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

[DangerSloane]

The one week where Laird should play midfield (Wet, hotly contested game), they play him Half Back.
Nicks has no flipping clue.

 

[DangerSloane]

Also special mention to Hugh Bond. Did an outstanding job on an in-form Rioli and did some great things. That diving mark saved a certain goal.
Kid has whats needed...I'm sure he will develop his offensive game in the coming seasons.

 

[arrowman]

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.

I suppose they've got to distinguish between the intentional off the ball hit (e.g. Gaff on Brayshaw) and the intentional hit in play that "carelessly" causes a head injury. The former being more serious. I guess as long as the "careless" in play incident still results in a severe penalty it's OK.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

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

As long as Houston gets 3 - 3+.

He deserves it.

There's a lot to unpack with the Rankine bump

I don't think Houston is a thuggish player whatsoever, which is no defence and shouldn't impact the tribunal's decision here, just fwiw

It seemed like the Port players by instruction were trying to get under Rankine's skin all game, niggle, take his mind off the footy, get into him verbally and physically. Nothing wrong with that. Legitimate tactic given that Rankine has shown himself to be vulnerable in the past.

However, it seemed like the Houston bump was an unintended consequence of Port's approach. The team plan to get into him spilled over, and when Houston had a chance he opted to bump rather than tackle, or take any undue care at all.

If it had been another player, I doubt Houston would have done what he did. If the same situation presented itself the week before, I doubt Houston would have done what he did. A perfect (or imperfect) storm of sorts.

I'll be interested if anything comes of the wider discussion point - Port targeting Rankine physically. They're not the first team to do this by any means (lots of clubs try to crash into Max Gawn at every opportunity for instance to wear him down, because of how influential he is). And whether this practise gets looked at or even broached. I imagine that's what Nicks was querying with Hinkley after the game.

 

[Crow_Magnon]

Video

From that vision it's pretty ordinary from Houston. He actually launched into Rankine. 6 weeks IMO.

 

[Elder van Berlo]

AFL Tribunal stuff is a bit of a hobby topic of mine.

Careless v intentional - the question is whether the player intentionally committed the reportable offence (in this case, rough conduct). One way of looking at this is to ask whether, if it had gone exactly as planned, it would have been rough conduct. Rough conduct is defined as any conduct which is unreasonable in the circumstances.

That was our argument with Rankine on Starcevich, which was graded as intentional. We argued that the head clash was accidental and what was intended was that Rankine would bump Starcevich to the body, which would not have been unreasonable in the circumstances. If that argument was accepted, it would have meant that the rough conduct was careless rather than intentional.

The Tribunal accepted that the head clash was an accident, but decided that even without the head clash it would have been rough conduct. Therefore Rankine intentionally committed rough conduct and the penalty was 4+ weeks. The Tribunal then imposed the minimum available penalty for intentional-high-severe and gave him 4.

What the MRO has implicitly decided here is that (a) Houston did not intend to get Rankine in the head (which I'm sure we all probably agree with) and (b) in the parallel universe where Houston only got Rankine in the body, it would not have been unreasonable in the circumstances and so would not have been rough conduct.

What follows from that is the MRO decided that Houston did not intentionally engage in rough conduct. But (c) Houston did in fact get Rankine in the head so it was in fact rough conduct, but not intentional rough conduct.

If that's established the penalty is 3+ weeks. But as others have observed, the Tribunal is not limited to 3 weeks and has given out much longer bans than that (Webster from St Kilda springs to mind).

One rule change in the AFL Tribunal recently is that on these "direct Tribunal" matters, if the AFL is only seeking the minimum penalty, they can offer it and it can be accepted without actually going to the Tribunal. The fact that Houston has not been offered 3 weeks means the AFL is asking for a penalty longer than that.

 

[Archie87]

From that vision it's pretty ordinary from Houston. He actually launched into Rankine. 6 weeks IMO.

At the 0:12 mark of that video you can literally see where he adjusts his angle to smash him as hard as possible. He could just have easily have wrapped him up in a tackle and forced a ball up 20m out from goal.

Dan is a clean player generally but with Kenny's likely instructions to "gO HaaaRrd aT 'im wen yuu've got dA chaARnce" ringing in his ears, he acted accordingly.

 

[CrowBloke]

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

"Boak was fired up"??
Our bloke Rankine was flattened, semi-conscious, concussed.

