Maybe they can say that in the appeal, but I don’t think they will appeal now unless they think they can get it down to 3.
-
LIVE: GWS Giants v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Lions at 65% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Semi Finals
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round FW1 Winner: TBA!
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 3 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Player Watch Rookie Pick #45 (2015) - Dan Houston
- Thread starter Macca19
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Tom Papley says hi.
- Aug 4, 2015
- 1,554
- 2,719
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
You’ve got no idea what he’s decided to do, his constant response has been “I love being at Port I wouldn’t have signed if I didn’t want to be there”. How about take him at his word until he proves otherwise.
As usual the rule of no big player getting rubbed out for grand finals no matter what they do suddenly changes once Ports involved.
Pathetic bush league.
Pathetic bush league.
Look at the bright side, the chances of missing a grand final are incredibly low with Kenny Hinkley at the helm
The media has been negligent in this whole thing as usual when it comes to Port. Where's the questioning of the actual rule? Everyone just talks about the look and the outcome. Like Ken used to say, you get what you deserve and as a club we don't take defending ourselves seriously in situations like this. One of the few mouthpieces we have in the media from Port in Kane Cornes basically hung him. Everyone else went with a "no comment" / "we'll see what happens" type response. Spineless. At least try and get some bloody black and white clarity on which exact part of the rules were broken. For us to not even be able to meet them halfway at 4 given it was at the contest of the ball and he didn't hit him high is a joke.
Lmao it was always gonna be multiple weeks from the moment it happened.
The only thing irritating about it is we don't get the "let players off because they might make a grand final and they're a star" treatment. Which shouldn't happen anyway. That's the hard to swallow part.
You bump someone and they get ktfo, regardless of whether its the ground that did it or what, you're always getting big weeks these days.
The only thing irritating about it is we don't get the "let players off because they might make a grand final and they're a star" treatment. Which shouldn't happen anyway. That's the hard to swallow part.
You bump someone and they get ktfo, regardless of whether its the ground that did it or what, you're always getting big weeks these days.
Port_Girl_92
Senior List
- Mar 8, 2019
- 223
- 704
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Ok, Thilthorpe bumped Lachie Jones (tunelled him) and Jones hit his head on the ground.
Careless, low impact (because no concussion), high contact - automatically 1 week.
And to add to this, there was contact made with the neck which per the guidelines is considered high contact, it's not just the head.
The only issue I have with us the MRO's reasoning:
"He had time to think, he had time to weigh up his options. He had time and the clear opportunity to tackle. He chose to run at speed for several meters and forcefully bumped Rankine."
I think quoting the above and giving 5 is the part I'm mad about. 4 weeks would've probably been the right decision, 3 if they decided to apply the good bloke clause.
- Jul 1, 2014
- 7,886
- 8,767
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls Man Utd
Several meters
Such a bush league, concerned only about their own (VFL) interests.
We are basically an NPC…
We are basically an NPC…
Houston should have just ran in to him at the same speed but wrapped his arms around Rankine as well to make it look like a tackle. Then they'd find it harder to suspend him.
Pretty much.
- Nov 6, 2014
- 62,899
- 78,904
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Well we are getting tough on the field, maybe time to get tough at the trade table. I see his skill as almost irreplaceable.
The irony here is that Dan is being punished for protecting himself and rankine failing to protect himself
If Dan hasn’t of done that both blokes would be in hospital, probably with steel plates going into their faces.
We’re punishing players for making fraction of a second self preservation decisions, and encouraging players to open themselves up to more damage.
What a shitshow
If Dan hasn’t of done that both blokes would be in hospital, probably with steel plates going into their faces.
We’re punishing players for making fraction of a second self preservation decisions, and encouraging players to open themselves up to more damage.
What a shitshow
Agree 100%. This is the angle our defence should've taken.
Scodges
All Australian
- Sep 22, 2023
- 986
- 1,216
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Straight to the best plastic surgeon, apparently he’ll come out looking like Burton.
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
TeeKray
Moderator
Port Adelaide - Allir Allir Player Sponsor 2021
Port Adelaide - Kane Farrell Player Sponsor 2021
Port Adelaide Forum Tipping Champion
Bring Back the Bars
Port Adelaide - Connor Rozee Player Sponsor 2020
Port Adelaide - Zak Butters 2019 Player Sponsor
Port Adelaide - Jack Watts Player Sponsor 2018
Port Adelaide - Riley Bonner Player Sponsor 2016
- Moderator
- #2,372
That's a terrible angle, the AFL would rightly have said you have the choice to not approach the contest like a bull at a gate when you have no reasonable prospect of winning the football. Houston made the conscious decision to execute a bump when he had multiple alternatives (tackle or stand off the contest and just pressure). You wear the outcome of that action.
The real issue here is the lack of media and tribunal leniency for the fact that the concussion was secondary to the action (ie occurring when his head hit the ground). That was the angle that almost certainly would've been used to get a Victorian player off lightly, probably with 3 weeks.
The real issue here is the lack of media and tribunal leniency for the fact that the concussion was secondary to the action (ie occurring when his head hit the ground). That was the angle that almost certainly would've been used to get a Victorian player off lightly, probably with 3 weeks.
I’m not arguing that should have been our defence, of course the afl wouldn’t give a shit.
But I’m pointing out the obvious that we do punish players who instinctively protect themselves in collisions.
But I’m pointing out the obvious that we do punish players who instinctively protect themselves in collisions.
Its not that the rules are wrong or that the penalty is wrong.
Its that every single time they need to apply the rules consistently to a big team in a big situation they find some way to get out of it, but then when it comes to Port we just have to accept it. Every single time.
Its that every single time they need to apply the rules consistently to a big team in a big situation they find some way to get out of it, but then when it comes to Port we just have to accept it. Every single time.
Also saying this is only 2 weeks less than Webster's is insanity.
Similar threads
