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

[Lighthouse End]

They also don't prevent accidents just like this won't.

Spot on. The parallels here are frightening. The AFL are using exactly the same Orwellian brainwashing tactics to assuage the softkoks and brainless that this is about safety. In a situation where contact is an intrinsic part of the game, there are always going to be collisions and injuries. You can't legislate against that unless you want to completely change the game.
What sort of milksop society are we living in these days? Makes me glad I'm nudging retirement age.

 

[TeeKray]

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.

Instinctively protect themselves in collisions they created and in doing so give the player they're colliding with less time to take evasive action than they as the initiator have.

 

[Pat07350]

Instinctively protect themselves in collisions they created and in doing so give the player they're colliding with less time to take evasive action than they as the initiator have.

It was a fair bump. If he fell a different way, we would have been applauding him.

 

[TeeKray]

It was a fair bump. If he fell a different way, we would have been applauding him.

The tribunal found that the bump was high so it was not a fair bump.

 

[Pat07350]

The tribunal found that the bump was high so it was not a fair bump.

And we didn’t challenge them in any way. High has always been over shoulder and above. Any other injury he received could have been sustained by contact with the ground.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I watched the second half last night and saw the bump in the context of the play not just an incident in isolation and it was just a bump. Houston did all he could to mitigate the impact, he didn't jump into him, he didn't make contact to the head, he compacted his body to try and make it all body on body contact.

Go and watch Davies run hip first into Lachie Jones's head or Peter Wright nearly decapitate Harry Cunningham and tell me how they were lesser acts than this bump. Don't even worry about Webster on Simpkin that was so far off the scale it's a speck in the distance. And yet that was only 2 games more than Houston's.

But I read the tribunal reasoning that RussellEbertHandball posted and I realise the script for this outcome was written before the tribunal was held. It wouldn't matter what we went in there and argued because the decision was already made. It was an appeasement to the baying mob and it's always easy to provide mob justice to the clubs they perceive as lesser.

We should still appeal, because Dan deserves our support and try to highlight the inconsistencies of sentencing. The AFL wants theatre, let's give it to them.

My personal POV is if he was given 3 weeks we were making out like bandits given the room temperature. But even then, let's for argument's sake say we went straight to a GF, would you pick Houston after 5 weeks without any competitive football and a team that had made it there?

 

[Lighthouse End]

Another way to look at this is perhaps the fact that smart players instinctively know how to avoid the worst collisions. A perfect example - Travis Boak

10

Travis Boak

Age

36

Ht

183cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

23.7

5star

K

11.6

4star

HB

12.0

5star

M

3.7

4star

T

4.4

5star

CL

4.6

5star

D

22.0

5star

K

11.0

4star

HB

11.0

5star

M

2.4

3star

T

4.4

5star

CL

4.9

5star

D

16.4

4star

K

7.4

3star

HB

9.0

5star

M

5.4

5star

T

2.4

4star

's Dad, Roger, was targeted by us at Queenscliff ( and most of the other clubs in the Bellarine League as well ) every time we played Torquay not because he was a showboater like Rankine, but simply because he was a matchwinner and a player who was almost impossible to curtail, and couldn't be put off his game by sledging and trash talk. But he was smart enough to be prepared for it and have a trick bag full of evasive tactics. Perhaps therein lies the difference.

 

[Schulzenfest]

But even then, let's for argument's sake say we went straight to a GF, would you pick Houston after 5 weeks without any competitive football and a team that had made it there?

Yes, absolutely.

 

[bringbackbucky]

The tribunal found that the bump was high so it was not a fair bump.

Well the tribunal was wrong. It was a fair bump. No free kick. Play on. If they don't want bumps like that, change the rules.

 

[davesnothere]

I watched the second half last night and saw the bump in the context of the play not just an incident in isolation and it was just a bump. Houston did all he could to mitigate the impact, he didn't jump into him, he didn't make contact to the head, he compacted his body to try and make it all body on body contact.

Go and watch Davies run hip first into Lachie Jones's head or Peter Wright nearly decapitate Harry Cunningham and tell me how they were lesser acts than this bump. Don't even worry about Webster on Simpkin that was so far off the scale it's a speck in the distance. And yet that was only 2 games more than Houston's.

But I read the tribunal reasoning that RussellEbertHandball posted and I realise the script for this outcome was written before the tribunal was held. It wouldn't matter what we went in there and argued because the decision was already made. It was an appeasement to the baying mob and it's always easy to provide mob justice to the clubs they perceive as lesser.

We should still appeal, because Dan deserves our support and try to highlight the inconsistencies of sentencing. The AFL wants theatre, let's give it to them.

My personal POV is if he was given 3 weeks we were making out like bandits given the room temperature. But even then, let's for argument's sake say we went straight to a GF, would you pick Houston after 5 weeks without any competitive football and a team that had made it there?

He's a skinny little athlete with sublime skills.

He'd run the game out and skill is skill it's not like he's us.

 

[philthy05]

Instinctively protect themselves in collisions they created and in doing so give the player they're colliding with less time to take evasive action than they as the initiator have.

He didn’t create the collision, he was running up field when it got fisted back towards him, he had fractions of a second to react.


If you want to see how quick that is there’s reaction time tests on your phone. You’ll struggle to move your finger quicker than the time your expecting a player running at 20-30km to stop / turn.

