Review R17: The Good, Bad and Ugly vs. Brisbane Lions

[Interloperer]

I'm surprised Keane got fined. I didn't think it was worth a report, but I thought if it did get cited it would be a week off.

 

[Carmo]

I dont really mind Rankine getting suspended, 4 weeks seems excessive, 3 or 2 would be my call. As usual, the high paid genuises at AFL house failed to foresee some circumstances that might play out with the design of their too-simple grading system and its caused the usual joke result.

 

[PeterSalt]

Intentional to careless, No idea how a head clash can be intentional. But that is still 3 weeks.

Sadly, I think it always considered intentional if it's off the ball

 

[bates121]

He chose to bump, off the ball. It's intentional every day of the week.

The head clash was accidental, but the decision to bump was intentional - and players are liable for anything that happens when they choose to bump.

I disagree, i think it was careless, high and severe impact. If there was no head contact that would have been rough conduct and careless. Just because there is an accidental head clash it should not change that.
Regardless as i said it's still three weeks anyway so prob not worth the effort.

 

[Crow_Magnon]

Like, this is some next level rose-coloured glasses stuff...

He moved towards the Brisbane player and deliberately bumped him.

The AFL has changed the rules from last year that the responsibility for care is with the player electing to bump, and if there's an accidental head clash it will be ruled as intentional and high contact from the player bumping...

Luke Parker was suspended for a similar incident in the VFL for 6 weeks...same thing, accidental head clash when he elected to bump...

The Luke Parker one was completely different. He lined up the player, who was none the wiser and caught completely unawares. Starcevich initiated contact by running at Rankine and therefore exacerbated any contact from Rankine - who was basically trying to defend himself. If the AFC don't challenge this they're mad.

 

[Bay62]

Legal and physical consequences of concussion have the potential to shut down the football industry. Intention doesn’t matter anymore

 

[Vader]

This round last season we were 9th and Freo were 14th. The gap is not big at all, small things make large differences.

That 10 game difference between us and those other teams is one of the biggest differences. If you can get to 95-100 games of experience you are usually able to push any other team in the comp. Consider that remembering that we are more like 75 games if you take Smith and Walker out.

Port was over 100 games of experience early in the year.
I'll give you Freo, they are young and inexperienced but they've had a pretty good roster of about the same amount of experience playing each week (but when we had that last year, look how much better we were).

GWS has ranged from 108 to as low as 81, mostly they've been up about high 80's. Remembering they're choc full of top draft picks and now concession picks as well. Anyway, we just went past them anyhow.

Port averaged 100+ games/player in R1-3 and 7-12, roughly half the season.

Adelaide's highest games/player for the entire season is 92.5 (vs Collingwood), and the lowest was just 63.7 (vs Sydney). Most games we've been in the mid-low 80s.

 

[Vader]

I dont really mind Rankine getting suspended, 4 weeks seems excessive, 3 or 2 would be my call. As usual, the high paid genuises at AFL house failed to foresee some circumstances that might play out with the design of their too-simple grading system and its caused the usual joke result.

No, this is exactly what their grading system and recent rule changes were designed to achieve. Players who opt to bump, and who make contact with their opponent's head (even if accidentally) can look forward to lengthy vacations. This is not a new development, nor is it a "joke result", nor an unforeseen circumstance.

 

[cmndstab]

The only way the Crows could argue against the charge would be for them to argue it should be high impact instead of severe impact. And I doubt they would be successful.

Take the ban, use it to play another young player (or at the very least, to retain a young player in the side when someone like McHenry is inevitably recalled) and move on. Perhaps have a brainstorming session about what the playing group can do to help Rankine out when he's being targeted going forward so it doesn't come to this again.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

What grounds would we have for appeal, if any?

Was Rankine being targeted during the game? Presumably something was happening for him to do what he did.

Was his attempted/failed body check a reaction to this? Do players have the right to defend themselves if umpires aren't policing that area of the game?

