Rankine on Starc.

Remove this Banner Ad

That's the right question. It is insanity that pure chance = 4 weeks.
I don't think it's pure chance though is it? He chose to bump him. Head clashes from bumping isn't exactly unheard of or never seen before. There is every chance of a head clash when you go to make that contact.
 
I don't think it's pure chance though is it? He chose to bump him. Head clashes from bumping isn't exactly unheard of or never seen before. There is every chance of a head clash when you go to make that contact.
I haven't watched it frame by frame but it looked to me like Rankines feet left the ground a split second before the bump. IIRC the AFL came out years ago and said if you jump into a bump its going to cost you more.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

dog act this and that is hilarious. he bumped him in the chest. unfortunately his head hit the other guys chin or whatever. sure. unlucky. but you'd think he dean solomon'd him coming from some. i thought he'd get 3 but man some people must've watched those early 2000 lions team from behind the couch with how many bumps and shots they would lay on players.
 
Crows going to challenge, will be interesting to see their argument for why Rankine couldnt just, you know, side step the player jogging towards him.

Feels like the severe impact is the only real fertile ground for a challenge. Lions maybe indicating to the Crows that the medical report might give them some wiggle room.
 
Feels like the severe impact is the only real fertile ground for a challenge. Lions maybe indicating to the Crows that the medical report might give them some wiggle room.

Apparently challenging the intent. Looks like Adam Kelly has as strong an understanding of tribunal rules as he did the restricted free agent process.
 
Any footage on the chase down tackle and sheperd he put on in the last quarter that was as good as physical defensive effort as I have seen all year, all been overshadowed by this incident though. I'm impressed to see this side of Rankine to be honest, not many boxes he doesn't tick over time.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Apparently challenging the intent. Looks like Adam Kelly has as strong an understanding of tribunal rules as he did the restricted free agent process.

Yeah, not the right part of the charge to contest.

It predictably failed. 4 week ban stands.
 
Can only conclude he should have jumped off the ground to deliberately make contact with his opponent’s head, instead of a bump with an accidental clash of heads. That way he’d have received only two weeks, down to zero.

Surprised the AFL didn’t trot out the rarely seen “potential to cause injury” statement again.

4 weeks. Lol.
 
Can only conclude he should have jumped off the ground to deliberately make contact with his opponent’s head, instead of a bump with an accidental clash of heads. That way he’d have received only two weeks, down to zero.

What the hell are you talking about? This makes literally zero sense.
 
Wow, I guess they effectively judged that it was a headbut by Rankin, that is, that he intentionally made contact with his head. Afterall, that is what caused the injury. Interesting call.
 
Eh, not worth 4. The play is live, you need to keep your head up or you'll lose it
 
Wow, I guess they effectively judged that it was a headbut by Rankin, that is, that he intentionally made contact with his head. Afterall, that is what caused the injury. Interesting call.

No, you just don’t understand the rules.

Intent is based on his decision to bump.

The fact he accidentally made contact with the head is covered under the impact and contact gradings.

This has been explained so many times.
 
So you agree the contact to the head and subsequent concussion was unintentional. All good!
 
Surprised the Crows didnt use the, "He's a good bloke" defense. Worked for Charlie Cameron.
 
Well, I can recall a few players receiving lesser suspensions for intentional headbutts, eg. Bailey Smith got two games & Malcom Rosa only got one week.
 
This wasn’t a football incident. Rankine saw an opportunity to bump Starcevich off the ball and took it. The fact he stuffed it up is irrelevant to the grading of intentional. Rankine not intending to knock out Starcevich is irrelevant. The act was intentional, not the outcome. Andrew Gaff probably didn’t intend to bust Brayshaw’s jaw apart, but he sure as shit chose to hit him.
Gaff is a weird one to bring up.

"I was intending to hit him in the chest not the face", was actually a defence put up to Tribunal in that case to reduce it to careless. It only wasn't successfully because the Tribunal decided that they didn't believe that defence. They found that Gaff did intend to hit him in the face.

And we also saw that year with the hit intentional hit on Lachie Neale that glanced of the shoulder into his neck. It was a graded careless strike with high contact and low impact because of the deflection off the shoulder. Despite the fact that he definitely intentionally put a strike on Neale.

2. It wasn’t graded the same. Powell-Pepper’s was graded as Careless not intentional (because it was juuuust close enough to be classed as on ball)
juuuust close enough? Keane had the ball in his possession when Powell-Pepper collected with him. Its impossible for a bump to be more "on ball" than the SPP one.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top