Player Watch Rookie Pick #45 (2015) - Dan Houston

[tribey]

Port tax + 'we need to send a message' = 8 weeks

‘We need to send a message that you can’t do something which is legal under the rules’ is sooooo AFL, isn’t it.

 

[PA88]

It was an actual shirtfront which has been outlawed from when Byron ran around so it is an infringement. He is gone for many weeks

Right shoulder to right shoulder.

K Pickett right shoulder to jaw directly front on, twice, and gets 1 and 2 weeks, T Green scissors kicks to the face and gets nothing, Rankine and Pepper bump and get 4, Collingwood's M-something gets judged to be completely innocent because GF reasons "but from now on it won't be" warning crapola, Cotchin's judged as "nothing to answer for" to play in Richmond's first GF for decades, Finlayson and Walker given weeks because somehow it equates to bumps, shirtfronts, and king hits, etc ...
Thus, the club and all who follow it should be talking this incident down.

But yeah, expect weeks.

 

[davesnothere]

David King is probably waterboarding Dan in the bottom of his basement as we speak…..8 weeks? Okay David.

He's usually out by 100%

 

[Gryllis]

Watching it again with a clearer head this morning... It looks like a tough, hard, but fair bump.

He didn't get him high and seemed careful enough not to, but still went hard at the contest - isn't that what the AFL is asking players to do?

We should be throwing all avaliable resources to fight any length of suspension. I can't actually even think of another suspension where the hit wasn't high (even if the player did get concussed hitting the ground). To use the Maynard terminology, that part was a footy incident.

The outcome isn't what we want, but the action was fair. If there is a suspension here, the AFL may as well officially ban the bump. In which case this would be a free kick against next season, which it wasn't last night.

 

[Scodges]

Don’t tell me Rachele has hurt your feelings has he!

When the dust settles and the emotion of the night (congrats on beating 15th facilitated by sniping our best player) - just take a look at how you view these things. I can only guess you were one of the many booing rankine off tonight.

We have seen the impacts these concussions have. Rankine showed boxers arms tonight (a sign of genuine brain insult). Former players have suicided - and yes, it’s correlated.

Doesn’t hurt to maintain some grace / respect about it.

Wankine instigated the treatment he got and deserved. He’s a class A piece of shit. And so are you & that crappy organisation you follow.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[TeeKray]

I loved it. Best part is he's literally the last player on the team I would've expected to do a Choppy Pickett. For all his skill the guy plays with little anger or emotion and is actually somewhat timid. Then bang, see you later Izak. Visibly lifted the team and visibly made the opposition cower, just like old days Port. What a way to sign off.

 

[Port 2004]

Does anyone have a clip of the tunneling on Jones?

Just watched on the replay. Absolute disgrace that a free kick was not paid. Cheating scum. Even Healey was banging on about it being tunnelling and a free should have been paid.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Any more than 3 and we should appeal for reasons already stated. Also because giving it more than 4 implies that this on ball hit is worse than what Rankine did off the ball against Brisbane.

Starcevich wasnt concussed.

In aware thats largely because Izak was lucky, but they grade on outcome not action.

 

[tribey]

Watching it again with a clearer head this morning... It looks like a tough, hard, but fair bump.

He didn't get him high and seemed careful enough not to, but still went hard at the contest - isn't that what the AFL is asking players to do?

We should be throwing all avaliable resources to fight any length of suspension. I can't actually even think of another suspension where the hit wasn't high (even if the player did get concussed hitting the ground). To use the Maynard terminology, that part was a footy incident.

The outcome isn't what we want, but the action was fair. If there is a suspension here, the AFL may as well officially ban the bump. In which case this would be a free kick against next season, which it wasn't last night.

They’ll grade it ‘high’ by default because Rankine was concussed, even though body-to-body hits (which can cause concussion: see ice hockey) are legal.

If the vision shows the impact wasn’t with the head, he should be completely exonerated, but there’s no way the AFL will let that happen because “optics” and “community standards” and “we have to protect the head”.

In which case, the bump has to go and this ridiculous grey area we’re swimming in filled in and concreted over.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Jimmy Webster got 7 for charging Jy Simpkin, leaping off the ground, and hitting him square in the head with a shoulder after Simpkin disposed of the ball.

Calling for 8 for a body-to-body hit with the player in possession is literal hysteria.

Its a good precedent actually.

Dans is probably about half as bad as Websters, so 3-4 should be where it sits if consistent.

Funnily if he gets 4, and we lose our first final, he could be back for the GF. Ridiculous hypothetical with Ken coaching I know.

 

[TeeKray]

They’ll grade it ‘high’ by default because Rankine was concussed, even though body-to-body hits (which can cause concussion: see ice hockey) are legal.

If the vision shows the impact wasn’t with the head, he should be completely exonerated, but there’s no way the AFL will let that happen because “optics” and “community standards” and “we have to protect the head”.

In which case, the bump has to go and this ridiculous grey area we’re swimming in filled in and concreted over.