Boak could be hysterical, frothing with rage and I don't g-a-flying-f.
**** Boak.

 

[ABAB]

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

You should read a majority of posts on their Game Day thread. As cringe as their crowd.

 

[Redline]

Alot of talk we lost it after the Rankine bump and we did but had Gollant goaled just before 3/4 time we might of settled. It was a huge momentum miss.

 

[Gtowncrow]

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.

It's completely irrelevant what precise implement caused the medical definition of unconcious. The evidence is that contact with the shoulder and head caused a severe injury resulting in a sickening scene of a badly injured player writhing uncontrollably on the ground. Therefore, the result of the high deliberate shoulder charge is clear.

As an example and question... If I stabbed someone, could I put forward a defence of "he died from blood loss, not my action"?

Houston is fully culpable. There is no defending his action. He'll plead guilty and hope the tribunal is kind to him.

6-8 weeks IMO.

 

[PeterSalt]

"Boak was fired up"??
Our bloke Rankine was flattened, semi-conscious, concussed.

Boak could be hysterical, frothing with rage and I don't g-a-flying-f. **** Boak.

I was really just highlighting the pond scum reverting back to their SOP of targeting opposition players

 

[CrowBloke]

What was his intent?

Nobody will ever know, let's face it.
+

To wind the shit out of Rankine.

John, that's mind-reading stuff. Maybe. We'll never know.
If he had tackled and caused a stoppage, none of this would be discussed.
However, he chose to bump.

PA has a history of hurting oppo players to reduce their effectiveness. I have no doubt that Hinkley sent them out with instructions of 'incidental punishment' directed at our most effective players, with Rankine at or near the top of the list. Hence Port players piling onto an all-ready-tackled Crow.
Add up a few quarters of incidental punishment and your opposition is tired and sore ie less effective. Richmond did that shit for years under Hardwick, who was a grub when he played and infused his players with it.

Houston saw his chance to bump Rankine hard, m-a-y-b-e to wind him as you suggested or maybe to take the sting out of Rankine's elite skills. Or maybe to bump him into oblivion. We just don't know.
I want 2 things to happen:
--- for Houston to get at least 4 weeks.
--- for Rankine to recover fully, have a good break, then come back to training filled with resolve, even better than he has been.

 

[WeeBlake]

There's a lot to unpack with the Rankine bump

I don't think Houston is a thuggish player whatsoever, which is no defence and shouldn't impact the tribunal's decision here, just fwiw

It seemed like the Port players by instruction were trying to get under Rankine's skin all game, niggle, take his mind off the footy, get into him verbally and physically. Nothing wrong with that. Legitimate tactic given that Rankine has shown himself to be vulnerable in the past.

However, it seemed like the Houston bump was an unintended consequence of Port's approach. The team plan to get into him spilled over, and when Houston had a chance he opted to bump rather than tackle, or take any undue care at all.

If it had been another player, I doubt Houston would have done what he did. If the same situation presented itself the week before, I doubt Houston would have done what he did. A perfect (or imperfect) storm of sorts.

I'll be interested if anything comes of the wider discussion point - Port targeting Rankine physically. They're not the first team to do this by any means (lots of clubs try to crash into Max Gawn at every opportunity for instance to wear him down, because of how influential he is). And whether this practise gets looked at or even broached. I imagine that's what Nicks was querying with Hinkley after the game.

I wonder if some of the Port players will be a bit cranky with their coaches at how the rough-up-Rankine tactics have damaged their finals campaign.

 

[Slime Roy]

I suppose they've got to distinguish between the intentional off the ball hit (e.g. Gaff on Brayshaw) and the intentional hit in play that "carelessly" causes a head injury. The former being more serious. I guess as long as the "careless" in play incident still results in a severe penalty it's OK.

Or the intentional-off-the-ball acts Butters gets fined for every second week. Play On.

 

[Slime Roy]

There's a lot to unpack with the Rankine bump

I don't think Houston is a thuggish player whatsoever, which is no defence and shouldn't impact the tribunal's decision here, just fwiw

It seemed like the Port players by instruction were trying to get under Rankine's skin all game, niggle, take his mind off the footy, get into him verbally and physically. Nothing wrong with that. Legitimate tactic given that Rankine has shown himself to be vulnerable in the past.

