Review R23: The Good, Bad and Ugly vs. Port Adelaide

[Gtowncrow]

Hi Grotto! That’s a very poor quality pic from a bad angle. I remember seeing the highlights, and distinctly remember Rankine’s arm flailed upwards when his head made contact to the ground. Which is the likely time of the concussion. I’m also basing on Houston’s past record, which I don’t recall him being one of those unfair players.
I’m not arguing that I think he’ll get off a suspension, but more the issue of his intent to cause a head injury.

This is such a bad take. Almost of troll proportions.

Even blind Freddy can see in this picture contact between the shoulder and head.

If his head hit the ground...it was because the poor bugger was freaking unconcious. He would have protected himself otherwise.

Just an unbelievably bad take by you.

 

[Slippery Pete]

I'm literally *ing staggered that people here are upset they Rachele went and wound up that mob of animals. They literally booed out ****ing uncocious player off the ground. * them and I would have him do that again every day of the week.

This is unhinged.

People are upset because the club is full of losers who are doing really well at losing.

Highlighting that fact doesn’t make you a closet Port lover.

 

[Slime Roy]

On first crack tonight, they highlighted several times Izak was targeted earlier in the game (felt it was pre-meditated)
One that stood out in particular was when he was already being tackled by another player, old butter face comes third man in & gives Rankine a nice cheap one to the bread basket.
Racheles a fair way off from that flog-c***

 

[Slippery Pete]

On first crack tonight, they highlighted several times Izak was targeted earlier in the game (felt it was pre-meditated)
One that stood out in particular was when he was already being tackled by another player, old butter face comes third man in & gives Rankine a nice cheap one to the bread basket.

Should we be upset about this? Or should we perhaps be saying “they employed tactics that helped them win. Perhaps we can learn a thing or two from that…”

 

[ringo200]

It’s the exact action that needs to be taken out of the game if we want to be able to tell our kids it’s safe to play and to give current players a fair chance at living happy and healthy lives post football.

Houston saw Rankine was vulnerable and lined him up from a mile away. And the context is that the team clearly had a mission to target Rankine. One of the more blatant and disgusting acts on the football field this year.

 

[Crow till I die]

Should we be upset about this? Or should we perhaps be saying “they employed tactics that helped them win. Perhaps we can learn a thing or two from that…”

My lad played junior soccer at one of the big clubs here in SA. One of the dads there, smart and savvy guy, said it best as the boys were technically good but were naive when playing certain other clubs. He said, they don't teach the kids how to be street smart here. Its the same thing with the crows and you illustrate that point perfectly..we shouldn't be bleating about it, we should be playing them at their own game like that

 

[Southerntakeover]

Should we be upset about this? Or should we perhaps be saying “they employed tactics that helped them win. Perhaps we can learn a thing or two from that…”

Or perhaps:

"We probably should have already learned about the need to protect your star player who's a little on the small size from oppositions roughing him up from the Lions game"

 

[GameofSloanes]

Hi Grotto! That’s a very poor quality pic from a bad angle. I remember seeing the highlights, and distinctly remember Rankine’s arm flailed upwards when his head made contact to the ground. Which is the likely time of the concussion. I’m also basing on Houston’s past record, which I don’t recall him being one of those unfair players.
I’m not arguing that I think he’ll get off a suspension, but more the issue of his intent to cause a head injury.

Wtf post is this. When his arms flailed has nothing to do with when he was unconscious.
Houston's record has even less to do with it
Is this a power alt account?

 

[SugarShane]

On first crack tonight, they highlighted several times Izak was targeted earlier in the game (felt it was pre-meditated)
One that stood out in particular was when he was already being tackled by another player, old butter face comes third man in & gives Rankine a nice cheap one to the bread basket.
Racheles a fair way off from that flog-c***

They were doing that third man in bullshit all night long. First on Rankine, then on whoever else they could after he was KO'd.

Tribunal really needs to take that into account.

