Dan Houston

[QPower]

Whateley is a good commentator of the game.

As an anchor of an opinion show, he is insufferably pompous and tedious.

 

[melanChronic]

Whateley is a good commentator of the game.

As an anchor of an opinion show, he is insufferably pompous and tedious.

Nah he's legit just shit at commentary as well. Hides behind overwrought scripts that he prepares and doesn't have any feel for the moment or spontaneity. Him on the Olympics was painful, should just stick to his safe place SEN.

 

[El_Scorcho]

It wasn’t careless

What's the alternative though, intentional?

I don't think we're going to be argue it wasn't a reportable incident at all given a vulnerable player who was directly in front of Houston as he approached the contest was knocked out. Rankine didn't change direction or so anything else to effect Houston's ability to stay within his duty of care.It's a pretty classic rough conduct. It's not a particularly notable one but it is one.

One idea is to flood the media with people sad that a stand up guy and fair player who has never been suspended will miss a grand final if he gets 4. Does Houston have a school principal we could get in the media?

 

[ElectricG]

Will Waleed make a statement

 

[theouthouse]

Nah he's legit just shit at commentary as well. Hides behind overwrought scripts that he prepares and doesn't have any feel for the moment or spontaneity. Him on the Olympics was painful, should just stick to his safe place SEN.

His call of the men or womens 1500 metre in true Horse-racing style was my favourite olympics moment.

 

[Progressive Aggresion]

I think a really important point to raise would be as to whether or not he would remain involved in a leadership capacity for the finals if he can't play, or if he'd instead start thinking about his future on a shorter turnaround.

SPP is another leadership group member who can't play finals and I'm uncertain of how much he's doing for us off the field atm, so if Houston was to basically distance himself effective immediately we'd only have Rozee (C) Butters (VC) and Drew as on field leaders. Which would be a very streamlined group compared to what we went into the year with.

 

[TeeKray]

Unpopular opinion but there's no point in being invested in this. He's going to be out for the season and there's nothing we can do about it. He's also now for all intents and purposes a former Port player so my investment in him as a player is effectively nil.

Yes we all know it would be different if it was a Victorian club. That's just part of the institutional bias in this league that is well told. Move past it and get on with business.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Nah he's legit just shit at commentary as well. Hides behind overwrought scripts that he prepares and doesn't have any feel for the moment or spontaneity. Him on the Olympics was painful, should just stick to his safe place SEN.

He was trying way too hard to be Bruce McAvaney. It was embarrassing and cringeworthy.

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Malibu#27]

1.That was a perfect bump

2. Bring back that shade of teal

It was fair then and fair now imo. If anyone was at fault it was Biglands who tried to pick Pickett off as he chased Bock.

 

[DaTBird187]

When is the tribunal date?

Cancelled. No longer required.

Firing Squad booked in for Wednesday at noon.

 

[Waspy79]

The grading of high contact is even more absurd when you consider that a free kick wasn’t paid due to the contact not being high. Figure that one out

It caused a brain injury, that’s the reasoning, which isn’t unreasonable.

However in the absence of any definitive proof of Houston impacting Rankine high, and if the lawyer is smart, then the argument must be this was a referred / incidental concussion which should make the penalty no more than 3 weeks.

 

[Janey]

When is this all happening? Can’t believe it’s Monday night and penalty isn’t even handed

Tuesday night at the Tribunal.

 

[Janey]

Unpopular opinion but there's no point in being invested in this. He's going to be out for the season and there's nothing we can do about it. He's also now for all intents and purposes a former Port player so my investment in him as a player is effectively nil.

Yes we all know it would be different if it was a Victorian club. That's just part of the institutional bias in this league that is well told. Move past it and get on with business.

Until (if) Dan leaves us, he’s still Port Adelaide to me, and I'll be invested till then.

 

[philthy05]

The risk is that you take a certain action that causes the other player to hit their head in a reasonably foreseen circumstance.

