![](https://images.bigfootymedia.com/icons/mobile-bullets/adelaide.png)
Medical report:Looks like maybe probably he clipped the jaw, but you gotta make some assumptions. The medical report to the tribunal will be interesting.
Rankine was concussed.
End of discussion. Pack your bags for Bali, Houston you flog.
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.
Medical report:Looks like maybe probably he clipped the jaw, but you gotta make some assumptions. The medical report to the tribunal will be interesting.
Can one of the older posters on here inform me, didnt Dave Granger back in the 80s was instructed by the coach to take out Cornes?Will there come a time whereby a coach who instructs his players to target the opposition be libel for any injuries caused.
You should see the post game interviews with their fans outside the stadium on social media. It’s inbred central.Amazing how this comes out just as Port and their scummy supporter base are showing their true colours!
**** off you dumb cutns
Pre-meditated arranged hit on Neville Caldwell. Filthy stench of a club. Always has been.Can one of the older posters on here inform me, didnt Dave Granger back in the 80s was instructed by the coach to take out Cornes?
The Port Adelaide Way.
Its inbred in their DNA.
Got a link?You should see the post game interviews with their fans outside the stadium on social media. It’s inbred central.
Somebody call the waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhmbulance.Poor old Dan Houston having a welfare day off. Poor thing.
I posted about this earlier. The story is that Cahill told Granger to take out Cornes, Granger didn’t want to as he was concerned about all his prior suspensions and basically told Cahill that he’d be banned. Cahill allegedly told him that he’d be looked after by the club. Granger roundhoused Cornes and Port left Granger out to dry.Can one of the older posters on here inform me, didnt Dave Granger back in the 80s was instructed by the coach to take out Cornes?
The Port Adelaide Way.
Its inbred in their DNA.
Best for Port Power to support him so he can be traded to any clubs he want back home for a 4th rounder.Poor old Dan Houston having a welfare day off. Poor thing.
That's my understanding as well, yet Cahill was a brilliant and really fair player from memory. Strange he'd turn into such a dog as a coach.I posted about this earlier. The story is that Cahill told Granger to take out Cornes, Granger didn’t want to as he was concerned about all his prior suspensions and basically told Cahill that he’d be banned. Cahill allegedly told him that he’d be looked after by the club. Granger roundhoused Cornes and Port left Granger out to dry.
I think most of this is Grangers side of things. IIRC he rang up 5AA years ago and spoke to Cornes about it, he’s been very bitter about it for years I think.
Poor old Dan Houston having a welfare day off. Poor thing.
Rankine was light outs as soon as he was hit, you could see his eyes roll back, it was ugly to see.Medical report:
Rankine was concussed.
End of discussion. Pack your bags for Bali, Houston you flog.
It’s not, though.Proximity to the ball is irrelevant
AFL Tribunal Regulations said:…without limitation, regard may be had to whether:
- The degree of force applied by the person bumping was excessive for the situation;
- The Player being bumped was in a vulnerable position; and
- The Player could reasonably expect the contact having regard to his involvement in play or ability to influence the contest.
It was something like 9 concussions to our players in the last 15 showdowns. Just a coincidence though I'm sureIt 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 ....
This is a good analysis which - speaking for myself only - is most welcome.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.
Nope. Just as bad. Based on his comments after the game im not sure he didn't encourage racheles commentsExactly.
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.
**** me, what a melt he is, couldn't wait to get off the ground after it happened.
Totally shat himself.
No current season stats available
Let's pray that he's okay.Poor old Dan Houston having a welfare day off. Poor thing.
So we are now supposed to believe that an 8-foot mascot was assaulted in front of 50,000 people and no one filmed it. I've also heard Tim Ginnever mention Mark Bickley 3 times now. Obviously, this shitty club is circling the wagons and in full damage control.
Too hard to prove, surely?Will there come a time whereby a coach who instructs his players to target an opposition player be held libel for any injuries caused.
Yes, it's relevant for a bump to the body... but it's irrelevant when it's a high bump - which it was in the case of Houston/Rankine.It’s not, though.
I tried to give you a hint before but since you didn’t take it, or perhaps realised that it would undermine your point so decided not to take it, when assessing whether a Bump to the Body constitutes rough conduct,
Houston was opting to bump - he was not contesting for the ball. Nor was the contact the result of unforeseen circumstances.» 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.