 

[MagpieJo]

I'm literally *ing staggered that people here are upset they Rachele went and wound up that mob of animals. They literally booed out ****ing uncocious player off the ground. * them and I would have him do that again every day of the week.

excuse the intrusion, i just heard about this, did they really boo him off? thats despicable, i hope rankin is ok, i hate seeing stuff like that. and i hope houston gets 6. cheers

 

[CrowBloke]

You surely didnt take that comment seriously? I forgot the

Yeah, I did .
I have a tendency to taking things literally. It's not advantageous.

Anyway, no matter what happens vs. Sydney, we'll finish 15th and get pick 4.
I hope like hell we get a strong-bodied, nearly-ready-to-play mid.
I hope Dowling and Curtin come good in 2025.
I hope we get ANB; I think he'd be good for the Crows.
I hope that Nicks will spend the break looking hard at himself and make better choices/decisions in 2025.
I doubt it, but I hope.

Right now, I hope most of all that Rankine is not too bad and will recover fully.
Cheers .

 

[CrowBloke]

I’m also basing on Houston’s past record, which I don’t recall him being one of those unfair players.

I don't care about Houston's record or how nice a bloke he is.
Rankine was looking up, waiting for the ball, unaware, no time to brace.
Houston had distance and time to figure out what to do --- he could have run in and tackled Rankine, but no.

He ran in, he decided, he chose to charge him with an almighty T-bone shirtfront.
I'm still incredulous no free kick was awarded, wtf? FOUR Umpires and not one of them saw it was a head-high shoulder charge??

I’m not arguing that I think he’ll get off a suspension, but more the issue of his intent to cause a head injury.

It doesn't matter what his "intent" was. We can't read his mind and I wouldn't believe a word of explanation that came out of his sniping gob. He chose not to tackle which would have been fair and safe.
The rules have changed.
If you bump/charge someone instead of tackling and the result is they're concussed and out of the game, it's at least 4 matches (like the Rankine hit on Starcevich, July 7th).
Four, MINIMUM.
Six would send a message to all, pre-Finals, and not be too harsh in my mind.
Any less than 4 would be a ****ing joke.

 

[CutAboveTheRest]

On first crack tonight, they highlighted several times Izak was targeted earlier in the game (felt it was pre-meditated)
One that stood out in particular was when he was already being tackled by another player, old butter face comes third man in & gives Rankine a nice cheap one to the bread basket.
Racheles a fair way off from that flog-c***

They were sniping our lads of the footy a fair bit as well.

I'm not sure why it wasn't highlighted, but Rioli also gave Sholl a cheapy. Nothing was said or done about that..Fog then retaliates and gives away a goal but don't blame him for sticking up for his lads.

 

[CutAboveTheRest]

I don't care about Houston's record or how nice a bloke he is.
Rankine was looking up, waiting for the ball, unaware, no time to brace.
Houston had distance and time to figure out what to do --- he could have run in and tackled Rankine, but no.

He ran in, he decided, he chose to charge him with an almighty T-bone shirtfront.
I'm still incredulous no free kick was awarded, wtf? FOUR Umpires and not one of them saw it was a head-high shoulder charge??

It doesn't matter what his "intent" was. We can't read his mind and I wouldn't believe a word of explanation that came out of his sniping gob. He chose not to tackle which would have been fair and safe.
The rules have changed.
If you bump/charge someone instead of tackling and the result is they're concussed and out of the game, it's at least 4 matches (like the Rankine hit on Starcevich, July 7th).
Four, MINIMUM.
Six would send a message to all, pre-Finals, and not be too harsh in my mind.
Any less than 4 would be a ****ing joke.

Parker got 6 weeks for his bump in the twos.. This "bump" got 4 weeks in the VFL as well.



Anything less than 5 weeks would be criminal

 

[MrBarry]

. I’m also basing on Houston’s past record, which I don’t recall him being one of those unfair players.

In that case, should a first time rapist get off because "oh he hasn't done it before"... What sort of ****ing logic is that?

Houston did do it, I don't get what he has or hasn't done in the past.

 

[glengowan]

They definitely targeted Rankine. There was a tackle in the 1st quarter where one pinned him and two others came in late to make him feel it. It was disappointing that the crows players nearby (Crouch, ROB, Rachele & Berry) didn’t put the flag in the ground at that point. Commentators were saying Houston has a good record/a good guy etc. That type of hit is more likely to happen when a player is targeted, as Rankine was. It is the type of thing Port have always done.