It’s written into their guidelines that contact between players does not have to be between the players to be classified as high contact or severe. Causing another player to have severe contact with the ground is classified as high contact still.

It is a reasonably foreseeable circumstance that given the actions Houston took, that it could result in impact to Rankine head. Which it did.

The fact it was the ground or Houston makes no difference here. It’s written in black and white in the tribunal classification.


View attachment 2084972

This one isn’t an example of us being the victim as a little club.

You can say this is the case all you like, except in reality you’re wrong.

What you’re saying means every single marking contest where a player gets concussed should result in a ban, when in actual fact that never happens.


Let’s be real, the afl decides when and where to apply this rule. There absolutely is not, never had been and never will be a blanket, your contact caused this concussion whether by head hit or not Banhammer.


What you and others are mistaking , is that the afl has left the rules deliberately vague so they can apply them when and how they like, and if they want to apply a , you concussed this player regardless of where you hit him rule I’m positive they could do it. It’s just not a certain rule that exists in the way people are making it out to be. There’s just no way the afl wants to be boxed into making calls they don’t want to make.

We all know if this was nick daicos there just wouldn’t be the same application.

 

[Schulzenfest]

You can say this is the case all you like, except in reality you’re wrong.

What you’re saying means every single marking contest where a player gets concussed should result in a ban, when in actual fact that never happens.


Let’s be real, the afl decides when and where to apply this rule. There absolutely is not, never had been and never will be a blanket, your contact caused this concussion whether by head hit or not Banhammer.

There's still a bit of grey area with tackling, but can you recall a single bump this year that resulted in a concussion but didn't end in a ban? Because I can't.

 

[Waspy79]

There's still a bit of grey area with tackling, but can you recall a single bump this year that resulted in a concussion but didn't end in a ban? Because I can't.

I remain gob-smacked BZT stray arm on Naughton wasn’t punished particularly after Heeney later was. That wasn’t a bump but it’s the closest thing I can point to as being inconsistent with the duty of care position.

 

[glitch01]

Unpopular opinion but there's no point in being invested in this. He's going to be out for the season and there's nothing we can do about it. He's also now for all intents and purposes a former Port player so my investment in him as a player is effectively nil.

Yes we all know it would be different if it was a Victorian club. That's just part of the institutional bias in this league that is well told. Move past it and get on with business.

Might have to agree to disagree.
As far as I’m concerned he’s a Port player until he isn’t. As such we should be getting the best possible outcome for him.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[JB1989]

Unpopular opinion but there's no point in being invested in this. He's going to be out for the season and there's nothing we can do about it. He's also now for all intents and purposes a former Port player so my investment in him as a player is effectively nil.

Yes we all know it would be different if it was a Victorian club. That's just part of the institutional bias in this league that is well told. Move past it and get on with business.

Sorry this is a terrible post! Are you Koch in disguise? Let's be the good guys and give in to any decision the MRO? And your investment in Houston is nil because you think he's leaving? That's absolutely embarrassing coming from a Port Adelaide supporter! Absolute Zero loyalty, pathetic... go get a crows membership!

Fight tooth and nail and do our best to appeal any sh!t decision. Houston is a Port Adelaide Player he belongs to us! He still has a contract with us and until he signs a contract with any other club (which he might not). We should have his back until the end!

 

[KrispyKremeMullanikka]

Unpopular opinion but there's no point in being invested in this. He's going to be out for the season and there's nothing we can do about it. He's also now for all intents and purposes a former Port player so my investment in him as a player is effectively nil.

Yes we all know it would be different if it was a Victorian club. That's just part of the institutional bias in this league that is well told. Move past it and get on with business.

With all due respect but we should be backing Dan to the hill and back; he’s done so much good for our club, and he’s a great bloke off the pitch.

We should give him and his family all the support that they need during this tough period, not just wipe our hands with and be done with Dan. He’s most likely leaving for a Victorian club next season, and who knows, he might not go, especially if a vic club is not willing to part with two first-rounders. There's still a chance he could be here next season, a slim one, but still a chance, none the less.

