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

[Slippery Pete]

Need a poll: most likely poster to punch the mascot?

Bearded Clam odds-on for mine

 

[ABAB]

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.

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.

 

[CrowBloke]

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.

Why have sling tackles been outlawed? There is no initial contact with the head at all.
It's the consequence of the act that is being judged.
If you sling tackle a bloke, a free kick is given.
If the sling tackle results in a head injury, it goes to the MRO.

I don't think it has anything to do with whether Houston connected initially with Rankine's head.
You described well what seems to have happened
--- shoulder high contact to the chest causing Rankine's head to go down and into Houston's shoulder which probably KO-ed Rankine temporarily (a consequence of the bump)
then
--- Rankine fell backwards hitting his head on the ground (another consequence).
It was ugly, reckless, dangerous and unnecessary, since he had the option to tackle.

It doesn't matter whether the concussion was caused by the first or second action.
We'll find out soon enough.

 

[CrowBloke]

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

??
As an Assistant, or a replacement for Nicks?

 

[GROTTO]

Amazing how this comes out just as Port and their scummy supporter base are showing their true colours!

**** off you dumb cutns

Surely this would have been caught on camera at AO.

There is not only just AFL coverage but also security cameras in place.

Im calling bullshit until I see otherwise.

 

[BigLefty]

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 ... .

That's actually not the worst idea, but I'd apply it for the accumulation of smaller snipes across the team for the season.

 

[agmsy]

Proximity to the ball is irrelevant

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.

 

[CrowBloke]

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

Good point.
I'm not sure if they use previous incidents as relevant precedents. Do they?

If they do then the McAdam case, others and the Rankine hit on Starcevich all apply
AND
yes,

this has to be graded higher.

.

 

[Vader]

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.

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.

 

[PeterSalt]

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?

New account to go into bat for Houston

Seems legit

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I’m yet to be convinced he got him high

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)

 

[agmsy]

I'm not sure if they use previous incidents as relevant precedents. Do they?

They are, in fact, specifically allowed to disregard or disallow any precedent they like. It's a shambolic system.

It's Michael Christian playing fast, loose, and incompetent... as per usual.

It's a rotten system, but Christian is no orphan. There was a lot made of Laura Kane intervening in the Maynard/Brayshaw case last year, and probably instances where Hocking and Scott did the same with previous cases.

It seems to be an interpretation that is neither specifically required nor specifically disallowed under the current rules, but I doubt it's an interpretation that was developed and implemented without the strong endorsement of (almost) everyone above Christian on the Footy Ops totem pole at AFL House.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

To 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.

We did **** all and played terribly

 

[Geoffa32]

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)

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.

 

[Jello_B]

Need a poll: most likely poster to punch the mascot?

Bearded Clam odds-on for mine

Sanders still letting us know he is with us in spirit.

 

[Geoffa32]

We did **** all and played terribly

That is the disappointment.

Our guys collectively lost their shit, no one stood up to calm em down and refocus on the game.

No on field leadership.

 

[GROTTO]

won't you campaigners just **** off and have a ****en circle jerk on your own board

what the **** is matter with you inbred flogs?

Gutless and cowards, only rocks up after a win. When they lose they go missing and you dont see them on here for months.

 

[footy4ever]

Sanders still letting us know he is with us in spirit.

Just on that.

Where the hell is Sanders?

 

[The Karma Bus]

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.

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.

 

[Brasher]

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.

Didn't they include the "potential to cause injury" narrative as part the McAdam suspension last year?

 

[GROTTO]

Just on that.

Where the hell is Sanders?

Got a new alias account, the irony lol.

 

[agmsy]

Why even be here spreading their shit?

I'm here because I'm not interested in wading through the "Houston is innocent" dross that's showing up in some other places the issue is being discussed. I thought this might be a place to have a more balanced discussion.

 

[footy4ever]

Got a new alias account, the irony lol.

For reals?

 

[GROTTO]

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.

We will tag them all on here after a Catastrophic Power Failure in September. Need to keep this thread open.

 

[GROTTO]

What's got you so pissed off with this poster? Is it passive aggressive type posting?

Passive trolling.

Imagine if I went on the Power board and pretended to want to have a discussion when they fail in September.

They would light me up.