It was disgraceful umpiring that the end result of that, was a Port free kick.

Despite an interrupted year with injury, reports etc. It has been somewhat of a breakout year for Rankine, becoming a midfielder and still kicking goals. We’ll need to look after him as he becomes the target for every side.

 

[PeterSalt]

They definitely targeted Rankine. There was a tackle in the 1st quarter where one pinned him and two others came in late to make him feel it. It was disappointing that the crows players nearby (Crouch, ROB, Rachele & Berry) didn’t put the flag in the ground at that point. Commentators were saying Houston has a good record/a good guy etc. That type of hit is more likely to happen when a player is targeted, as Rankine was. It is the type of thing Port have always done.

It was disgraceful umpiring that the end result of that, was a Port free kick.

Despite an interrupted year with injury, reports etc. It has been somewhat of a breakout year for Rankine, becoming a midfielder and still kicking goals. We’ll need to look after him as he becomes the target for every side.

A reminder Dixon was fined for striking Rankine in the first quarter as well

Noticed Boak was fired up too. Fired up to the point I've never seen before

 

[AFC979810]

That’s what I said. Only Cornes and Sando were sacked

You said we never sack coaches with existing contracts.

So far 2 of our 7 coaches in the clubs history have been sacked (Nicks/Walsh excluded for obvious reasons).

So 28% of the time is not Never. I would argue that Pyke was effectively sacked. We did the review, told him he wouldn't have a job and then he resigned. That brings the total up to 43%

The point being - as a club we have been willing to move on coaches with existing contracts. Its the only thing that gives me hope that a bunch of high profile players talk shit about Nicks during the end of season reviews.

 

[PeterSalt]

You said we never sack coaches with existing contracts.

So far 2 of our 7 coaches in the clubs history have been sacked (Nicks/Walsh excluded for obvious reasons).

So 28% of the time is not Never. I would argue that Pyke was effectively sacked. We did the review, told him he wouldn't have a job and then he resigned. That brings the total up to 43%

The point being - as a club we have been willing to move on coaches with existing contracts. Its the only thing that gives me hope that a bunch of high profile players talk shit about Nicks during the end of season reviews.

Pyke resigned before the review

It's always weird though. If he resigned, why did we pay him out?

 

[AFC979810]

Pyke resigned before the review

It's always weird though. If he resigned, why did we pay him out?

I know that we announced the review August 17th. August 27th - All the panel was locked in. September 12th - Pyke "resigns". October 10th - Review officially completed (Burton/Campo sacked) - October 14th Nicks hired.

IMO - Pyke was told he wouldn't survive the review and was going to be sacked so he saved face and resigned.

 

[FR0GGY]

Couldn’t care less about the little cheapies they gave him but it shows their intent and hopefully that comes up in tribunal.
Could we once show a bit of spirit for our best player before something happens, dangerfield used to just have to cop what came his way (Vince) same with Sloane and we just watch it happen.
Not suggesting we could have stopped Houston but maybe he would have thought twice if we were standing up for Izak

 

[Hate the pear]

The image of Houston's shoulder well above Rankines head when only 10cm aoart alone says he got him in the head. There is no angle that supports a view that he didn't get him in the head.















My take is that he will get 4 weeks. It's on par with other suspensions so it's easy for the AFL to avoid controversy leading into finals.















On CPH2371 using BigFooty.com mobile app


Why only 4... Webster from saints got 7 for charging at simpkin and knocked him out cold. Difference?

 

[FR0GGY]

Webster jumped off the ground

 

[Drakescoffeecake]

excuse the intrusion, i just heard about this, did they really boo him off? thats despicable, i hope rankin is ok, i hate seeing stuff like that. and i hope houston gets 6. cheers

100%. There were supporters clapping him off but there were equally as many booing and waving as he left on the stretcher. Human garbage.

 

[footy4ever]

Houston's bump rated as 'careless' not 'intentional'

Get ****ed AFL.

Chose to bump - means it's intentional. The intention was to bump. Had plenty of time to decide not to bump.