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

[footy4ever]

Looks like maybe probably he clipped the jaw, but you gotta make some assumptions. The medical report to the tribunal will be interesting.

Medical report:

Rankine was concussed.


End of discussion. Pack your bags for Bali, Houston you flog.

 

[Owen_AFC97]

Must have been some Port Adelaide Big Footy posters calling FiveAA before. As dumb as they come.

 

[GROTTO]

Will there come a time whereby a coach who instructs his players to target the opposition be libel for any injuries caused.

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.

 

[Owen_AFC97]

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

**** off you dumb cutns

You should see the post game interviews with their fans outside the stadium on social media. It’s inbred central.

 

[footy4ever]

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.

Pre-meditated arranged hit on Neville Caldwell. Filthy stench of a club. Always has been.

Not sure about the Cornes one.

 

[Drakescoffeecake]

Poor old Dan Houston

5

Dan Houston

Age

27

Ht

186cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.2

5star

K

11.8

4star

HB

6.4

4star

M

4.9

5star

T

3.0

5star

MG

289.2

4star

D

17.6

4star

K

11.6

4star

HB

6.0

3star

M

3.3

3star

T

3.4

4star

MG

319.9

5star

D

16.6

4star

K

12.4

5star

HB

4.2

4star

M

7.0

5star

T

2.6

4star

MG

279.8

5star

having a welfare day off. Poor thing.

 

[GROTTO]

Let this sink in, sure it was not every Port fan, but there is too many that have this mentality.

This post got lost in the aftermath of the Houston hit.

 

[BunjiMC]

You should see the post game interviews with their fans outside the stadium on social media. It’s inbred central.

Got a link?

 

[footy4ever]

Poor old Dan Houston having a welfare day off. Poor thing.

Somebody call the waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhmbulance.

 

[chazwazza]

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.

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.

 

[ABAB]

Poor old Dan Houston having a welfare day off. Poor thing.

Best for Port Power to support him so he can be traded to any clubs he want back home for a 4th rounder.

 

[footy4ever]

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.

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.

 

[MrBarry]

Poor old Dan Houston having a welfare day off. Poor thing.

**** me, what a melt he is, couldn't wait to get off the ground after it happened.

Totally shat himself.

 

[GROTTO]

Medical report:

Rankine was concussed.


End of discussion. Pack your bags for Bali, Houston you flog.

Rankine was light outs as soon as he was hit, you could see his eyes roll back, it was ugly to see.

 

[Elder van Berlo]

Proximity to the ball is irrelevant

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,

…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.

Now whether it is in play or not is not the sole criterion here, but that factor has a role to play in assessing each of those three dot points, and a particularly important role in assessing the third.

Far from being “irrelevant”, it is highly relevant to the question of whether a Bump to the Body is rough conduct or not. I would go further and say that on that test, it will be rare if ever that a Bump to the Body in a contest constitutes rough conduct.

Now when you consider that a deliberate head shot is basically dead in football - and that almost every reportable head high bump is an intended Bump to the Body gone wrong - you can easily see why the MRO almost always grades head high bumps in a contest as being careless rough conduct rather than intentional rough conduct.

Now in this case, I could see the argument either way and I’m not advocating a position (just a correct understanding of the rules).

But to describe whether the bump was in play as “irrelevant” in determining whether rough conduct is careless or intentional is just so, so wrong.

 

[GameofSloanes]

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 ... .

It was something like 9 concussions to our players in the last 15 showdowns. Just a coincidence though I'm sure

 

[Elder van Berlo]

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.

This is a good analysis which - speaking for myself only - is most welcome.

That you copped abuse for posting it shows how far this place has fallen and why I largely don’t bother anymore.

 

[GameofSloanes]

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.

Nope. Just as bad. Based on his comments after the game im not sure he didn't encourage racheles comments

 

[GROTTO]

**** me, what a melt he is, couldn't wait to get off the ground after it happened.

Totally shat himself.

 

[steve9798]

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

Mark Bickley

Age

55

Ht

178cm

Wt

82kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

19.4

5star

K

11.7

4star

HB

7.8

5star

M

3.3

3star

T

2.7

4star

No current season stats available

D

21.2

5star

K

11.0

4star

HB

10.2

5star

M

3.2

4star

T

3.8

5star

3 times now. Obviously, this shitty club is circling the wagons and in full damage control.

 

[steve9798]

Poor old Dan Houston having a welfare day off. Poor thing.

Let's pray that he's okay.

 

[GROTTO]

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.

 

[CrowBloke]

Will there come a time whereby a coach who instructs his players to target an opposition player be held libel for any injuries caused.

Too hard to prove, surely?

Funny thing about Sport: if the hits by Peppapig on Keane, Rankine on Starcevich, Houston on Rankine, the punch by Gaff on Brayshaw and many other incidents happened on a busy night in Hindley Street, the perpetrator would find themselves in Criminal Court.
If Toby Greene had not found footy as an outlet for his anger issues, he'd be in jail today (and others).

 

[FullyBigKPro]

Power mascot got punched by a kid....

 

[Vader]

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,

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.

Quoting the wrong rule means that the rest of your case collapses.

For a high bump, these are the considerations:

» 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.

Houston was opting to bump - he was not contesting for the ball. Nor was the contact the result of unforeseen circumstances.