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

[The Karma Bus]

You can’t do it anymore like Houston did, but you can certainly physically target a player and wear him down in other ways that won’t get you suspended.

But it has to be part of your team’s makeup, it requires careful planning and execution, and for that to happen the club has to value it as a practice.

Port value that stuff. Rankine was part of their plan. It wasn’t an accident.

It went too far in the end, and they’ll regret that, but the overall mentality is still correct.

If that was a Grand Final and we did that, and won the game as a result of it, would you be complaining?

That’s the mentality a team has to have to be successful.

I understand the idea but it's not easy to do in the modern game without either suspensions or free kicks which is why we don't see these tactics rolled out too often.

I think teams can't be bothered with the energy involved to straddle such a fine line that you need to now. I think they just worry mostly about the game itself.

But can set themselves for it in an odd game. I had the feeling listening to Ginever and Tredrea during the week something like that was coming.

It's why Port were giving free kicks away early but that strangely turned onto us when one of our guys was the one taken out.

 

[Slippery Pete]

I understand the idea but it's not easy to do in the modern game without either suspensions or free kicks which is why we don't see these tactics rolled out too often.

I think teams can't be bothered with the energy involved to straddle such a fine line that you need to now. I think they just worry mostly about the game itself.

But can set themselves for it in an odd game. I had the feeling listening Ginever and Tredrea during the week something like that was coming.

It's why Port were giving free kicks away early but that strangely turned onto us when one of our guys was the one taken out.

Spot on.

 

[GameofSloanes]

Starts with K ends in S

I dont know, he was going harder than most on the footy show that houston would get suspended and how long it should be
It's pretty much only Port flogs that are saying it though, even the premier on the radio this morning said houston was going for the ball and tried to protect himself, and didnt get rankine in the head. Ridiculous thing to say and would've pissed off 60% of voters

 

[BRL121]

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

He's already in.

Seems there is a common narrative that he didn't hit him in the head. some angles it looks like he didn't but others it does.

Be interesting what tribunal finds and what medical evidence crows provide. They going to protect Houston or throw him under the bus?

That's completely irrelevant: Refer to the McAdam case.

 

[FR0GGY]

Maybe, but it hasn’t yet!

And I’m not condoning sniping or dog acts, but everything Port did other than the bump was perfectly legitimate.

And in a GF if a bump like that is the difference between winning and losing, use the f*cking bump.

Isn’t the bump all we are talking about?

 

[DJ75]

I dont know, he was going harder than most on the footy show that houston would get suspended and how long it should be
It's pretty much only Port flogs that are saying it though, even the premier on the radio this morning said houston was going for the ball and tried to protect himself, and didnt get rankine in the head. Ridiculous thing to say and would've pissed off 60% of voters

He's a Port flog like the rest of them. When it comes to football they are utterly blind.

 

[fog]

I dont know, he was going harder than most on the footy show that houston would get suspended and how long it should be
It's pretty much only Port flogs that are saying it though, even the premier on the radio this morning said houston was going for the ball and tried to protect himself, and didnt get rankine in the head. Ridiculous thing to say and would've pissed off 60% of voters

I'm suspicious of afl downplaying it so he can play in gf if they make it. Altho port aren't a Vic powerhouse, so who knows. + concussion is no. 1 thing they are worried about. Will be interesting!

 

[GROTTO]

If 2025 is Tex's final year, I hope we play the Power in the final game of the H&A season.

 

[Billy Cart]

Maybe, but it hasn’t yet!

And I’m not condoning sniping or dog acts, but everything Port did other than the bump was perfectly legitimate.

And in a GF if a bump like that is the difference between winning and losing, use the f*cking bump.

I agree with playing tough but you have to back it up with legitimate hard running and let the scoring do the talking. Let's hope the young ones of the club learn from it.

 

[Jars458]

Beyond ugly - Roo fawning over Houston

He used to be my favourite, but I now have no respect for him whatsoever. Should not be involved with our club.

 

[skam85]

If 2025 is Tex's final year, I hope we play the Power in the final game of the H&A season.

Irrelevant considering his farewell game will be in front of 100,000 people at the MCG in 2025

 

[skam85]

It’s like some of you blokes started watching football about three months ago.

This is what good teams do.

If you want to complain about something, complain that the piss-weak club you support just stands there and cops it, and doesn’t employ any Machiavellian tactics of its own.

