sanction imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate.

To make it simpler, it's a function of the tribunal review process which has the power to determine whether or not the tribunal was correct in it's decision. The appeals board was introduced as a recommendation from Justice John Hedigan of the Supreme Court of Victoria, after several tribunal findings were appealed through the Victorian court system during the mid-1990s

You cant have the same panel at the tribunal adjudicating over a challenge in the applications of the laws of the game.
The following appeals on tackles are examples of where the appeals board found that the tribunal got it wrong

The night the Tribunal stuffed up: TWO dangerous tackle bans overturned due to ‘error of law’

The night the Tribunal stuffed up: TWO tackle bans overturned due to ‘error of law’

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Why,

Port Adelaide will be required to appeal on the basis of one of the following criteria

• An error of law that had a material impact on the decision of the Tribunal.
• That the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it.
• The classification of the offence manifestly was excessive or inadequate.
• The sanction imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate.

To make it simpler, it's a function of the tribunal review process which has the power to determine whether or not the tribunal was correct in it's decision. The appeals board was introduced as a recommendation from Justice John Hedigan of the Supreme Court of Victoria, after several tribunal findings were appealed through the Victorian court system during the mid-1990s

You cant have the same panel at the tribunal adjudicating over a challenge in the applications of the laws of the game.
The following appeals on tackles are examples of where the appeals board found that the tribunal got it wrong

The night the Tribunal stuffed up: TWO dangerous tackle bans overturned due to ‘error of law’

The night the Tribunal stuffed up: TWO tackle bans overturned due to ‘error of law’

www.foxsports.com.au

Forget the appeal, why do the AFL have council for the first tribunal hearing?