Had Starcevich been trailing after him in this manner previously and did Rankine have a reasonable belief that he was about to be bumped again?

Does anyone have any straws to clutch?

 

[Vader]

I disagree, i think it was careless, high and severe impact. If there was no head contact that would have been rough conduct and careless. Just because there is an accidental head clash it should not change that.
Regardless as i said it's still three weeks anyway so prob not worth the effort.

If there was no head contact then there's no charge - or at the very least it's intentional/body/medium or low. Rankine chose to bump, so it's always going to be intentional.

The AFL has been very clear about this, for the last couple of years. If you choose to bump, then you are responsible for the consequences of those actions. If you make contact with your opponent's head, then you're looking at a long holiday.

 

[Carmo]

No, this is exactly what their grading system and recent rule changes were designed to achieve. Players who opt to bump, and who make contact with their opponent's head (even if accidentally) can look forward to lengthy vacations. This is not a new development, nor is it a "joke result", nor an unforeseen circumstance.

Have to agree to disagree on this one. Each to their own.

 

[Dangerousfield]

4 weeks for bracing for contact off the ball from the opponent.

Wouldn't expect anything less from the AFL.

Rankine got hit in the head too - why no penalty for the Lions player?

Must challenge on principle.

Stop with the AFL conspiracy theory stuff. I saw the incident, I thought he'd get penalised, how many was on the outcome of the unnecessary bump.

Rankine had no need to bump, he heavily bumped a player not expecting contact. The RULES now state that if you choose to bump you pay the penalty for any outcome. Outcome here is concussion so 4 weeks is in line with other cases this year.

Fox panelists called it correctly as four.

There is no conspiracy. What would you have wanted a Brisbane player to get if the positions were reversed and Rankine was concussed whilst jogging away from the play?

Four weeks without Rankine will help us lose a few more and stay in pick 4 position - that's a win

 

[cmndstab]

What grounds would we have for appeal, if any?

Was Rankine being targeted during the game? Presumably something was happening for him to do what he did.

Was his attempted/failed body check a reaction to this? Do players have the right to defend themselves if umpires aren't policing that area of the game?

Had Starcevich been trailing after him in this manner previously and did Rankine have a reasonable belief that he was about to be bumped again?

Does anyone have any straws to clutch?

There's no way to appeal based on extenuating circumstances causing Rankine to bump. Rankine's right to defend himself does not extend to electing to bump and concussing his opponent.

We could only appeal on impact, which is a hard sell considering the player was essentially knocked out, played no further part in the match, and ended up concussed.

 

[cmndstab]

Have to agree to disagree on this one. Each to their own.

You can disagree that the system should work this way, but Vader is 100% right on this one. This is the system working precisely as it was designed to.

 

[OccamsRazorRay]

7k fine for Mark Keane for a trip that should have been HTB is arguably more disgraceful than Rankine getting suspended

No, it shouldn't. Did you watch the replay?? Keane doesn't get his hands anywhere near making an effective tackle, and he accidentally gets his legs caught up in the Brisbane player. They should appeal that because I think it was just clumsy and incidental... surely they can't fine for that?

 

[Dangerousfield]

Am I right in thinking this is all the highest levels you can get in terms of feeding into the games you'll get given?

So this is the same set of gradings as you'd get for ironing a player out off the ball, just lining them up and running through them, 60's or 70's style?

NO, in that case you'd get sent straight to the tribunal who can impose whatever penalty they choose. Saints Webster got 6 or 7 earlier this year

 

[Vader]

Have to agree to disagree on this one. Each to their own.

They literally changed the rules specifically for circumstances like these.

 

[George Kramer]

What grounds would we have for appeal, if any?

Was Rankine being targeted during the game? Presumably something was happening for him to do what he did.

Was his attempted/failed body check a reaction to this? Do players have the right to defend themselves if umpires aren't policing that area of the game?