Two words:
Unsociable Hawks

 

[GreyCrow]

Our defence has held up all year really well, it just lacked continuity. Each week it was a merry-go-round of Butts, Worrell, Murray, Borlase and Keane. Worrell, Murray, Keane, MM, Hinge and Bond should be our back 6 for '25

And I give Hombsch 100% credit for this

 

[GreyCrow]

Irrelevant considering his farewell game will be in front of 100,000 people at the MCG in 2025

I cant wait to see who we appoint as coach in the off season

 

[davos44]

Irrelevant considering his farewell game will be in front of 100,000 people at the MCG in 2025

I doubt he will be moving to the Hawks.

 

[GROTTO]

Interesting no one has mentioned how earlier this year another one of their thugs took out a player of ours.

When PIG (SPP) took out Keane early in the preseason Showdown.

This is a pattern of behaviour for them. They will continue to do this, till the AFL send a message.

Powell-Pepper suspended for four matches

Powell-Pepper pleaded guilty to a charge of rough conduct over a bump on Adelaide defender Mark Keane.

www.portadelaidefc.com.au

 

[rabidcrow]

Interesting no one has mentioned how earlier this year another one of their thugs took out a player of ours.

When PIG (SPP) took out Keane early in the preseason Showdown.

This is a pattern of behaviour for them. They will continue to do this, till the AFL send a message.

Powell-Pepper suspended for four matches

Powell-Pepper pleaded guilty to a charge of rough conduct over a bump on Adelaide defender Mark Keane.

www.portadelaidefc.com.au

It’s a good point. I think they feel - whether it’s because we have a young squad - that aggression is the way to get the wood on us, and then haven’t been able to execute that well enough
But two decent reports out of 3 games!


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Elder van Berlo]

Seems there is a common narrative that he didn't hit him in the head. some angles it looks like he didn't but others it does.

Be interesting what tribunal finds and what medical evidence crows provide. They going to protect Houston or throw him under the bus?

Will it matter if the Tribunal decides he didn't hit his head? Still High contact and severe due to him hitting his head on the ground...?

This is interesting.

First - I think Houston did get him high. I think when you watch closely it's the movement of Rankine's head that gives it away. First point of contact is to the body and kind of takes Rankine's body out from underneath his head, causing his head to kind of fall downwards. Then you see his head snap backwards - I would say from the follow through of Houston's shoulder. It's possible as well that Houston's upper arm deflected upwards off of the ball. Anyway, the exact why doesn't matter so much, I think the Tribunal would find that there was high contact.

Second - Although I think that's the case, I don't think the evidence of it is super clear. I think Port have at least a tenable argument that Houston did not make high contact. Tenable, not strong.

Third - If the Tribunal decides Houston didn't hit Rankine's head, the question of whether a player is liable for a concussion after a bump to the body that causes an opponent's head to hit the ground is a live one. The MRO has implicitly decided (by the grading of careless) that this would not have even been reportable if the bump was limited to the body. Can the Tribunal overrule that? Will it?

If the Tribunal reaches that point of deciding there was no high contact, this has the potential to be a very important decision by the Tribunal as to the limits of what a player is liable for.

 

[Vader]

The whole "intentional is only off the ball" argument is garbage. Here's what the Tribunal Guidelines have to say about Intenional and Careless conduct...

Intentional conduct
A Player intentionally commits a Classifiable Offence if the Player engages in the conduct constituting the Reportable Offence with the intention of committing that offence. An intention is a state of mind. Intention may be formed on the spur of the moment. The issue is whether it existed at the time at which the Player engaged in the conduct.
Whether or not a Player intentionally commits a Reportable Offence depends upon the state of mind of the Player when he does the act with which he is charged. What the Player did is often the best evidence of the purpose he had in mind. In some cases, the evidence that the act provides may be so strong as to compel an inference of what his intent was, no matter what he may say about it afterwards. If the immediate consequence of an act is obvious and inevitable, the deliberate doing of the act carries with it evidence of an intention to produce the consequence.
For example, a strike will be regarded as Intentional where a Player delivers a blow to an opponent with the intention of striking him.
The state of a Player’s mind is an objective fact and has to be proved in the same way as other objective facts. The whole of the relevant evidence has to be considered. If the matter is heard by the Tribunal, the Tribunal will weigh the evidence of the Player as to what his intentions were along with whatever inference as to his intentions can be drawn from his conduct or other relevant facts. The Player may or may not be believed by the Tribunal. Notwithstanding what the Player says, the Tribunal may be able to conclude from the whole of the evidence that he intentionally committed the act constituting the Reportable Offence.

