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

[El Doederino]

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.

I can’t believe they graded the hit careless instead of deliberate when you take the above into consideration. It was 100% deliberate. Houston knew what he was doing.

 

[1990crow]

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.

We should appeal the rating.

 

[MRB37]

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***

The entire reason Rankine bumped Starcevich is because he was getting targeted off ball. Went for a "I'll get one in before they get me" moment, which unfortunately went wrong for both involved.

 

[relapse]

Does anyone think there's potentially some bullshit afoot with the careless adjudication?

I'm pretty sure I've heard it mentioned before that if you have the option to tackle, but you decide to bump that it's deemed as an intentional action.

My gut feel is the AFL is setting up the stage for a three week suspension so that Houston will be available for the GF if Port make it.

 

[1990crow]

Does anyone think there's potentially some bullshit afoot with the careless adjudication?

I'm pretty sure I've heard it mentioned before that if you have the option to tackle, but you decide to bump that it's deemed as intentional.

My gut feel is the AFL is setting up the stage for a three week suspension so that Houston will be available for the GF if Port make it.

That's what Damien Barrett said would happen. And low and behold..

AFL is THAT corrupt.

 

[footy4ever]

Does anyone think there's potentially some bullshit afoot with the careless adjudication?

I'm pretty sure I've heard it mentioned before that if you have the option to tackle, but you decide to bump that it's deemed as an intentional action.

My gut feel is the AFL is setting up the stage for a three week suspension so that Houston will be available for the GF if Port make it.

Absolutely, the weak pricks.

 

[ThePrideOf]

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

spotted at adelaide airport this morning waiting to board his flight to Bali

 

[John Who]

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.

Choosing to bump doesn’t imply intentional. “Intentional” means intentionally going for the head. Or the act has an intention to cause a head injury.

Now that’s not to say it’s always clear in footy incidents between “careless” and “intentional”. And I also 100% believe the AFL/tribunal are hypocrites and abuse the ambiguity of these 2 words in some cases.

 

[John Who]

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.

Even if there was head contact on bump impact, doesn’t mean he was concussed at that point when he was still upright. The whiplash effect and the impact on hitting the ground was more likely the main factors.

I’m not defending Houston btw, just want to add some points to the discussion. He’s going to get weeks, it’s just by a matter of how much.

 

[footy4ever]

Choosing to bump doesn’t imply intentional. “Intentional” means intentionally going for the head. Or the act has an intention to cause a head injury.

Now that’s not to say it’s always clear in footy incidents between “careless” and “intentional”. And I also 100% believe the AFL/tribunal are hypocrites and abuse the ambiguity of these 2 words in some cases.

OKaaaay

What was his intent?

 

[John Who]

OKaaaay

What was his intent?

To wind the shit out of Rankine.

 

[footy4ever]

To wind the shit out of Rankine.

So it was intentional then.

Maybe it should be classed as intentional and careless.

 

[John Who]

So it was intentional then.

Maybe it should be classed as intentional and careless.

If the intention to bump was a crime then it would have been outlawed by now. Intention to bump, absolutely no doubt. Intention to cause the concussion, that’s always the grey area.

Unfortunately the bump is still deemed a legal act, applauded when it goes right, and ridiculed when there’s a head injury incident. The rule and the penalties are being paradoxical.

 

[FR0GGY]

If the intention to bump was a crime then it would have been outlawed by now. Intention to bump, absolutely no doubt. Intention to cause the concussion, that’s always the grey area.

Unfortunately the bump is still deemed a legal act, applauded when it goes right, and ridiculed when there’s a head injury incident. The rule and the penalties are being paradoxical.

Who intentionally tries to cause a concussion?

 

[John Who]

Who intentionally tries to cause a concussion?

Players jumping up aiming for the head (eg. Pickett case, but the player luckily got up and played on). Or players opting to bump when the player’s head goes low to the ground to gather a ball. These are likely more intentional cases.

 

[feenix67]

Choosing to bump doesn’t imply intentional. “Intentional” means intentionally going for the head. Or the act has an intention to cause a head injury.

Now that’s not to say it’s always clear in footy incidents between “careless” and “intentional”. And I also 100% believe the AFL/tribunal are hypocrites and abuse the ambiguity of these 2 words in some cases.

Could you stop posting this incessant absolute drivel?

 

[Crow_Magnon]

We need 2 quality midfielders, a ruckman, a defensive small forward and a quality tall defender before we even think about using salary cap and draft picks on Luko.

I don't disagree about the midfielders and ruck - but our defence is pretty good considering the amount of easy ball constantly bombarding them. Not sure about using too much draft capital on Luko though, as he's playing ressies atm. I see him as a possible link up high half forward, delivering into the key fwds - if we can get him for the right price.

 

[FR0GGY]

Players jumping up aiming for the head (eg. Pickett case, but the player luckily got up and played on). Or players opting to bump when the player’s head goes low to the ground to gather a ball. These are likely more intentional cases.

Short of a king hit I don’t believe anyone these days tries to concuss anyone else.

 

[beartoo]

How is Houston's thug act graded accidental?

On SM-A115F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[SugarShane]

Does anyone think there's potentially some bullshit afoot with the careless adjudication?

I'm pretty sure I've heard it mentioned before that if you have the option to tackle, but you decide to bump that it's deemed as an intentional action.

My gut feel is the AFL is setting up the stage for a three week suspension so that Houston will be available for the GF if Port make it.

100% I do. I'm sure they're already figuring out how to weasel around it so that he can play the GF if they make it.

Been saying all year the consistency and long bans are fine, until someone does it in a final (or in this case, to affect a final). Guarantee he'll get a finals discount.

 

[Bazz_27]

Thing with the Houston hit is it doesn't happen anymore for a reason.... It was unlikely to end any way other than the way it did... if he gets 4 weeks it's a joke

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Weren't people posting earlier that intentional is only there for off the ball hits?

And that the previous 5+ week suspensions for bumps had also been graded as careless?

 

[Floating Doughnut]

How is Houston's thug act graded accidental?

On SM-A115F using BigFooty.com mobile app

I think it has to do with the crazy rating system where the only incidents rated intentional
are those off the ball. Anything with the footy present, even what would look like an elbow to the head
is still accidental for rating purposes. Happy to be corrected as I don’t get it either.

 

[footy4ever]

Weren't people posting earlier that intentional is only there for off the ball hits?

And that the previous 5+ week suspensions for bumps had also been graded as careless?

Who knows what's what when it comes to the AFL?

As long as Houston gets 3 - 3+.

He deserves it.

 

[BRL121]

Who intentionally tries to cause a concussion?

I don't think John does: he's a doctor!