![](https://images.bigfootymedia.com/icons/mobile-bullets/adelaide.png)
- Jul 19, 2010
- 26,188
- 68,044
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: GWS Giants v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Lions at 65% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Semi Finals
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
AFLW 2024 - Round 3 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Nicks need someone with experience to tell him of his stupid mistakes and strange selection especially with Murphy. If he doesn't get this support or learn from himself next year then he will definitely be gone.Exactly.
There is a lot of cognitive dissonance on here. All the people who hate Nicks are saying he’s somehow A-okay in the gamesmanship arena.
Why have sling tackles been outlawed? There is no initial contact with the head at all.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.
??I cant wait to see who we appoint as coach in the off season
Surely this would have been caught on camera at AO.Amazing how this comes out just as Port and their scummy supporter base are showing their true colours!
**** off you dumb cutns
That's actually not the worst idea, but I'd apply it for the accumulation of smaller snipes across the team for the season.It was mentioned by another poster early in this thread. I've forgotten who it was, sorry (anybody remember, please?).
In fact, he listed that incident and others (by PA), showing it is a PA pattern and no coincidence.
The AFL have had years to send a message to Clubs that do/did it; they have failed, totally.
Here's an idea: how about fining a Club (a big fine, 100K or more, a massive disincentive) when one of their players gets at least 4 matches for a Houston- or Peppapig-style hit? That'd include Rankine this year.
Just a hypothetical/speculating ....
Proximity to the ball is irrelevant
Good point.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.
As I said in a subsequent post... it's possible that Michael Christian is grading offences in this way - but there is nothing whatsoever in the rules to support it. It's Michael Christian playing fast, loose, and incompetent... as per usual.The passages you quoted a couple of pages ago don't seem to explicitly prohibit the MRO from at least using proximity to the ball as part of a heuristic approach to determine a player's state of mind. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that such a heuristic has been applied fairly consistently by the MRO this year.
The AFL has publicly shown very little appetite for grading as "intentional" bumps that result in high contact being made to the ball carrier. Presumably, in every case that the tribunal has heard, the AFL has not been confident that the tribunal will disbelieve a player who states "I intended to make body contact, I did not intend to make high contact."
Again, I think the Webster/Simpkin case is instructive here. If the AFL could/should successfully argue that Houston intended to make high contact with Rankine, I believe they absolutely could/should have successfully argued the same in Webster's hearing. They didn't, though. They didn't try. They accepted the MRO's grading of "careless".
As previously, I'm all for a tougher approach. If the league wants to rewrite/reinterptet the rules such that a player who intends to bump can be charged with making "intentional" high contact (irrespective of the player's intention to make high contact), I'll welcome it. Until then, we're stuck with whatever this mess is.
New account to go into bat for HoustonSeems 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?
It doesn't matter if he did or didn't does it? The concussion was the result of the bump so same difference (in the eyes of the tribunal and by the rules as I understand them)I’m yet to be convinced he got him high
I'm not sure if they use previous incidents as relevant precedents. Do they?
It's Michael Christian playing fast, loose, and incompetent... as per usual.
We did **** all and played terriblyTo be honest, after the Rankine hit I felt like we did actually put a line in the sand. Houston came off for about 10 minutes as I think Hinkley was aware he might get lined up himself.
Yeah, the way I understand it if you bump and no concussion there is no issue.It doesn't matter if he did or didn't does it? The concussion was the result of the bump so same difference (in the eyes of the tribunal and by the rules as I understand them)
That is the disappointment.We did **** all and played terribly
Gutless and cowards, only rocks up after a win. When they lose they go missing and you dont see them on here for months.won't you campaigners just **** off and have a ****en circle jerk on your own board
what the **** is matter with you inbred flogs?
Amazing how these oracles are everywhere, spreading their knowledge and advice... after they win.won't you campaigners just **** off and have a ****en circle jerk on your own board
what the **** is matter with you inbred flogs?
Yeah, the way I understand it if you bump and no concussion there is no issue.
But once there is concussion pretty much automatically suspended.
The tribunal hearing is just to determine the suspension length.
Got a new alias account, the irony lol.Just on that.
Where the hell is Sanders?
Why even be here spreading their shit?
For reals?Got a new alias account, the irony lol.![]()
We will tag them all on here after a Catastrophic Power Failure in September. Need to keep this thread open.Amazing how these oracles are everywhere, spreading their knowledge and advice... after they win.
Why even be here spreading their shit?
I rarely care to look over there (unless there's some great hilarity going on) let alone lecture them.
Passive trolling.What's got you so pissed off with this poster? Is it passive aggressive type posting?