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

[GROTTO]

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

The thug waited for Rankine to be open and vulnerable and then delivered the hit.

This is Port Adelaide Football.

 

[Vader]

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's the exact same argument that applied to Rankine. Both Houston & Rankine made the deliberate decision to bump. They are immediately responsible for everything that follows. The bumps both went high, with the result that they should both have been graded as Intentional. There is no difference between them - yet Rankine's was graded as intentional, while Houston's was only graded Careless.

High Bumps are always illegal. Bumps to the body are not necessarily illegal, unless the conduct is deemed unreasonable.

 

[Vader]

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.


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

It's the exact same circumstances as Rankine. Rankine's offence was correctly graded as intentional. The grading of Houston's is incorrect.

There is nothing to suggest that Houston's conduct against Rankine was in any way reasonable.

 

[Floating Doughnut]

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.

Breaking news ….. Willie Rioli victim of racial abuse !

 

[kirky]

Mods, can we just ban anyone that has a profile with open date 18/8 or later?

 

[footy4ever]

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

Reckon Luko could become an elite goal-kicking F50 deliverer wingman.

 

[Slippery Pete]

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

I hope not.

 

[GROTTO]

Mods, can we just ban anyone that has a profile with open date 18/8 or later?

Just on this, I know Scorpus sent out a warning too, even if you use a fake alias account, he will also take out your main account as well on Bigfooty.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

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

It’s clearly a shirt front that also got ranks high.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

Just on this, I know Scorpus sent out a warning too, even if you use a fake alias account, he will also take out your main account as well on Bigfooty.

I don’t even understand how you maintain an alias account.

It’s like having an affair - I don’t know why people do it. Having one partner to satisfy is hard enough!

 

[WeeBlake]

I’m yet to be convinced he got him high

 

[BRL121]

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.

Whether technically high contact or not (and it obviously was) is completely irrelevant. Do you not remember the McAdam case? He got 4. Houston should get more because of the concussion.

 

[GameofSloanes]

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

He often is more favourable to our opponents when commentating on our games. I assume to make it seem like he's impartial. Should not put himself in that situation

 

[GameofSloanes]

I’m yet to be convinced he got him high

Apart from the photos showing it?
Or that after rankine was hit, he did not try to brace for impact with the ground / protect himself? Because he was already unconscious? From being hit in the head?

 

[WeeBlake]

Apart from the photos showing it?

Haven’t seen one yet

 

[agmsy]

There is no difference between them - yet Rankine's was graded as intentional, while Houston's was only graded Careless.

I think the difference, in the AFL's eyes, is the proximity of each incident to the ball.

Rankine is the ball carrier when Houston makes contact with him. Houston is permitted to bump him provided he doesn't make high contact. As a few other posters have pointed out, this is consistent with how the AFL has graded other incidents - even Jimmy Webster's bump on Jy Simpkin (which was good for a 7-week holiday) was graded "careless" because the AFL did not believe they could successfully argue that Webster intended to make high contact vs intended to legally bump and accidentally made high contact.

When Rankine bumped Starcevich, they were ~15m away from the ball, and Starcevich was moving away from the contest. Starcevich isn't the ball carrier and they're too far away from the contest for Rankine to plausibly argue that the contact he made is permissible under the rules that govern shepherding. My guess is that rough conduct in a situation where the rules do not permit a player to make any forceful contact is why it was graded "intentional".

For what it's worth, I think it's a stupid interpretation - a consequence of the AFL clinging to the bump as part of the "fabric of the game" instead of allowing it to be removed from the game in order to better protect players from head and brain injury.

 

[GameofSloanes]

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

There is a bit of 'the Crows were asking for it' stench about their apologists tbh

 

[DJ75]

View attachment 2083957

This is rubbish.
Crouch was the mainstay mid whose team was destroyed in the midfield. He was destroyed in clearances. His opponents were best on. But let's celebrate his 'numbers'.
Tells you a lot about the club and what they focus on.

 

[GameofSloanes]

I think the difference, in the AFL's eyes, is the proximity of each incident to the ball.

Rankine is the ball carrier when Houston makes contact with him. Houston is permitted to bump him provided he doesn't make high contact. As a few other posters have pointed out, this is consistent with how the AFL has graded other incidents - even Jimmy Webster's bump on Jy Simpkin (which was good for a 7-week holiday) was graded "careless" because the AFL did not believe they could successfully argue that Webster intended to make high contact vs intended to legally bump and accidentally made high contact.

When Rankine bumped Starcevich, they were ~15m away from the ball, and Starcevich was moving away from the contest. Starcevich isn't the ball carrier and they're too far away from the contest for Rankine to plausibly argue that the contact he made is permissible under the rules that govern shepherding. My guess is that rough conduct in a situation where the rules do not permit a player to make any forceful contact is why it was graded "intentional".

For what it's worth, I think it's a stupid interpretation - a consequence of the AFL clinging to the bump as part of the "fabric of the game" instead of allowing it to be removed from the game in order to better protect players from head and brain injury.

This is a fair analysis
The funny thing about the starcevich one is that, whilst I agree with your rationalisation about why it was graded intentional, if there had been no injury, it wouldve been low impact and a fine. Rankine was screwed when they accidentally bumped heads. Stupid thing to do given the risk of difference in outcome
FWIW the houston one the AFL will base the sanction on the fact that Rankine was concussed. They've been pretty consistent with if you cause a concussion, regardless of intent, it's a lengthy suspension. Somewhere between 3-8 matches based on past history and the MRO guidelines, probably be 4 or 5 imo

 

[The Hobo]

yet Rankine's was graded as intentional, while Houston's was only graded Careless.

The way it gets applied is any "in play" incident is graded careless. Off the play incidents are intentional.

Jimmy Websters was more intentional than both, yet it was also graded careless, as it was deemed "in play"

 

[Tex is king]

As I said, they wouldn’t be happy about that, but everything short of that was absolutely brilliant.

And effective. Clearly.

You do realise that we were still winning by a goal with 7 minutes to go in the third quarter when Izak is knocked out.
In what world is the tactic absolutely brilliant to that point.
They gave away 8 frees early because they were clearly over hyped and aggressive.
It took a player being knocked out for the game to change, not port players acting like petulant bullies in the first half.

 

[steve9798]

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

So he's definitely leaving?

 

[El Doederino]

So he's definitely leaving?

He’s opening for Taylor Swift

 

[WeeBlake]

As I said, they wouldn’t be happy about that, but everything short of that was absolutely brilliant.

And effective. Clearly.

“Absolutely brilliant”.

It sucks, actually. I suppose you loved it when Sam Mitchell went around kneeing players to deliberately give them corkies.

Sniping and hurting people for competitive advantage is not a sign of toughness, it shows someone who is, frankly, an arseh*le, the kind of person you wouldn’t want in your family.

 

[footy4ever]

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.

The only time I've ever thought we brutally monstered another team with aggressive manhandling was the Prelim final 2017. That was delicious.

Sure, we were meek by comparison to Port, and taking it on the chin...and unsurprisingly winning. Getting completely sucked in and returning the biff and giving away shit retaliation frees and 50s was exactly what Port wanted, and the reason we lost.