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

[kirky]

Video

What I still don’t get why none of those umpires thought that a free shouldn’t have been paid? Rankine is lying on the field not moving.

Not one of those umpires should be officiating in the finals series.

 

[MarcusP2]

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...

Because bumping is legal. Intending to bump someone doesn't mean you intended to commit rough conduct.

Now, off the ball is illegal and pretty much always rough conduct, hence of the ball incidents almost always being intentional.

 

[Vader]

Further to my previous post, this is what the Tribunal Guidelines say about bumps...

1. Rough Conduct (High Bumps)
The AFL Regulations provide that a Player will be guilty of Rough Conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) the Player causes contact that is at least Low Impact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck. If not Intentional, such conduct will be deemed to be Careless, unless:
» The Player was contesting the ball and it was reasonable for the Player to contest the ball in that way; or
» The contact to the opponent’s head or neck was caused by circumstances outside the control of the Player which could not be reasonably foreseen.
In the interests of Player safety, the purpose of the rule dealing with high bumps is to reduce, as far as practicable, the risk of head injuries to Players and this purpose needs to be kept firmly in mind by all Players and will guide the application of the rule.
Any high bump which constitutes Rough Conduct that has the potential to cause injury will usually be graded at a minimum as Medium Impact, even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low.

Neither of those mitigating conditions apply:

• Houston was not contesting the ball, and it was not reasonable to contest the ball that way
• Houston's contact was not caused by unforeseen circumstances outside his control.

It is mind boggling that Christian opted to grade it as Careless instead of Intentional. There is no justification for the lower grading, given the wording of the Tribunal Guidelines.

 

[ABAB]

Video

Houston hitting Rankine front on is somehow considered "shoulder to shoulder" contact. How is that even physical possible, Port Power "logic" again.

 

[Vader]

Because bumping is legal. Intending to bump someone doesn't mean you intended to commit rough conduct.

Now, off the ball is illegal and pretty much always rough conduct, hence of the ball incidents almost always being intentional.

No... high bumps are not legal. It's a reportable offence (Rough Conduct), and has been for years.

On/off the ball is irrelevant.

 

[Elder van Berlo]

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

McAdam did make contact with the head. The head contact was a feather touch, but it was there. The mental gymnastics required to make it high contact and severe impact makes my head spin.

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”

Sure it can. But there are two things here:

1. Is it a reportable offence at all? If it's not a reportable offence you don't get as far as deciding whether something was "high" or "body" contact. If the MRO has decided that a bump to the body in that situation was not rough conduct, can the Tribunal overrule that or is the Tribunal's role solely to determine whether the MRO's assessment is made out?

2. Let's say it is a reportable offence but the only thing that makes contact with Rankine's head is the ground. Now under the Rules a player is liable for any contact they cause between a player's head and another object such as the ground, but from memory I have only ever heard of that being applied to dangerous tackles. There is an additional layer of remoteness where a player is bumped to the body, is knocked over, and hits their head on the ground causing the injury.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying it's not clear cut. It's an interesting question that I hope the Tribunal doesn't find it necessary to answer.

 

[MarcusP2]

No... making forceful front-on contact is not legal. It's a reportable offence, and has been for years.

On/off the ball is irrelevant.

You can't legally bump someone from the front (assuming it's not high)? This isn't a marking contest, and even if it was that's usually a free, not rough conduct.

 

[GameofSloanes]

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.

No way will he plead guilty. Poort will argue till they are blue in the face that there was no high contact, just an accident, Rankine could've broken his fall, I have good character etc

 

[MarcusP2]

McAdam did make contact with the head. The head contact was a feather touch, but it was there. The mental gymnastics required to make it high contact and severe impact makes my head spin.



Sure it can. But there are two things here:

1. Is it a reportable offence at all? If it's not a reportable offence you don't get as far as deciding whether something was "high" or "body" contact. If the MRO has decided that a bump to the body in that situation was not rough conduct, can the Tribunal overrule that or is the Tribunal's role solely to determine whether the MRO's assessment is made out?

2. Let's say it is a reportable offence but the only thing that makes contact with Rankine's head is the ground. Now under the Rules a player is liable for any contact they cause between a player's head and another object such as the ground, but from memory I have only ever heard of that being applied to dangerous tackles. There is an additional layer of remoteness where a player is bumped to the body, is knocked over, and hits their head on the ground causing the injury.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying it's not clear cut. It's an interesting question that I hope the Tribunal doesn't find it necessary to answer.

The MRO has decided it was rough conduct, that's why it's gone to the Tribunal. However they will need to consider whether it is or not (not just accept the MROs ruling on its face).

 

[GROTTO]

No way will he plead guilty. Poort will argue till they are blue in the face that there was no high contact, just an accident, Rankine could've broken his fall, I have good character etc

You just know there will be a redemption story for Houston, Im waiting for them to say it was Rankine's fault.

 

[Vader]

You can't legally bump someone from the front (assuming it's not high)? This isn't a marking contest, and even if it was that's usually a free, not rough conduct.