It's not a grey area. He got him high. The vision shows it. High doesn't mean planting your shoulder in the middle of his face. High means any part of the bump is high, which is defined in the rules as above the shoulders. It wasn't a legal bump and he should pay the price but it was worth it.

 

[tribey]

It's not a grey area. He got him high. The vision shows it. High doesn't mean planting your shoulder in the middle of his face. High means any part of the bump is high, which is defined in the rules as above the shoulders. It wasn't a legal bump and he should pay the price but it was worth it.

I am yet to see any definitive vision that shows him making contact with Rankine “above the shoulders”.

I’ve seen stills of him making impact with the body.

 

[tribey]

We’ve essentially gone from “you can’t bump to the head” to “you can bump but please don’t bump too hard”.

 

[1954]

As long as there was no head contact which appears to be the case with Houston, bumps like he handed out last night were par for the course for decades wherever the game was played.

Before any one gets too carried away with me reminiscing, times have obviously changed and AFL is a different game now played by vastly different people, but no reasonable person regardless of the club they support would want to see any player badly hurt, and holier than thou fruit tingle barrackers coming on here trying to lecture us given their history of booing obviously injured Power players is beyond ridiculous.

Anyway back to 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

, if his case is handled correctly by the club a 2-3 match suspension could be possible, but given our history with this stuff the level of legal defence provided has at times belonged in the part time job at K-Mart territory and I suspect he will be hung out to dry!

 

[tribey]

As long as there was no head contact which appears to be the case with Houston

If there was no head-contact he should be exonerated (he won’t be though, because the AFL is a clown car of feelings and implications).

If we applied the same logic to tackling, we’ll be suspending guys for holding the ball on the day, but there was a tangle of legs and the poor chap will miss 6 weeks with a medial ligament and seeing as ‘you chose to tackle’, etc

 

[Vagabond0]

Wondering about Dan's duty of care to himself

 

[TeeKray]

I am yet to see any definitive vision that shows him making contact with Rankine “above the shoulders”.

I’ve seen stills of him making impact with the body.

It's a 2D photo so you can't say with 100% clarity but it looks to me like he's got him high in this still and even if he hadn't at that exact moment it would only have been a split second later given the force and momentum he's coming at Rankine with at this stage.

 

[JohnHinckleyJr]

Starcevich wasnt concussed.

In aware thats largely because Izak was lucky, but they grade on outcome not action.

So if I kick a football hit someone in the head knock him out I get suspended?

 

[EskimoPAFC]

So if I kick a football hit someone in the head knock him out I get suspended?

Honestly it wouldnt surprise me at this point.

At the very least you'd get a 5 minute monologue from Damien Barrett about whether its something we should add to the game.

 

[RangaInTeal]

It's a 2D photo so you can't say with 100% clarity but it looks to me like he's got him high in this still and even if he hadn't at that exact moment it would only have been a split second later given the force and momentum he's coming at Rankine with at this stage.

View attachment 2083094

Where was the first impact made? Like punching someone in the face but grazing the shoulder or chest on the way through.

 

[Kenny_Powers]

I always though the line was "if you elect to bump and get high you're gone"

I think it's grey, at least more-so than initially thought. I can absolutely see him missing the rest of the season, but I can also see the case that, from the stills and vision I've seen, he gets him purely chest on chest.

That's legal under the rules no? Enough so that people complaining about no free, what would a free technically have been for?

Having said that, and I'm absolutely no fan of Rankine, he's a bit of a grub himself, but genuinely hope the lads ok.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Portology]

If there was no head-contact he should be exonerated (he won’t be though, because the AFL is a clown car of feelings and implications).

If we applied the same logic to tackling, we’ll be suspending guys for holding the ball on the day, but there was a tangle of legs and the poor chap will miss 6 weeks with a medial ligament and seeing as ‘you chose to tackle’, etc

Don’t think so sadly because no head contact still doesn’t change the severity of the impact sorry “outcome” in AFL-House-speak.

Would have thought if there is head contact you can’t reasonably also call it intentional, but with body contact it’s got to be intentional doesn’t it? So it’s like chook raffle plus Port tax plus actual incentive for Crows to play up the severity (NB in no way suggesting medical negligence on their part) it all ends up the same either way :/

Four games, three if we’re “lucky”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fizzler]

Starcevich wasnt concussed.

In aware thats largely because Izak was lucky, but they grade on outcome not action.

A concussion results in 3 at a minimum, I know what you’re saying but I don’t think it’s a case of add 3 weeks to his 4 if he did concuss Starcevich. Maybe I’m mistaken, maybe it’s wishful thinking, but I just can’t see a reasonable judge giving Houston more than 4. Of course this implies there’s a reasonable judge and given it’s the AFL that probably won’t be the case.

 

[morell]

Could be argued that it was careless to the body and severe impact.

Which would be 2-3 weeks

Don't like our chances though

 

[TeeKray]

They'll want to make sure he doesn't have the possibility of playing in a grand final so it'll likely be 5.