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

[agmsy]

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

What are you talking about? The MRO has released a finding of careless conduct, high contact, and severe impact. The matrix says the case must be sent straight to the tribunal. A penalty isn't officially set until the tribunal hearing is concluded.

 

[FishingRick04]

What are you talking about? The MRO has released a finding of careless conduct, high contact, and severe impact. The matrix says the case must be sent straight to the tribunal. A penalty isn't officially set until the tribunal hearing is concluded.

When is that? I don’t follow this sideshow component overly well.

Just farcical the penalty it’s not addressed yet

 

[bomberclifford]

In today's AFL, would Choppy be suspended for this although both players went at each other for the hip and shoulder?

Biglands looked like Steady Eddy after that hit.

Classic.

 

[agmsy]

When is that?

Usually late afternoon or early evening on Tuesday.

Realistically, a hearing has to be two days after the match - it generally takes the MRO a day to release assessments and clubs/players get another day to decide if they want to challenge anything - but I can see why the AFL is not interested in holding separate tribunal sessions for players from Thursday/Friday/Saturday/Sunday games.

 

[philthy05]

Because most of Todd's recent concussions have been the result of Todd hitting opponents with his head.

There’s been plenty where Todd and other players have been competing for the ball.

Of course that shouldn’t be a suspension, but under the , make contact, player gets concussed = ban version of the rule this is where it gets funky.

 

[Powerade 08]

Usually late afternoon or early evening on Tuesday.

Realistically, a hearing has to be two days after the match - it generally takes the MRO a day to release assessments and clubs/players get another day to decide if they want to challenge anything - but I can see why the AFL is not interested in holding separate tribunal sessions for players from Thursday/Friday/Saturday/Sunday games.

and the decision handed down on Tuesday is guaranteed to be season over, so that we appeal and keep AFL in the news. We wont find out what the real punishment is till later.

 

[Festerz]

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

Tribunal tomorrow night.

MRO has handed the ball to the Tribunal meaning it will be up to the AFL counsel to act as the prosecution and argue for a number. (i.e. let's pretend that the MRO and the AFL aren't the same bloody thing).

AFL will announce its number tomorrow. Up to Port (who is majority owned by the AFL as well of course) to appoint the defence counsel to argue for something different.

Gotta love the AFL Cosplay Court. Just like the pretend trial thingy we used to do in high school. Surprised they don't go the whole hog and wear wigs and gowns as well FFS. Bring in the defendant via AFL guard and make him stand in the dock.

But of course we all know if this went anywhere near a real court room the lack of consistency in the rules of the game and how they are applied in relation to suspensions would see this thrown out of court on day one.

 

[NoddyHolder]

5 games ensures he has absolutely no chance of playing in the grand final if we make it but minimises the impact on whichever melbourne team he gets traded to next year

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

No, the risk you take is that you hit them high, which he did not do. So the act wasn't illegal, so the equation everyone is arguing over us legal contact + concussion = suspension? So what about concussion in marking contests? What if a player is concussed because they're hit by the footy?

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.




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

 

[Relativity]

Whately saying 5 as well pretty emphatically like he had some inside knowledge.

Whately's inside knowledge is limited to his large intestine. He needs to extract his head for a better view.

 

[Brian McGee]

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.

Except in the exact same scenario, thilthorpe took his eyes off the ball, bumped in to lachie jones while he was in the air, resulting in him hitting his head on the ground and requiring 20 mins off the ground to do a concussion assessment with not consequences. So it can be ignored whenever they like. It’s bullshit.

 

[Scodges]

One that doesn’t result in the opposition being taken off the ground on a stretcher.

Houston didn’t mean to cause the head knock but that’s the risk you take.

Doesn’t matter if the actual bump was body on body. It resulted in him slamming his head into the turf which he has a duty to prevent when he bumps.

There is no good or bad bump, it’s legal in the game of footy. The actual contact wasn’t head high.
Footy is a contact sport and any action could potentially result in a concussion, not just a bump.
Now if the bump was head high, then that’s a different story, but it wasn’t.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Vagabond0]

Under normal circumstances I think it gets 4+ but they might try to give a discount for finals. Probably not tho.

Remember SPP got 4 for something very minor and incidental

AFL have always gone hard on frees and suspensions early in the season and then peel it back by the time finals rolled around.

Rankine not being bent over with head over the ball and taking a direct hit to the head makes a difference as well.

 

[Duck Farmer]

All Dan has to do is change his name by deed poll to Brayden Maynard, & rock up to the AFL tribunal dressed in a Collingwood polo.

The AFL will see the prison bars, get confused, and let him off.

 

[True__Believer]

In today's AFL, would Choppy be suspended for this although both players went at each other for the hip and shoulder?