However, it seemed like the Houston bump was an unintended consequence of Port's approach. The team plan to get into him spilled over, and when Houston had a chance he opted to bump rather than tackle, or take any undue care at all.

If it had been another player, I doubt Houston would have done what he did. If the same situation presented itself the week before, I doubt Houston would have done what he did. A perfect (or imperfect) storm of sorts.

I'll be interested if anything comes of the wider discussion point - Port targeting Rankine physically. They're not the first team to do this by any means (lots of clubs try to crash into Max Gawn at every opportunity for instance to wear him down, because of how influential he is). And whether this practise gets looked at or even broached. I imagine that's what Nicks was querying with Hinkley after the game.

Good Old Kern with his Tried & True
"I reckon we'll terrorise Lachy Neal" Tactic.

 

[DJ75]

AFL Tribunal stuff is a bit of a hobby topic of mine.

Careless v intentional - the question is whether the player intentionally committed the reportable offence (in this case, rough conduct). One way of looking at this is to ask whether, if it had gone exactly as planned, it would have been rough conduct. Rough conduct is defined as any conduct which is unreasonable in the circumstances.

That was our argument with Rankine on Starcevich, which was graded as intentional. We argued that the head clash was accidental and what was intended was that Rankine would bump Starcevich to the body, which would not have been unreasonable in the circumstances. If that argument was accepted, it would have meant that the rough conduct was careless rather than intentional.

The Tribunal accepted that the head clash was an accident, but decided that even without the head clash it would have been rough conduct. Therefore Rankine intentionally committed rough conduct and the penalty was 4+ weeks. The Tribunal then imposed the minimum available penalty for intentional-high-severe and gave him 4.

What the MRO has implicitly decided here is that (a) Houston did not intend to get Rankine in the head (which I'm sure we all probably agree with) and (b) in the parallel universe where Houston only got Rankine in the body, it would not have been unreasonable in the circumstances and so would not have been rough conduct.

What follows from that is the MRO decided that Houston did not intentionally engage in rough conduct. But (c) Houston did in fact get Rankine in the head so it was in fact rough conduct, but not intentional rough conduct.

If that's established the penalty is 3+ weeks. But as others have observed, the Tribunal is not limited to 3 weeks and has given out much longer bans than that (Webster from St Kilda springs to mind).

One rule change in the AFL Tribunal recently is that on these "direct Tribunal" matters, if the AFL is only seeking the minimum penalty, they can offer it and it can be accepted without actually going to the Tribunal. The fact that Houston has not been offered 3 weeks means the AFL is asking for a penalty longer than that.

Based on the Rankine ruling, the careless ruling is absurd and a disgrace.

 

[ThePrideOf]

I think he will get 4 weeks. Then Soft as btter burton comes in for them...

 

[Bazz_27]

Looked like Hinge played a bit of time on the wing on the weekend. I would like him to play that role but he seems to struggle in it / be else effective than he is at half back. We are desperate for an elite winger, would be great to see someone play that role and lace out our key forwards. Would be great if Hinge / Dawson could alternate depending on what the game needed but we need more depth to our mid before we can contemplate that

 

[Gets!]

This was the only time in the last 10 years we have been a tiny bit lippy. It’s usually the poor little brother with all the big words and once the shoe is on the other foot, they don’t know how to deal with it.

 

[DJ75]

Looked like Hinge played a bit of time on the wing on the weekend. I would like him to play that role but he seems to struggle in it / be else effective than he is at half back. We are desperate for an elite winger, would be great to see someone play that role and lace out our key forwards. Would be great if Hinge / Dawson could alternate depending on what the game needed but we need more depth to our mid before we can contemplate that

He played the whole game on the wing - and was awful. He was destroyed by Burgoyne. One of his worst games for us.

 

[DJ75]

They were the ones booing Rankine

Those damned Geelong supporters always making Port look bad.

 

[Bazz_27]

This hero played in the Geelong league in the 80s. What an expert. So glad he came past

 

[FR0GGY]

Those damned Geelong supporters always making Port look bad.

“Bloody Geelong supporter chucked away a cup I’d just pissed in”

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I wonder if some of the Port players will be a bit cranky with their coaches at how the rough-up-Rankine tactics have damaged their finals campaign.

They won't be

If there's one thing Port are absolute experts in, it's constructing the club as the victim in any situation

If their finals campaign gets derailed, it's because they're Trying To Tear Us Apart and nothing they did whatsoever.