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

[Palpatine_Power]

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.

I wonder if there's a bit of goodwill 'payback' for the Adelaide goal last year too, as pathetic as that sounds.

Whoever said they specifically picked 5 weeks is spot on, they manufactured that exact number so he can't play in a GF which is very on-brand for them, especially considering the "interstate" factor.

Also, they didn't give a single shit about Houston's good record. Not one.

 

[proman_x]

Looked to me like a fair hard bump. The sport will eventually be called touch football at the rate of rule perception and change. With sweet FA all contact being allowed

 

[b0ydman Jr]

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.

Since the crows player got concussed, the AFL is definitely more concerned about future concussion-related lawsuits than some angry fans. No surprised.

And it's not just the AFL panicking with concussions & head injuries - just about every contact sport globally is similarly positioned

 

[Jojay]

 

[Papa G]

Absolutely they should. We seem to have terrible legal representation though.

The AFL can get ****ed. Fair Bump. The line “We do not consider the consequence of missing finals and potentially a grand final impacts the sanction that should be imposed, particularly for such a serious breach and such a significant injury.” incensed me. Except all the times in the past that it has. Port should show some balls for once. Call out their hypocrisy. Houston's contrition should have started and ended with "I feel sorry for him he got concussed".

 

[Interstater]

Further evidence that Port should have a Board that isn't influenced by being appointed by the AFL.

 

[bringbackbucky]

Any chance they attend in person, rather than trying to win a GF via Microsoft Teams?

 

[Ant Bear]

What would be ironic is if Dan was traded to a Victorian club and we're drawn to play them in round 1 next year...

We should be arguing for a 3 game ban; failing that, up it to 8!

 

[Jojay]

Any chance they attend in person, rather than trying to win a GF via Microsoft Teams?

The question should be, any chance we can get some decent legal representation...

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Good. Didn't think we had it in us, honestly.

Appeal and keep appealing. Whatever it takes.

 

[JohnHinckleyJr]

Who are we appealing to ?

The same jobbers ?

 

[simba_]

Goodbye, Dan.

 

[bringbackbucky]

I still haven't seen what rule he broke? Even the Umpires have doubled down that he didn't break a rule to warrant a free kick. I don't understand how no rule can be broken, but you can be suspended?

We should take a leaf out of Glenelg's book and take it all the way to the Supreme Court...

 

[Jojay]

So 5 weeks suspension for a legal bump then. Cool.

 

[El_Scorcho]

This whole "top of the shoulder" argument is just insane. If both players enter the contest from an upright position, it's difficult to make contact with the top of someones shoulder even if you take their head off.

They're trying to insinuate high contact that didn't really occur, which may actually help us in the appeal. The top of the shoulder faces up. Houston didn't hit Rankine there. High on the shoulder, sure, but not at the top of the shoulder.

If they just prosecuted it based on what actually happened (Houston hit Rankine carelessly hard in a vulnerable position that Rankine hit his head on the ground) they'd probably leave us less room to argue against it.

 

[PortWTF]

This whole "top of the shoulder" argument is just insane. If both players enter the contest from an upright position, it's difficult to make contact with the top of someones shoulder even if you take their head off.

They're trying to insinuate high contact that didn't really occur, which may actually help us in the appeal. The top of the shoulder faces up. Houston didn't hit Rankine there. High on the shoulder, sure, but not at the top of the shoulder.

If they just prosecuted it based on what actually happened (Houston hit Rankine carelessly hard in a vulnerable position that Rankine hit his head on the ground) they'd probably leave us less room to argue against it.

Exactly right.

Top of the shoulder is when the player is in a bent over position picking up the ball. It is impossible to hit top of the shoulder from his position. That is point one we can argue on the appeal.
Another point is that it is at the higher level of carelessness. Total bollocks. If anything this was the most careful of bumps in terms of where contact was made. The only "carelessness" was that he flushed him too perfectly causing him to topple over backwards.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Exactly right.

Top of the shoulder is when the player is in a bent over position picking up the ball. It is impossible to hit top of the shoulder from his position. That is point one we can argue on the appeal.
Another point is that it is at the higher level of carelessness. Total bollocks. If anything this was the most careful of bumps in terms of where contact was made. The only "carelessness" was that he flushed him too perfectly causing him to topple over backwards.

Yep, the bump was so "careless" that Houston hit the player in his arms which were carrying the ball. Didn't run past the ball, didn't jump.

 

[Malibu#27]

Exactly right.

Top of the shoulder is when the player is in a bent over position picking up the ball. It is impossible to hit top of the shoulder from his position. That is point one we can argue on the appeal.
Another point is that it is at the higher level of carelessness. Total bollocks. If anything this was the most careful of bumps in terms of where contact was made. The only "carelessness" was that he flushed him too perfectly causing him to topple over backwards.