Had Starcevich been trailing after him in this manner previously and did Rankine have a reasonable belief that he was about to be bumped again?

Does anyone have any straws to clutch?

Does Rankine do charity?

 

[OccamsRazorRay]

So hang on. They are unrealistic expectations, but you can see why the club had them?

Yeah - its all an issue with youth.

I mean the gap between 15th place us and 4th place Freo is massive (well it is - but not in age).

Freo - Average age 25.4 / Games 95.4 / players under 100 games - 15

Adelaide - Average age 25.0 / Games 86.2 / Players under 100 games 16.

And lets compare to other teams -

GWS - Average age 25.0 / Games 92.3 / Players under 100 games 16.

Even the ever competing Power - 25.3 / 96.5 / Players under 100 games 15.

Freo also came 14th last year....

I think during a rebuild there's the idea that the progression is constantly on the up, but I think a few things have happened this year, which is just a blip on the radar.

 

[kirky]

No... it affects his ability to win the Brownlow, or win the Rising Star award (not that he's eligible), but not making the AA team.

Ok, so they should have made it 5 weeks penalty as I think you need to play 16 games to qualify for AA selection.

Don’t have a problem with 4 weeks as it will probably now lock us into 15th position and fourth draft pick.

 

[bates121]

If there was no head contact then there's no charge - or at the very least it's intentional/body/medium or low. Rankine chose to bump, so it's always going to be intentional.

The AFL has been very clear about this, for the last couple of years. If you choose to bump, then you are responsible for the consequences of those actions. If you make contact with your opponent's head, then you're looking at a long holiday.

But it's not clearly intentional for a bump, heaps of bumps which is actually rough conduct are graded as careless. And intentional is really aimed at non football acts, not football acts that go wrong. It's not purely did he bump, well that is intentional because bumping is still a football act.

For mine they have worked back from the aftermath and graded this as if the bump actually hit him in the head, which would definitely fall as this, but it didn't in this case it was a clash of heads, that should be careless.
But again the difference in only a week so not sure they will bother challenging it anyway.

 

[cmndstab]

Ok, so they should have made it 5 weeks penalty as I think you need to play 16 games to qualify for AA selection.

I don't believe this is true. Any player who has played at least one match is eligible for AA.

Of course in practice, players who miss a big chunk of the season won't get selected. See Tex after his racism suspension a few years back.

 

[Dangerousfield]

Freo also came 14th last year....

I think during a rebuild there's the idea that the progression is constantly on the up, but I think a few things have happened this year, which is just a blip on the radar.

A blip like Nicks steadfastly playing a vanilla midfield in the first four games and a blip like losing at home to the wooden spooners, a blip like playing McSpud and Murphy.

A blip like having a head coach who doesn't know what he's doing in selection or game day

Yep, a few self inflicted blips on our radar

 

[Vader]

Here's the rule, as taken directly from the AFL Tribunal Guidelines:

1. Rough Conduct (High Bumps)
The AFL Regulations provide that a Player will be guilty of Rough Conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably)the Player causes contact that is at least Low Impact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck. If not Intentional, such conduct will be deemed to be Careless, unless:
» The Player was contesting the ball and it was reasonable for the Player to contest the ball in that way; or
» The contact to the opponent’s head or neck was caused by circumstances outside the control of the Player which could not be reasonably foreseen.

In the interests of Player safety, the purpose of the rule dealing with high bumps is to reduce, as far as practicable, the risk of head injuries to Players and this purpose needs to be kept firmly in mind by all Players and will guide the application of the rule.

Any high bump which constitutes Rough Conduct that has the potential to cause injury will usually be graded at a minimum as Medium Impact, even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low.

For the purpose of these Guidelines, head clashes that result when a Player has elected to bump are circumstances that can reasonably be foreseen. Players will ordinarily be liable if they elect to bump if not contesting the ball

Source: https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...509b31d77ed8/2024-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf