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

[ABAB]

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.

Were they also carrying 4-5 players every week last year in Smith, McHenry, Murphy, ROB and this year's Jones???? The only slim silver lining for Nicks next year is even if he play debutants in place of them then he would have the same chance of winning but I sense he will stick to them and loss his job so either way he will be gone all because of his own doing.

 

[Vader]

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.

Are you really trying to argue that Rankine didn't intentionally bump Starcevich?

 

[BACCS]

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.

Have a watch of the AA selection doco they did recently on Fox Footy, I am fairly sure there is a min games played criteria

 

[bates121]

Are you really trying to argue that Rankine didn't intentionally bump Starcevich?

That is not the meaning of intentional in terms of the grading system. Of course he bumped but as i said it is still a football action so he is allowed to bump. The bump a football act was clearly not done well so it falls to careless and then the resulting impacts etc.
Intentional is graded that the player performed an act to cause injury, generally falling to non football acts.

 

[Vader]

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?

We could always try the Hail Mary approach. It worked for Brisbane earlier in the year.

... but based on the gradings, which all appear to be correct, we'd be fighting an uphill battle. We would need to rely on external factors, because the grading of the incident itself is correct.

 

[CrowBloke]

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

"... while Crows defender Mark Keane was also offered a fine for tripping", which was not even called by the Umpire
(but, er, it was accidental, not htb. Keane didn't tackle him).

I think the Umpire got it right, one of very few.
It was accidental contact, they both got tangled up, nothing to see here, play on.

Then the AFL step in and hit him with a 7K fine ?? Fmd .

Or was it another incident?

 

[Vader]

That is not the meaning of intentional in terms of the grading system. Of course he bumped but as i said it is still a football action so he is allowed to bump. The bump a football act was clearly not done well so it falls to careless and then the resulting impacts etc.

If a player chooses to bump, and makes contact with the head, that's a Rough Conduct (High Bumps) offence. It's literally in the rule book:

1. Rough Conduct (High Bumps)
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.

Intentional is graded that the player performed an act to cause injury, generally falling to non football acts.

No, your interpretation is incorrect. Rankine made an intentional decision to bump. As soon as he made contact with the head, that was automatically a Rough Conduct offence. Intentional means that the action is intentional, even if the outcome was not intended.

 

[CrowBloke]

Of course he bumped but as i said it is still a football action so he is allowed to bump

Only if the ball is within a certain distance (5m?).
Rankine stopped, turned, saw he was open and shirtfronted him, but it was off the ball. At the time, as soon as I saw the replay I thought "he'll get 2 for that".
But 4 is excessive.

 

[WetCrow1991]

No he wasn’t. He stopped, braces and then launches into his opponent with hip and shoulder. Unlucky that he caused the damage, but his intent and action was very clear.

Get your eyes checked. Rankine is a hero and the Lions player should get weeks for going near a living god.

 

[CrowToon]

We need to challenge based solely on the fact that every team challenges every time except us.

And no, I didnt care to look this up for accuracy.

Also I think the ban is about right so its another layer of complexity but show some goddamn fight

 

[bates121]

If a player chooses to bump, and makes contact with the head, that's a Rough Conduct (High Bumps) offence. It's literally in the rule book:


No, your interpretation is incorrect. Rankine made an intentional decision to bump. As soon as he made contact with the head, that was automatically a Rough Conduct offence. Intentional means that the action is intentional, even if the outcome was not intended.

I disagree, literally every action would be intentional then, which it's not. As it said intentional vs careless is normally nonfootball act vs football act.
For mine its the difference between Rankine bumping and hitting him high with his shoulder vs Rankine bumping hitting all body and there is a head clash. Both are still high contact and severe but one is intentional and one careless.

 

[GreyCrow]

4 weeks for Rankine

Fines for Laird, Keays and Keane

Match Review findings: Round 17

Four Crows players have been sanctioned

www.afc.com.au

I figured he would get some weeks but not 4

 

[GROTTO]

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.

Have a watch of the AA selection doco they did recently on Fox Footy, I am fairly sure there is a min games played criteria

There is a min number of games required to be played, thats why Sam Taylor missed AA last year.

 

[GROTTO]

I figured he would get some weeks but not 4

Yes I thought the same as well around 2-3.

 

[Carmo]

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.

Yes, I know it's working as designed, there is no one better than Vader at telling one how something is, but as you allude to, I don't care how it is, I care how it could or should be, there's room for improvement there.

 

[FR0GGY]

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

What now?
The AFLPA set a maximum of 5k fine I thought?

 

[BACCS]

Yes, I know it's working as designed, there is no one better than Vader at telling one how something is, but as you allude to, I don't care how it is, I care how it could or should be, there's room for improvement there.

Take it to the tribunal and it is a lottery anyway, have seen worse get reduced down to 2 or 3 weeks. Heck, if that doesn't work, there is then the Appeals Board which is even more of a lottery.

 

[Geoffa32]

Four weeks?

2 to 3 was fair.

SPP got 3 for a genuine head high bump.



This was really a clash of heads. The actual bump was in his chest.





On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Geoffa32]

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.

Valid point.

I guess once you bump, even fairly, you are responsible for the outcome.

This case being the clash of heads.


Any possibility to appeal down to three?




On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Shaunbkk]

Why not pick 3? Could happen!

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

 

[StonesThrow]

Four weeks?

2 to 3 was fair.

SPP got 3 for a genuine head high bump.



This was really a clash of heads. The actual bump was in his chest.





On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Yeah but still got him in the head. Unlucky but that was his choice.

 

[Vader]

I disagree, literally every action would be intentional then, which it's not. As it said intentional vs careless is normally nonfootball act vs football act.

True to a point... but not every action is a reportable offence.

For mine its the difference between Rankine bumping and hitting him high with his shoulder vs Rankine bumping hitting all body and there is a head clash. Both are still high contact and severe but one is intentional and one careless.

There is no difference. The intentional act is the bump. A head clash is a foreseeable outcome of a bump. Rankine clearly intended to bump, and he was gone as soon as contact was made with his opponent's head.

 

[Vader]

Yes, I know it's working as designed, there is no one better than Vader at telling one how something is, but as you allude to, I don't care how it is, I care how it could or should be, there's room for improvement there.

If anything, the AFL is likely to make penalties for this kind of action heavier.

I know you think that the penalty doesn't fit the crime - but the AFL is hellbent on removing bumps resulting in head contact out of the game. This should not be news to anyone.

 

[Vader]

Valid point.

I guess once you bump, even fairly, you are responsible for the outcome.

This case being the clash of heads.


Any possibility to appeal down to three?

We could try for a Hail Mary, like Brisbane did (successfully) with Cameron. Maybe they could argue for a good guy reduction, or other extenuating circumstances.

... but the fundamental grading appears to be correct, with the penalty applied as per the Tribunal Guidelines.

 

[Interloperer]

If anything, the AFL is likely to make penalties for this kind of action heavier.

The mandatory concussion break will be at least 2 weeks off sooner rather than later.

I'd expect every suspension will gain a week over the current equivalent too. It's terrible optics to have a guilty player suspended for one week while the victim is suspended for two.