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

[growly]

His role is replaceable in the mid-long term, but I don't reckon we can win it this year without him...

You will account for us by about 3 or 4 goals this week maybe more if our season is done by the time we play. You will finish 2nd and with all sides in the 8 having injuries and being inconsistent You are a big chance. Obviously you would prefer Dan there but your good enough to get it done without him

 

[Peninsula Boy]

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.

You're a hard man, TeeKray, a hard man.

 

[240volt]

You're a hard man, TeeKray, a hard man.

He’s turned full Sandgroper.

 

[davesnothere]

**** that's a fair hip and shoulder.

 

[MrChow]

Carlton interested but don’t wanna give their first rounder, then why are you chasing him. It’s two first rounders, if you don’t want to give 1 then don’t even look.

I get this time of year is full of bull crap trying to lower players trade value but my god that made me laugh this morning

I reckon as Carlton’s next years first might be Pick 14-18 - it’ll be this years first, next years first and Motlop - that’s about right

 

[MrMeaner]

Do we have good QC?

Well, I'm not a silk but I'm also not briefed.

 

[#Port Patriot#]

Houston is still Port Adelaide. He hasn't left yet. Back him and defend him right up to the last second. If anything, Houston deserves more than a lot, to be playing finals and potential the GF. It's really a bullshit shame this has happen because he has worked his arse off with and for the team and deserves to be playing at the end. Regardless of what happens after the season finishes up. I'd hate for him to miss playing and potentially winning the premiership... same way I'd hate it if Crows were in the run as well and Rankine missed out due to injury.

 

[#Port Patriot#]

I reckon as Carlton’s next years first might be Pick 14-18 - it’ll be this years first, next years first and Motlop - that’s about right

Not Motlop.

If Carlton want to talk then Port should demand their 1st round pick and Ashton Moir as a minimum with a future 2nd thrown in too.

Ashton Moir will be the goods.

 

[The Hobo]

I think it's a reasonable provision for the AFL to make.

Sure - then why isn't in the rules?

Take the blurred lines out - if they want the bumper to assume all responsibility, that's fine - put it in the rules. Then we don't get varied interpretations throughout the season depending on who the player is and what team he plays for etc.

 

[Hot Port]

Dan, don’t go to Carlton. Most hated club after the crows

 

[Jello_B]

We need a top 10 pick this year for Dan.

 

[dirty2]

If Carlton don't want to do 2 1st round picks for Houston then trade for their current 1st round pick #11 or #12, 3rd round and Ashton Moir.

How has Ashton moir gone over there? Was highly rated junior.

 

[Vic_Vinegar]

How has Ashton moir gone over there? Was highly rated junior.

Played his first game on the weekend and kicked a very nice goal.

 

[agmsy]

Sure - then why isn't in the rules?

I believe this is addressed in 4.2.c of the 2024 tribunal guidelines. 4.2 explains how the classification of reportable offences is determined, and 4.2.c relates specifically to determining if contact is high (or to the groin) vs. to the body.

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2024/03/13/bfe20552-9e6a-4464-88b6-509b31d77ed8/2024-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

Here's the passage I think is relevant:

Contact shall be classified as High or to the Groin where a Player’s head or groin makes contact with another Player or object such as the fence or the ground as a result of the actions of the offending Player.

Here's 4.2.c in its entirety (I've bolded and italicised the previously quoted passage for emphasis):

