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

[chiwigi]

Houston did this!

That’s why we’ll stick up for him.

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

 

[KrispyKremeMullanikka]

I hate Ritz.

 

[Rozee2Butters]

Obviously what Dan did is nowhere near as bad, but this could potentially be our West Coast 2018 moment when Andrew Gaff

3

Andrew Gaff

Age

32

Ht

184cm

Wt

83kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

26.6

5star

K

15.9

5star

HB

10.7

5star

M

4.8

5star

T

2.0

4star

CL

2.5

4star

D

24.5

5star

K

15.6

5star

HB

8.9

4star

M

5.4

5star

T

2.0

3star

CL

2.5

4star

D

11.2

3star

K

8.0

3star

HB

3.2

3star

M

3.2

4star

T

0.6

3star

CL

0.6

3star

got suspended but they still rallied (with injuries to Nic Nat and Brad Shepherd to boot) and won the flag that year.

And Dan also decides to stay


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[bomberclifford]

I like Ritz.

Yeah, what's this bullshit trashing Ritz. I won't stand for it!

 

[Waspy79]

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

The tribunal also did not challenge the careless grading, yet Rankine got a lesser penalty despite an intentional grading because the hit was off the ball. Stop being a VFL apologist, they are contemptible and corrupt in making this erroneous decision.

 

[gbear]

When is the appeal being heard?

 

[x_les_x]

Highly unlikely his next replacement will be as good as him. But as we saw with Amon/Duursma departures, its never as bad as it seems. Burgoyne is now flourishing and Boak has a second leash of life on the other wing. Without their departures, Burgoyne probably still plays back/back pocket where he had that horrid game against the pies and thats how he plays out his career as with boak probably getting shafted to the half forward role which almost ended his career.

Dont know if Williams will still be here in a couple months time to fill the void nor if Sinns body holds up to play the role. But i do back at least someone to chuck their hand up. Nek minute McCallum

Jokes
….should of kept bonner

 

[Waspy79]

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

This is where we will win. If we are smart. Which we are not.

 

[TazD]

Too many Ritz derros round here for my liking.

 

[JohnHinckleyJr]

 

[KrispyKremeMullanikka]

This section of BF has turned from talking about Danny H to Ritz.

****ing Ritz lol

**** you Kane Kornes

 

[KrispyKremeMullanikka]

Gonna start a Ritz section.

 

[KrispyKremeMullanikka]

Go for it. Whatever you opinion on Ritz. Ritz

Opinion - Ritz

Thanks to Fireman nuffie face Kane Kornes. This is the one store place on BF where we speak about anything and everything Ritz.

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Tibbs]

The guidelines specifically state that high contact can be applied where a player hits their head on a fence or the ground as a result of the offending players actions. I don't think we can argue the contact was not high based on the way the rules are written. Our only avenue of appeal would be that the sentence was excessive and at best we could get it reduced to 3 games.

Yeah ... Nah!

What "actions"? What the hell does the word "Action" even mean in this context!

It is 100% all smoke and mirrors!

*If Houston in a marking contest clashes with Rankine who smacks his head into the turf & is concussed. Action = FOOTBALL INCIDENT
*If Houston legally tackles Rankine who smacks his head into the turf & is concussed. Action = FOOTBALL INCIDENT
*Stuff it! You can even TUNNEL the crap out of a player, nearly breaking his neck in the process. Action = FOOTBALL INCIDENT

Fact is, they use nonsensical words like "actions" so that they can apply it how they see fit at the time, based on optics, media & public response, and 'hierarchical' influences.

 

[Tibbs]

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

I think that will form part of the Port defense. They had to pull some rubbish out of their proverbial that Rankine has an AC-joint injury, to prove that the bump had to be high.

Disprove this, showing medical proof that the AC-joint injury was more likely caused by a direct should bump, and their case become very shaky! If the bump was legal, and the MRO has graded is unintentional, then Houston should NOT be getting 5 games!

 

[#Port Patriot#]

I think that will form part of the Port defense. They had to pull some rubbish out of their proverbial that Rankine has an AC-joint injury, to prove that the bump had to be high.

Disprove this, showing medical proof that the AC-joint injury was more likely caused by a direct should bump, and their case become very shaky! If the bump was legal, and the MRO has graded is unintentional, then Houston should NOT be getting 5 games!

Hence why Port should threaten to take AFL to court as well over it. Tribunal is an in house farce.

 

[ClintEastwood]

Hence why Port should threaten to take AFL to court as well over it. Tribunal is an in house farce.

The whole running of the AFL is a farce. Fawlty Towers, 3 Stooges and Laurrel and Hardy rolled into one.

 

[Expat power]

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

I thought Stewart, Norton and Houston were definitely there in person.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

How does an appeal work when our own Chairman admitted Houston's liability in his interview this morning?

Because our appeal is basically gonna be...

"Come on let him play please"

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Ladder predictor suggests cats by 90 jump us if we lose to Freo.

Thats why I said in my previous post that WC have to turn up or we could find ourselves having to win @ Freo to avoid cats away which could quite possibly be at GMHBA.
I know we beat them there but a final is another story.

If we play the Cats away it will have to be at the MCG as per the agreement.

Can only be played at GMHBA if the MCG was unavailable due to other finals, which it won’t be.

 

[Malibu#27]

I think that will form part of the Port defense. They had to pull some rubbish out of their proverbial that Rankine has an AC-joint injury, to prove that the bump had to be high.

Disprove this, showing medical proof that the AC-joint injury was more likely caused by a direct should bump, and their case become very shaky! If the bump was legal, and the MRO has graded is unintentional, then Houston should NOT be getting 5 games!

This is all 100% correct. If he got hit up the centre he doesnt do an Ac. He got hit on the shoulder... even the video shows that shoulder get thron back, and he rolls around as that shoulder is pushed back.

They still have the argument that his head hit the ground so thats high contact, but their aregument that he made contact to the top of shoulder and neck is false.

 

[PAFC Since 1870]

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...

This is what I keep going back to. The umpires deemed it a legal football collision on the night and didn’t award a free kick against him but all of a sudden it’s worth a hefty suspension? I don’t see any logic in that thinking at all

 

[malcheski]

View attachment 2086913

 

[bringbackbucky]

I thought Stewart, Norton and Houston were definitely there in person.

Na they were in Adelaide (assuming in Jeffcott Chambers). The tribunal sits in Melbourne.

 

[johnnysix]

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

So according to that logic, any tackle or bump that results in a player hitting their head on the ground is not legal. The reason it's so confusing is because it DOESN'T make logical sense, they NOT consistent and hence it's practically irrelevant what the rules actually say. What the media says and who you play for seems to have more impact on the outcome than the actual rules. These are macro versions of the AFL's own case against them for CTI. One could argue THEY had plenty of time to make players aware of the risks, to mitigate the risk and to demonstrate a duty of care themselves. Personally I put this in the same basket as second hand smoke for people who worked in bars in times gone by. There's a point at which nobody knew the risks, and there's a point at which people should have known the risks. Just like AFL SHOULD know the risks now, so should the players, and anyone who still decides to accept the paycheck and play this contact sport, does so knowing the risks. A line in the sand needs to be drawn. It can't continue to be a moving target, for both the AFL and the players who play the game. I think "Duty of Care' is a very slippery slope type concept. The ultimate duty of care should be awareness and transparency. You play the game, you know the risks, as the stand now. We almost need a CTI case to resolve so we have precedent for what that duty fo care looks like. Then the players will also know and we can stop asking the rule sup as we go along.