One would think that the "higher level of carelessness" is less intentional than the "lower level of intentional"

 

[HugeJohnson]

Been Hearing Gold Coast might offer pick 5 for Daniel Rioli

17

Daniel Rioli

Age

27

Ht

179cm

Wt

78kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.2

3star

K

5.8

2star

HB

5.4

4star

M

2.7

3star

T

3.2

5star

MG

179.2

3star

D

8.1

2star

K

4.9

2star

HB

3.3

2star

M

2.0

2star

T

2.6

4star

MG

144.9

3star

D

9.0

3star

K

3.8

2star

HB

5.2

4star

M

0.8

1star

T

3.8

5star

MG

160.2

3star

.

How the actual **** can Houston be worth less than Rioli?

 

[Malibu#27]

Been Hearing Gold Coast might offer pick 5 for Daniel Rioli

17

Daniel Rioli

Age

27

Ht

179cm

Wt

78kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.2

3star

K

5.8

2star

HB

5.4

4star

M

2.7

3star

T

3.2

5star

MG

179.2

3star

D

8.1

2star

K

4.9

2star

HB

3.3

2star

M

2.0

2star

T

2.6

4star

MG

144.9

3star

D

9.0

3star

K

3.8

2star

HB

5.2

4star

M

0.8

1star

T

3.8

5star

MG

160.2

3star

.

How the actual **** can Houston be worth less than Rioli?

He's not, but pick 5 to Gold coast is worth less than pick 5 to other clubs.

 

[#Port Patriot#]

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

Nope.

3 weeks should be the absolute maximum penalty with potential to downgrade etc.. anything more than 3 week suspensions should be for things like legit hitting someone in the face with close fist off ball etc.. not these footy actions.

AFL need to fix their system. More than 3 weeks is just absurd. Even Rankine didn't deserve 4 weeks for his and IMO only be 2 weeks max. Houston 2 weeks.

 

[#Port Patriot#]

I wonder if there's a bit of goodwill 'payback' for the Adelaide goal last year too, as pathetic as that sounds.

Whoever said they specifically picked 5 weeks is spot on, they manufactured that exact number so he can't play in a GF which is very on-brand for them, especially considering the "interstate" factor.

Also, they didn't give a single shit about Houston's good record. Not one.

Port will appeal. AFL will pretend to be "nice" and say, ok, we'll downgrade to 4 weeks just to show that we're being "fair".. whilst realistically that's a slap in the face and spiteful because it's irrelevant in the scheme of things.

 

[HugeJohnson]

3 weeks he's guaranteed to be available for grand final should we make it (lol)
4 weeks and we'd have to lose our qualifying final for him to be a chance.

Even then, he'd have had a 6 week lay off due to byes so it'd be a risk bringing him straight in.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Port will appeal. AFL will pretend to be "nice" and say, ok, we'll downgrade to 4 weeks just to show that we're being "fair".. whilst realistically that's a slap in the face and spiteful because it's irrelevant in the scheme of things.

Nah, its a carrot, it puts it back on us to lay down against either Geelong or GWS depending on which one we get in the qualifier, 2 clubs they have 'interest' in succeeding.
Port need to be smart here, its unfortunate for Dan but we need to win 2 finals and make the GF.

 

[VineValerian]

This whole "top of the shoulder" argument is just insane. If both players enter the contest from an upright position, it's difficult to make contact with the top of someones shoulder even if you take their head off.

They're trying to insinuate high contact that didn't really occur, which may actually help us in the appeal. The top of the shoulder faces up. Houston didn't hit Rankine there. High on the shoulder, sure, but not at the top of the shoulder.

If they just prosecuted it based on what actually happened (Houston hit Rankine carelessly hard in a vulnerable position that Rankine hit his head on the ground) they'd probably leave us less room to argue against it.

If you execute a perfectly legitimate bump on someone, they fall backwards and then get concussed, why is that the bumper's fault?
You could just come up to someone, push them with two hands, they lose balance and fall and happen to hit their head, then get concussed. Is that carelessness by the pusher?
You could grab a player by the guernsey who is on top of your team-mate and jumper punching him on the ground. You come in to assist, pull him off and drag him away, and then let go of the guernsey. Player falls backwards awkwardly, hits head, gets concussed. Is that the fault of the player dragging him away?
You could try to take a hanger, knee a bloke in the back of the head, he gets concussed. Is that the fault of the marker?

Where does "duty of care" stop and start? What is a "football collision"? I have no idea anymore.

We may end up banning physical contact all together, and just play "touch footy" - touch a player without bumping or tackling, play stops, you get the free kick.

If they are so maniacally freaked out about avoiding future CTE court cases, just legislate to rule out any (even remotely) vigorous physical contact! Even then there are probably incidents that would get someone concussed that haven't even been explored yet.