1.That was a perfect bump

2. Bring back that shade of teal

 

[PortWTF]

If they slow the footage down and zoom in and there is no head contact by Houston, we absolutely have to go hard that this is a football incident. It is hypocritical to say you can get suspended for LEGALLY contesting the ball with one action and not for another. Say you are contesting a mark. It is LEGAL to put your knee in the back of someones head, concussing them, but you will not get suspended for it. If the contest doesn't break a rule, then you should not be able to be suspended.

On 360 they mentioned there is no rule for a shoulder charge, which is exactly what this was. But Whately continues to say what Houston did was illegal.

There is a rule for rough conduct which includes a dangerous tackle. This is any tackle that could result in injury, such as slinging a player, riding someones head into the ground, pile driving etc. There is no rule for how hard you can do a body to body bump. As far as I'm aware every "bumping" suspension has been due to contact to the head by the bumping player. This would be uncharted territory and should be thrown out unless they can show in the guidelines that no contact to the head can still be suspendable.

 

[240volt]

Looking at that Pickett bump was Poetry in motion.
Almost 20 years ago now.

 

[chiwigi]

It'll be graded as careless/severe/high, there's basically no other way to grade it based on the way the gradings work. Even if we can successfully argue that Houston didn't get him high, Rankine hitting his head on the ground will be considered Houston's fault.

Our best bet is to argue that Houston is a fair player who was trying to make a play on the double fist spoiled ball, and made chest to chest contact with Rankine, turning slightly to avoid face to face contact that would have been far more horrific for both players.

He's getting weeks, he's probably serving some of his suspension next season, but we need to lay it on thick. Does he have a private school principal who can advocate for him?

It wasn’t careless

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.

That’s intended for sling tackles, not bumps.

 

[Chewy316]

Cleary reporting tonight the AFL are going to put forward a suggestion of 5 weeks at the tribunal tomorrow night.

 

[ElectricG]

Every now and then this old campaigner does something like this to get back in my almost-good books

 

[gbear]

Just looked at Houston’s last Instagram post from July 21st and the vitriol from the dumb ****s is disgusting,

 

[Pat07350]

Tribunal tomorrow night.

MRO has handed the ball to the Tribunal meaning it will be up to the AFL counsel to act as the prosecution and argue for a number. (i.e. let's pretend that the MRO and the AFL aren't the same bloody thing).

AFL will announce its number tomorrow. Up to Port (who is majority owned by the AFL as well of course) to appoint the defence counsel to argue for something different.

Gotta love the AFL Cosplay Court. Just like the pretend trial thingy we used to do in high school. Surprised they don't go the whole hog and wear wigs and gowns as well FFS. Bring in the defendant via AFL guard and make him stand in the dock.

But of course we all know if this went anywhere near a real court room the lack of consistency in the rules of the game and how they are applied in relation to suspensions would see this thrown out of court on day one.

Port need to take it to court, why not Collingwood threatened to. Then withdraw after the GF and Dan has premiership medal around his neck. He can serve his suspension with Melbourne and we can get their first 2 draft picks

If they slow the footage down and zoom in and there is no head contact by Houston, we absolutely have to go hard that this is a football incident. It is hypocritical to say you can get suspended for LEGALLY contesting the ball with one action and not for another. Say you are contesting a mark. It is LEGAL to put your knee in the back of someones head, concussing them, but you will not get suspended for it. If the contest doesn't break a rule, then you should not be able to be suspended.

On 360 they mentioned there is no rule for a shoulder charge, which is exactly what this was. But Whately continues to say what Houston did was illegal.

There is a rule for rough conduct which includes a dangerous tackle. This is any tackle that could result in injury, such as slinging a player, riding someones head into the ground, pile driving etc. There is no rule for how hard you can do a body to body bump. As far as I'm aware every "bumping" suspension has been due to contact to the head by the bumping player. This would be uncharted territory and should be thrown out unless they can show in the guidelines that no contact to the head can still be suspendable.

exactly, that is the difference. This will be the first concussion by bump where the bump was executed within the rules of the game. All others involved an “illegal” bump, in that the bump made contact with the head.

 

[JohnHinckleyJr]

In today's AFL, would Choppy be suspended for this although both players went at each other for the hip and shoulder?

Bock acting tough ..

Took it out on his missis later that night

 

[Port 2004]

Bock acting tough ..

Took it out on his missis later that night

After getting some drugs from his mum.

 

[240volt]

Just looked at Houston’s last Instagram post from July 21st and the vitriol from the dumb ****s is disgusting,

Your going to get this especially in Adelaide, two team town with lots of bad history between Port and the establishment.
Feral yes unexpected no.