Apologies... I actually quoted the wrong rule. That was for forceful frontal contact when a player has their head down over the ball.

What Houston did was Rough Conduct (High Bump), which is equally illegal. What he did was still a reportable offence, just not the offence I originally named.

 

[davos44]

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

Is Rankine a Thug and a Pig for his hit on Starcevich?

 

[Gtowncrow]

And if the roles were completely reversed on Saturday night posters would all be in here saying how great our tactics were.

Look, I get it, we all hate Port’s guts, but if you want to be angry, be angry at the club that allows itself to be completely manhandled like the Crows were on Saturday night.

Houston is going to pay the price, but everything other than that falls under the category of brilliant tactics by Port.

I’m f*cking jealous, not angry.

Hey Pete!
Why don't you just slip up the Port road and sign up. Don't let jealousy ruin your day. Embrace the rage by dashing the cause against the rocks of outer harbour. Then, slip into the Alberton for a drink to your new found clarity of mind.

You might even get to watch a home final among friends and like minded, yet toothless, intellectuals like yourself.

But in short...if you dislike our club so much and find so much wrong, perhaps there's a club you would prefer to be a member.

"Brilliant tactics by Port", Slippery Pete, 2024

 

[Vader]

The MRO has decided it was rough conduct, that's why it's gone to the Tribunal. However they will need to consider whether it is or not (not just accept the MROs ruling on its face).

High bumps are always illegal. Bumps to the body can be legal, depending on whether or not the conduct was unreasonable.

 

[agmsy]

Houston hit him in the head, there is zero doubt.

I don t know who started this bs, that he didnt hit in the head.

Sure the image below is blurred, the AFL will use far superior technology to clean the image up.

View attachment 2084509

Apologies for the intrusion.

Up front, I'd like to say the Rankine hit was very ugly and unnecessary. I hope he's ok, and I hope he doesn't face any long-term consequences from the hit. I don't relish watching him carve up my team, but he's a great player to watch in full flight (and still improving!), and our game is best when the best players are fit and healthy to do what they do best on the field.

The booing was gross. I think it was a minority. Every fanbase has some absolute duds and no fanbase is monolithic.

One thing worth pointing out, though, is that the image you've shared doesn't (maybe can't) definitively show that Houston made high contact. It's one of the problems with a 2D projection of a 3D environment. I assume we've all seen shots for goal where one angle seems to show the ball hitting the post but another angle synced up shows a gap between ball and post at the same instant.

If there's no contact, then you may be able to find an angle that appears to show contact. On the other hand, if there is contact, then, at the instant of that contact, you won't be able to find an angle that shows no contact.

Call it cope or conspiracy or uneducated toothless Port feral parochialism, but (in classic AFL low-res blurry potato cam glory) I reckon that dark patch to the right of the 5 on Houston's number panel could be a shadow cast by Rankine's head. It wouldn't be inconsistent with other shadows cast by the light tower in the right forward pocket at the Riverbank end. Does the shadow imply some distance between Houston's shoulder and Rankine's head? I don't know - I don't think I could say for sure from one still frame of one angle.

Hopefully, in the course of the tribunal hearing, there is enough vision from enough angles to get an answer one way or the other. I'd want the same if our positions were reversed. It would be nice if the AFL could do their job properly for a change.

Again, sorry for the intrusion, and wishing the best for Rankine as he recovers from the hit.

 

[Elder van Berlo]

Further to my previous post, this is what the Tribunal Guidelines say about bumps...

Neither of those mitigating conditions apply:

• Houston was not contesting the ball, and it was not reasonable to contest the ball that way
• Houston's contact was not caused by unforeseen circumstances outside his control.

It is mind boggling that Christian opted to grade it as Careless instead of Intentional. There is no justification for the lower grading, given the wording of the Tribunal Guidelines.

Apologies... I actually quoted the wrong rule. That was for forceful frontal contact when a player has their head down over the ball.

What Houston did was Rough Conduct (High Bump), which is equally illegal. What he did was still a reportable offence, just not the offence I originally named.

But on the question of what is intentional v careless, the issue is not whether he in fact committed a high bump - the issue is whether he intentionally committed rough conduct.

Now if you start from the point that Houston intended to hit Rankine's head then yes, it is obviously intentional rough conduct.

But if you start from the position that Houston intended to hit Rankine's body but got it wrong, the question is whether the bump to the body that he intended to execute would have been rough conduct if he executed it as planned. The Rough Conduct (High Bumps) section won't help you answer that. You need the Rough Conduct (Bumps to the Body) section.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

In what way?

In the way the roughing the passer stuff got introduced to the NFL, where once traditional tough tactics that were technically within the rules started to be looked at

 

[Vader]

But on the question of what is intentional v careless, the issue is not whether he in fact committed a high bump - the issue is whether he intentionally committed rough conduct.

Now if you start from the point that Houston intended to hit Rankine's head then yes, it is obviously intentional rough conduct.

