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

Remove this Banner Ad

It's pretty funny, because everyone knows the AFL does take into account the possibility of missing a GF in certain cases. Cotchin, anybody?

But for the player to come out and request it be taken into account is pretty funny.

Shows real character eh? Dear Mr Tribunal I’m sorry I smashed Rankine out of the game but don’t you see part of my defence is how crushed I’m going to feel about missing a possible Grand Final…..can’t you understand how this will affect me ! !
 
Shows real character eh? Dear Mr Tribunal I’m sorry I smashed Rankine out of the game but don’t you see part of my defence is how crushed I’m going to feel about missing a possible Grand Final…..can’t you understand how this will affect me ! !

Has a real "I'm too beautiful for prison" vibe to it.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

To be honest I was weighing up whether it was worth 4 or 5 weeks. Houston’s pathetic defence where he outright lies easily makes it 5.
It's not the first time that Port players have lied to the tribunal.

I can't remember which player it was now, but from memory one of their players got called out a few years ago by the tribunal for being dishonest.
 
“Intentional” is no more or less arbitrary than any other word. It requires a state of mind to be established.

The confusion appears to be around the intention to injure vs the intention to commit the act that causes the injury. The AFL tribunal is on record that it’s the act, not the injury that they use in determining intent.

The tribunal accepted that Rankine did not intend to make contact with Starcevic’s head, but he did intend to bump, and it caused injury. So that incident was graded intentional.

This does appear inconsistent with the Houston incident, where it can only be assumed that Michael Christian has assessed that Houston did not intend to bump or “shirtfront” Rankine.

Now just an opinion, but I suspect that the incident was downgraded because the umpires didn’t pay a free to the Crows. There’s already a valid question about the lack of a free kick being paid. The AFL may be looking to protect the umpires from scrutiny in this one.
Quoting you: “The AFL tribunal is on record that it’s the act, not the injury that they use in determining intent.”
But it’s clearly not true for all cases that it’s purely the act, because earlier in the year Pickett (Dees) launched up and hit a bloke in the head, but the player was a tough cookie and continued on playing the game out from what I can recall. So this is merely about the outcome rather than the act, which is friggin’ stupid.

Bearing in mind I’m purely talking about the rules are not align with public perception, not talking about the Houston case.
 
I'm seeing some massive #portlogic on their board.

From a 2 second clip they've deduced that Houston's bump didn't make high contact and it was Rankine getting slammed into the ground caused his concussion, while on the flip side Rankine slamming into the ground on his side didn't damage his AC joint it was Houston's front on bump that did.

Somehow all this supposedly proves that Houston is innocent

Their delusions are becoming nonsensical at this point
 
Shows real character eh? Dear Mr Tribunal I’m sorry I smashed Rankine out of the game but don’t you see part of my defence is how crushed I’m going to feel about missing a possible Grand Final…..can’t you understand how this will affect me ! !
But he was so remorseful...
Oops, did his facade slip to me, me, me..
 
Where does the suggestion from trivial there was a shoulder injury come from?
That their perception it was I from our medical report?

Our medical report said that the club doctor detected an AC joint injury the next day.

You only have to look at how Rankine was smashed into the ground on his side to see where his AC joint injury occurred.

Normally it's an impact to the tip of the shoulder that causes it ie an impact on the side and not front on contact.
 
Damned if you do ....Damned if you don't

Play the Rookies and lose ....don't play rookies and win ....that's the dilemma at this time of the year
Rookies inevitably cost games .....they find it hard to concentrate a full game on defensive positioning .....and get tired

Rookies haven't had the number of PS's to be as fit as mature teams ......they're learning & developing skills such as positioning

Bravo for continuing to play Curtin in the MID's .....and throwing Taylor in the midfield at a tight time of the game ......it was a case of getting experience, versus outcome

1. Crouch (yes I'm a huge critic) .....last 2 weeks has been a kick it fwd player, and he looks so much better than the handballing crab, he's been for most of the year

2. Curtin, the improvement in the use of his body in contests, has been very noticeable

3. Dawson .... I've been busy, so have missed the rants from George Kramer for Dawson spending long periods at HB .....he adds so much back their, when you're losing clearances, and having to launch attacks off HB