(C) CONTACT
The MRO will consider whether Contact to the Victim Player was High/to the Groin or to the Body. In the interests of protecting the health and welfare of Players, sanctions for head-high contact and contact to the groin will be more severe.
High contact is not limited to contact to the head and includes contact to the top of the shoulders.
A classification of High contact may apply for a Careless or Intentional Dangerous Tackle (refer section 4.3(e)(3) below) which has the potential
for injury to be caused through dangerous high contact with the ground but where high contact does not actually occur.
Contact to the Groin includes contact to the crease or hollow at the junction of the inner part of each thigh with the trunk together with the adjacent region and including the testicles.
Where contact is both High and to the Body, the MRO will usually classify the contact as High.
Contact shall be classified as High or to the Groin where a Player’s head or groin makes contact with another Player or object such as the fence or the ground as a result of the actions of the offending Player.
By way of example, should a Player tackle another Player around the waist and, as a result of the tackle, the tackled Player’s head made forceful contact with the fence or the ground, the contact in these circumstances would be classified as High, even though the tackle was to the body.
However, the MRO has the discretion to grade contact as Body contact rather than High contact where the Body impact would result in a more significant sanction.

 

[PortWTF]

I believe this is addressed in 4.2.c of the 2024 tribunal guidelines. 4.2 explains how the classification of reportable offences is determined, and 4.2.c relates specifically to determining if contact is high (or to the groin) vs. to the body.

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2024/03/13/bfe20552-9e6a-4464-88b6-509b31d77ed8/2024-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

Here's the passage I think is relevant:



Here's 4.2.c in its entirety (I've bolded and italicised the previously quoted passage for emphasis):

This is why I think it is important that we argue he was concussed as a result of whiplash, and not by contact with the ground. Get off from their own rules on a technicality

 

[OneGreatClub]

Can the tribunal be followed online?

 

[Port2Power]

Can the tribunal be followed online?

Yes use this link below and scroll to the bottom.

Its a live update

Tribunal LIVE: ‘F***ing dog act’ could end star’s season; Giant fails appeal after key admission

Tribunal LIVE: ‘F***ing dog act’ could end star’s season; Giant fails appeal after key admission

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[OneGreatClub]

Rankine suffered an AC joint injury from point of contact

 

[Waspy79]

Port need to highlight that there is no evidence of high contact, and they need to highlight the grading for rankine that resulted in a 4 week ban.

Those two things alone mean the ban can be no longer than 3 games. No one with any logical deduction ability could pursue a ban longer than 3 games. Another test of the leagues integrity at stake tonight.

 

[#Port Patriot#]

Port need to highlight that there is no evidence of high contact, and they need to highlight the grading for rankine that resulted in a 4 week ban.

Those two things alone mean the ban can be no longer than 3 games. No one with any logical deduction ability could pursue a ban longer than 3 games. Another test of the leagues integrity at stake tonight.

The AFL are claiming he hit him on the shoulders and neck. Wanting 5 weeks. They'll get what they want regardless. AFL is corrupt.

Should offer to give money to threaten legal action through supreme courts against the AFL for it

 

[melanChronic]

Hannon saying it's 'toward the higher end of carelessness' and that has been factored into their proposed sanction of 5 weeks. When the last case to pass through tribunal was graded intentional+severe+high and they only proposed 4.

Wtf

 

[b0ydman Jr]

3 games, 5 games, I don't care how long he's banned for since he's decided relocating to Melbourne over a girlfriend is more important than honouring a long-term contract he willingly signed. As long as we get 2 first round picks for him I don't care what happens to him.

 

[#Port Patriot#]

Hannon saying it's 'toward the higher end of carelessness' and that has been factored into their proposed sanction of 5 weeks. When the last case to pass through tribunal was graded intentional+severe+high and they only proposed 4.

Wtf

Yeah, she and AFL are just trying to crucify Houston now. Just to appease Crows and at the same time screw Port come finals.

If these clowns had any decency and compassion, they'd just state 3 weeks and downgraded to 2 weeks because of no suspensions etc prior. Accidents happen.

 

[OneGreatClub]

I can see the verdict now.
Sorry Dan, checks notes, ah not one of the good blokes from big Vic club, so you get to miss any potential GF.

 

[OneGreatClub]

3 games, 5 games, I don't care how long he's banned for since he's decided relocating to Melbourne over a girlfriend is more important than honouring a long-term contract he willingly signed. As long as we get 2 first round picks for him I don't care what happens to him.

And our finals campaign?