But if you start from the position that Houston intended to hit Rankine's body but got it wrong, the question is whether the bump to the body that he intended to execute was rough conduct. The Rough Conduct (High Bumps) section won't help you answer that. You need the Rough Conduct (Bumps to the Body) section.

He intended to bump... the bump went high. It's intentional every day of the week.

We went through this with Rankine, and the exact same argument applies. Rankine chose to bump, resulting in an accidental head clash - it was (correctly) graded as Intentional Conduct. Houston made the intentional decision to bump - everything that follows from that point is his responsibility. There is no difference.

 

[skam85]

Hey Pete!
Why don't you just slip up the Port road and sign up. Don't let jealousy ruin your day. Embrace the rage by dashing the cause against the rocks of outer harbour. Then, slip into the Alberton for a drink to your new found clarity of mind.

You might even get to watch a home final among friends and like minded, yet toothless, intellectuals like yourself.

But in short...if you dislike our club so much and find so much wrong, perhaps there's a club you would prefer to be a member.

"Brilliant tactics by Port", Slippery Pete, 2024

Saying a team sitting in the top 2 of the ladder is doing plenty of things better than a team sitting in 15th doesn't make someone an opposition fan.

Pull your head in

 

[MarcusP2]

He intended to bump... the bump went high. It's intentional every day of the week.

We went through this with Rankine, and the exact same argument applies. Houston made the intentional decision to bump - everything that follows from that point is his responsibility.

No, you are wrong.

It's not did he intend to commit the act.

It's did he intend to commit an offence defined in laws of the game.

If Houston had knocked Rankine over, winded him, won the spilled ball and kicked a goal nothing would've been said. Instead he hit him high in a manner where he didn't seem to care whether he did or not. Hence, careless.

If he had intended to hit him high, then you would be correct.

How often does a a bump (not a strike) get graded intentional?

 

[Elder van Berlo]

High bumps are always illegal. Bumps to the body can be legal, depending on whether or not the conduct was unreasonable.

Yep, this is it. This is why it's not necessarily intentional. Because he may have been trying to do something that was legal. Or at least, not reportable.

He intended to bump... the bump went high. It's intentional every day of the week.

We went through this with Rankine, and the exact same argument applies. Rankine chose to bump, resulting in an accidental head clash - it was (correctly) graded as Intentional Conduct. Houston made the intentional decision to bump - everything that follows from that point is his responsibility. There is no difference.

And just when it started to look like you were understanding the rules you were quoting...

The question is not whether he intended to bump. It is whether he intended to commit rough conduct. Those are two different but overlapping concepts. Some bumps are rough conduct, some are not.

The reason Rankine was found to have been intentional was not because he intended to bump. It's because the Tribunal found that he intended to commit rough conduct. The process of reasoning was that even if that bump had landed on Starcevich's body, it still would have been unreasonable.

‘Bog standard’ act ends Swan’s Brownlow dream as Crow stays sidelined for a month

‘Bog standard’ act ends Swan’s Brownlow dream as Crow stays sidelined for a month

www.foxsports.com.au

Rankine forcefully bumped Brandon Starcevich a considerable distance from where the ball was trapped in a stoppage.

Both players were running in the same direction, and Starcevich was not expecting forceful contact. He had no reason to expect that he would be bumped.

The issue is whether Rankine intended to commit the reportable offence of rough conduct. In our opinion, it is clear that Rankine intended to engage in conduct which was unreasonable in the circumstances.

It was not reasonable to stop and forcefully bump Starcevich when Rankine must have known Starcevich was not expecting to be bumped.

 

[kirky]

Like your username, Port's Karma Bus will arrive in September, we just need to be patient.

And when that occurs it will be in spades.

 

[ams4crows]

Crowbots, that word has culturally ruined our club, it is so drilled into our players to play by the rules more due to the fact when we break them we get harsher penalties. Even in recruiting we only want nice boys from nice families. Well guess what being nice all the time doesn't guarantee you wins.

Those Great Hawthorn, Geelong, Brisbane and Richmond dynasties they all played dirty and pushed the boundaries. We as a club have never ever done anything like that, our most fined player would be Tex and that's because he's the one who refused to be a crowbot.

 

[beartoo]

No, you are wrong.

It's not did he intend to commit the act.

It's did he intend to commit an offence defined in laws of the game.

If Houston had knocked Rankine over, winded him, won the spilled ball and kicked a goal nothing would've been said. Instead he hit him high in a manner where he didn't seem to care whether he did or not. Hence, careless.

If he had intended to hit him high, then you would be correct.

How often does a a bump (not a strike) get graded intentional?

It was front on contact which is a free kick. He hit a man wide open who did not have the ability to protect himself. Thug act or playing the old-fashioned PA way or both?

On SM-A115F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Billy Cart]

What I still don’t get why none of those umpires thought that a free shouldn’t have been paid? Rankine is lying on the field not moving.

Not one of those umpires should be officiating in the finals series.

Going by that freeze frame, he already has his arm in the braced position ready to bump before Izak has even taken the ball.