Until he's officially traded, he’s a Port player, and his shoulder still keeps on supporting him, but that’s just my view on the matter.

 

[backtozero]

Unpopular opinion but there's no point in being invested in this. He's going to be out for the season and there's nothing we can do about it. He's also now for all intents and purposes a former Port player so my investment in him as a player is effectively nil.

Yes we all know it would be different if it was a Victorian club. That's just part of the institutional bias in this league that is well told. Move past it and get on with business.

Get on with business? Like winning a premiership?
Do you think this is possible, despite the institutional bias?

 

[philthy05]

There's still a bit of grey area with tackling, but can you recall a single bump this year that resulted in a concussion but didn't end in a ban? Because I can't.

Bump? No, but the posters weren’t quoting passages and talking purely about bumps, they explicitly were saying “contact”

Arguing letter of the law while ignoring that the letter of the law has never been applied is what I’m addressing.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

You can say this is the case all you like, except in reality you’re wrong.

What you’re saying means every single marking contest where a player gets concussed should result in a ban, when in actual fact that never happens.


Let’s be real, the afl decides when and where to apply this rule. There absolutely is not, never had been and never will be a blanket, your contact caused this concussion whether by head hit or not Banhammer.


What you and others are mistaking , is that the afl has left the rules deliberately vague so they can apply them when and how they like, and if they want to apply a , you concussed this player regardless of where you hit him rule I’m positive they could do it. It’s just not a certain rule that exists in the way people are making it out to be. There’s just no way the afl wants to be boxed into making calls they don’t want to make.

We all know if this was nick daicos there just wouldn’t be the same application.

Again, marking contests would be covered under this point here in the classification.

“The player was contesting the ball and it was reasonable for the player to contest the ball in that way”. Contesting the ball in a marking contest which results in concussion is a football accident unless someone is cannoning into someone or acting in a way which is not considered reasonable (aka 2MP earlier), or Cameron who got multiple weeks for elbowing Andrews a couple years ago in a marking contest.

So the reality is, your wrong Philly.

Bumps resulting in concussion have been multiple week suspensions all year.

And before you jump in and say it, Houston wasn’t contesting the ball in this situation as Rankine already had control of the ball. It wasn’t in dispute and he could have tackled.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Unpopular opinion but there's no point in being invested in this. He's going to be out for the season and there's nothing we can do about it. He's also now for all intents and purposes a former Port player so my investment in him as a player is effectively nil.

Yes we all know it would be different if it was a Victorian club. That's just part of the institutional bias in this league that is well told. Move past it and get on with business.

I'm not sure on this.

I do think for sure he isn't gonna be here next week or for at least our first two finals though, which is essentially the same thing. We need to focus on winning a knock out final without him - something we haven't done since 2014.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Until (if) Dan leaves us, he’s still Port Adelaide to me, and I'll be invested till then.

This might be the most unpopular opinion ever, but I'll still be invested and support him even at the Dees (apart from when they're playing us). Once a Port man always a Port man, unless you leave the wrong way. For a pick 45 to end up being one of our best players for the past 6 years and at the end of it all if he can net us a good return like a couple first rounders or a player he's more than upheld his end of the bargain when we drafted him.

Never stopped supporting Trengove, Amon, Frampton or Polly, and if we don't make the GF this year I'll absolutely be supporting Kinga to get it done.

 

[PA88]

The mechanics of the contact from the bump can be legal, but the outcome determines the consequence, because there's a choice, an alternative ... just like there is in any other action of the game ... but the bump is to be policed differently, because players don't have to bump ... but they don't have to go in for a contested mark or lift the knee to the back of the head etc ... there's umpteen choices that a player doesn't have to legally execute ... but the execution of the bump is viewed like a weapon if the outcome is undesirable.

This shit just sets up players.