Careless conduct
A Player’s conduct will be regarded as Careless where his conduct is not intentional, but constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the Player to all other Players. Each Player owes a duty of care to all other Players, Umpires and other persons (as applicable) not to engage in conduct which will constitute a Reportable Offence being committed against that other Player, Umpire or other person. In order to constitute such a breach of that duty of care, the conduct must be such that a reasonable Player would not regard it as prudent in all the circumstances. Further, a Player will be careless if they breach their duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a Reportable Offence.
An example of careless conduct would be where a Player collides with another Player who has taken a mark and where contact occurs just after the mark has been taken. The offending Player has a duty of care to avoid any contact which would constitute a Reportable Offence by slowing his momentum as much as he reasonably can and a failure to do so constitutes carelessness.

Note the complete absence of references to play being on or off the ball. All that matters is the player's state of mind.

Given that Houston clearly chose to bump, and we know that high bumps are an offence, it's hard to see how Christian can justify calling it Careless. Then again, we're not talking about a competent AFL employee here...

 

[rabidcrow]

This is interesting.

First - I think Houston did get him high. I think when you watch closely it's the movement of Rankine's head that gives it away. First point of contact is to the body and kind of takes Rankine's body out from underneath his head, causing his head to kind of fall downwards. Then you see his head snap backwards - I would say from the follow through of Houston's shoulder. It's possible as well that Houston's upper arm deflected upwards off of the ball. Anyway, the exact why doesn't matter so much, I think the Tribunal would find that there was high contact.

Second - Although I think that's the case, I don't think the evidence of it is super clear. I think Port have at least a tenable argument that Houston did not make high contact. Tenable, not strong.

Third - If the Tribunal decides Houston didn't hit Rankine's head, the question of whether a player is liable for a concussion after a bump to the body that causes an opponent's head to hit the ground is a live one. The MRO has implicitly decided (by the grading of careless) that this would not have even been reportable if the bump was limited to the body. Can the Tribunal overrule that? Will it?

If the Tribunal reaches that point of deciding there was no high contact, this has the potential to be a very important decision by the Tribunal as to the limits of what a player is liable for.

Refer back to McAdam winding a GWS player. No head contact, player walked off and came back on after assessment. McAdam got 3 or 4

By that assessment this has to be graded higher.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[chazwazza]

This is interesting.

First - I think Houston did get him high. I think when you watch closely it's the movement of Rankine's head that gives it away. First point of contact is to the body and kind of takes Rankine's body out from underneath his head, causing his head to kind of fall downwards. Then you see his head snap backwards - I would say from the follow through of Houston's shoulder. It's possible as well that Houston's upper arm deflected upwards off of the ball. Anyway, the exact why doesn't matter so much, I think the Tribunal would find that there was high contact.

Second - Although I think that's the case, I don't think the evidence of it is super clear. I think Port have at least a tenable argument that Houston did not make high contact. Tenable, not strong.

Third - If the Tribunal decides Houston didn't hit Rankine's head, the question of whether a player is liable for a concussion after a bump to the body that causes an opponent's head to hit the ground is a live one. The MRO has implicitly decided (by the grading of careless) that this would not have even been reportable if the bump was limited to the body. Can the Tribunal overrule that? Will it?

If the Tribunal reaches that point of deciding there was no high contact, this has the potential to be a very important decision by the Tribunal as to the limits of what a player is liable for.

It can be ruled as “High” contact whether or not the head is hit in the bump, if the bump results in the head hitting the ground it will be deemed as “High”

 

[rabidcrow]

The whole "intentional is only off the ball" argument is garbage. Here's what the Tribunal Guidelines have to say about Intenional and Careless conduct...



Note the complete absence of references to play being on or off the ball. All that matters is the player's state of mind.

Given that Houston clearly chose to bump, and we know that high bumps are an offence, it's hard to see how Christian can justify calling it Careless. Then again, we're not talking about a competent AFL employee here...

And the intentional punch from Rioli on Sholl from behind and off the ball? How did that not at least get a fine?
s me that this club doesn’t put in a report of its own for this type of sniping - and if you don’t want to be a dobber- then retaliate!


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[chazwazza]

Refer back to McAdam winding a GWS player. No head contact, player walked off and came back on after assessment. McAdam got 3 or 4

By that assessment this has to be graded higher.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I think the McAdam suspension will continue to be an outlier, made no sense then and still doesn’t now after many other suspensions.

 

[kirky]

But its the point. Port have said far wrorse and less lame and we havent said boo. One of our players says something and he is enemy number 1. Like do they realise how stupid they look.

Lets be honest besides missing teeth, not having an average IQ is another one of their traits.

 

[AFC3000]

Strange hearing Crows supporters defend him after he knocked one of ours into oblivion.

He's a dog who deserves at least 5 weeks. His conduct in the past is irrelevant.

If he wasn’t a thug before Saturday night he is now.

That’s his reputation today.

That’s who he is.