4. Bond looks very mature for his level of experience .....is calm under pressure, and holds hs feet ....both excellent signs

5. Happy to trade Berry .....any player who two grabs the ball as often as him, simply cannot be an AFL midfielder .....it was close to 60% of every ball he tried to take .....he either got wrapped up on the 2nd grab, or the attacking movement was stiffled because he couldn't display clean hands

6. Talking of one grab ....we've seen the last of Gollant
More time, less pressure in the SANFL ....his inability to clunk marks one grab, doesn't stick out .....but every time he gets an AFL game, his hands are cement

He also charges at every contest ....so if he runs himself out of the contest too often ......goodbye

Thilthorpe and Fogarty :whitecheck:
Berry was a notable fumbler in that match. Though I still think he’s a decent player as I don’t think I’ve seen him fumble as much in other previous games.

Gollant is a huge enigma. One match I recall he had 5 goals and was looking a ripper then doughnuts in most other games afterwards. I would like to see him for one more year, to see if he can improve his marking with more size and confidence. Particularly can’t judge him too harsh when it was quite wet/slippery in the Showdown.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Berry was a notable fumbler in that match. Though I still think he’s a decent player as I don’t think I’ve seen him fumble as much in other previous games.

Gollant is a huge enigma. One match I recall he had 5 goals and was looking a ripper then doughnuts in most other games afterwards. I would like to see him for one more year, to see if he can improve his marking with more size and confidence. Particularly can’t judge him too harsh when it was quite wet/slippery in the Showdown.
Berry's fumbling has been evident most of the season .....it's one reason why he was initially dropped

It's like having an FF that can't kick, and we've had a few rippers in that category .....mids simply have to be one touch, that's where all the heat is

Look at Michalanney ......great example of a one touch player .....Rankine rarely fumbles, maybe twice this year
 
Berry's fumbling has been evident most of the season .....it's one reason why he was initially dropped

It's like having an FF that can't kick, and we've had a few rippers in that category .....mids simply have to be one touch, that's where all the heat is

Look at Michalanney ......great example of a one touch player .....Rankine rarely fumbles, maybe twice this year
Or a coach that can't coach.
 
Port's thuggery tactics in the Showdown will not have gone unnoticed by the opposition Clubs in the 8, that they may play.

They played their hand and reminded the competition the level they will stoop to, to win a game.

Clubs in September will prepare for a streetfight at AO when they play Port.
Great point!
Bring on the AOctagon.
 
Hahaha that piss weak Port flog claiming he was "assaulted" because Crouch knocked his cap off, how ****ing embarrassing! Hurling abuse at player and then going crying to mummy when the big bad mean footy player reacts.

They keep proving that Port fans are the worst.
 
Berry's fumbling has been evident most of the season .....it's one reason why he was initially dropped

It's like having an FF that can't kick, and we've had a few rippers in that category .....mids simply have to be one touch, that's where all the heat is

Look at Michalanney ......great example of a one touch player .....Rankine rarely fumbles, maybe twice this year
I’d agree he fumbles more than the other mids. I feel he has strengths that are useful - the defensive pressure especially tackling, and he’s pretty handy up forward, often gets 1 or 2 goals whenever he sniffs a chance. Not really arguing with your general sentiments though.
 
I think it was a really really REALLY stupid thing for Houston to get up there and say "I don't know why I didn't tackle, I usually do". He's cooked right there.
Does that not prove that there clearly was a directive to rough up Rankine because why else would you chose to bump when you normally would tackle, unless you were told before hand to target that particular player?
 
Berry's fumbling has been evident most of the season .....it's one reason why he was initially dropped

It's like having an FF that can't kick, and we've had a few rippers in that category .....mids simply have to be one touch, that's where all the heat is

Look at Michalanney ......great example of a one touch player .....Rankine rarely fumbles, maybe twice this year
It’s a shame, because his power in the contest is something not many, if any of our mids have (not as much as he does, anyway)

But cleanliness is just about essential at the highest level, tacklers are just too good. They aren’t gonna allow you one or two seconds to get a good handle on the footy
 
Huge loss for them.
Jerry Seinfeld Popcorn GIF by Sheets & Giggles
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top