 

[Macca19]

I always look at it like if the roles were reversed and Fogarty did that to Evans/Houston/anyone we’d probably be all wanting 5 weeks

 

[port_adelaide_1870]

I always look at it like if the roles were reversed and Fogarty did that to Evans/Houston/anyone we’d probably be all wanting 5 weeks

Genuine question

If it was Bont or Daicos do you think they would get 5 weeks?

 

[EskimoPAFC]

I watched the second half last night and saw the bump in the context of the play not just an incident in isolation and it was just a bump. Houston did all he could to mitigate the impact, he didn't jump into him, he didn't make contact to the head, he compacted his body to try and make it all body on body contact.

Go and watch Davies run hip first into Lachie Jones's head or Peter Wright nearly decapitate Harry Cunningham and tell me how they were lesser acts than this bump. Don't even worry about Webster on Simpkin that was so far off the scale it's a speck in the distance. And yet that was only 2 games more than Houston's.

But I read the tribunal reasoning that RussellEbertHandball posted and I realise the script for this outcome was written before the tribunal was held. It wouldn't matter what we went in there and argued because the decision was already made. It was an appeasement to the baying mob and it's always easy to provide mob justice to the clubs they perceive as lesser.

We should still appeal, because Dan deserves our support and try to highlight the inconsistencies of sentencing. The AFL wants theatre, let's give it to them.

My personal POV is if he was given 3 weeks we were making out like bandits given the room temperature. But even then, let's for argument's sake say we went straight to a GF, would you pick Houston after 5 weeks without any competitive football and a team that had made it there?

Yes.

 

[PortWTF]

Remember earlier this year against Hawthorn when Josh Sinn was bumped, set up by a hospital ball, he broke his collarbone or something, and was out for 4 weeks? Was there no duty of care in that instance? He was seriously injured.

 

[theouthouse]

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.

I have to respectfully disagree.

Running back with the flight of the ball has always been the most courageous thing on a footy field. With very very good reason. It's the most dangerous thing to do. Always has been, always will be for the very simple fact AFL is a 360 degree sport and players come from all directions to contest the bal.

Rankine has taken the conscious decision to do this, courageous as it is, and as dangerous as it is. And also as stupid as it is. Where is his duty of care in choosing to contest the ball?

Players and the AFL ought to be instructed that choosing to contest the ball when going back with the flight automatically means they do not have the right to contest the ball in the air.

Not just in this instance but in many cases. Ie Wright from Essendon, it cuts out that head on impact which causes these severe knocks.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

I always look at it like if the roles were reversed and Fogarty did that to Evans/Houston/anyone we’d probably be all wanting 5 weeks

But the thing is that it should come down to the tribunal to make the fair decision.

Tingles want 5 weeks. Stupid extremists want 8.

Port fans want 3 weeks. People who want footy to be what it was 10 years ago want 0.

The reasonable middle ground has always been 4, from the moment it happened.

They've given him 5 specifically to rub him out from any chance of a GF.

 

[ringaringa]

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.

Tunnelling is as bad as a sling tackle / shirt-front. It has arguably greater consequences to the neck and head of the receiver and should be treated by the AFL in the same way.

 

[bringbackbucky]

I have to respectfully disagree.

Running back with the flight of the ball has always been the most courageous thing on a footy field. With very very good reason. It's the most dangerous thing to do. Always has been, always will be for the very simple fact AFL is a 360 degree sport and players come from all directions to contest the bal.

Rankine has taken the conscious decision to do this, courageous as it is, and as dangerous as it is. And also as stupid as it is. Where is his duty of care in choosing to contest the ball?

Players and the AFL ought to be instructed that choosing to contest the ball when going back with the flight automatically means they do not have the right to contest the ball in the air.

Not just in this instance but in many cases. Ie Wright from Essendon, it cuts out that head on impact which causes these severe knocks.

I've actually been thinking about this for a while. I've wondered whether a 'right of way' could be some how be brought in...

Still think the head knocks in marking contests is the next big issue, after they figure out what to do with the bump (which they won't).

 

[bringbackbucky]

Tunnelling is as bad as a sling tackle / shirt-front. It has arguably greater consequences to the neck and head of the receiver and should be treated by the AFL in the same way.

Yep. Just ask Danny Morton about potential ramifications...

 

[Janey]

Yep. Just ask Danny Morton about potential ramifications...

All these years later the vision of that is still one of the worst things I’ve seen in a game.

 

[Schulzenfest]

I always look at it like if the roles were reversed and Fogarty did that to Evans/Houston/anyone we’d probably be all wanting 5 weeks

It's not whether Fogarty would get 5 weeks I'm worried about, it's whether Daicos/Cripps/Bontempelli would get 5 weeks.

 

[bringbackbucky]

All these years later the vision of that is still one of the worst things I’ve seen in a game.

Agree. Wasn't any malice in it, but the outcome was horrible. Lucky to walk again.

 

[malcheski]

I think the one thing that really chafes my crack is that if Rankine got up, Houston would be put on the video next year for how to execute a hard but legal bump.

This outcome based tribunal ruling is purely virtue signalling from an organisation who is too afraid to ban the bump but wants to avoid a future class action from head knocks. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

It's not whether Fogarty would get 5 weeks I'm worried about, it's whether Daicos/Cripps/Bontempelli would get 5 weeks.

Flogarty probably would have gotten 6, honestly.