MRP / Trib. Sniper Houston - 5 Weeks

[MrBarry]

I agree one was in play one was behind the footy

And before I am carded my point is simply this

Our perspective on Houston is not dissimilar to your perspective on the Rankine hitting starcevich perhaps bear that in mind

One was lined up from 5 metres away at full force and one was a bump where Rankines head slipped up.

If you can't objectively see which of those incidents is more dangerous, then you can **** off back to your board tbh.

 

[GROTTO]

The two weren't even remotely comparable.

 

[Crow till I die]

I agree one was in play one was behind the footy

And before I am carded my point is simply this

Our perspective on Houston is not dissimilar to your perspective on the Rankine hitting starcevich perhaps bear that in mind

Not really sure why you guys are appealing the tribunal's verdict as your club got exactly what your club wanted and that was Rankine taken out of the game. All game they were tackling him and then having a second player dive in when he was already down, Dixon was up for a fine for striking Rankine and finally Houston got the job done. Hey, it helped you guys win the game and probably second spot, take the win and move on as the premeditation finally paid off. If our club had any balls, next showdown our players would be focused on not just beating your mob but making every single tackle hurt.

 

[drcollossimo]

I know you’re right Grotto but I thought I’d at least come in this thread and try

 

[GROTTO]

All game they were tackling him and then having a second player dive in when he was already down,

Its a good point you raised, when I saw this live, I think they were like a pack of rabid animals.

The umpire failed clearly to protect Rankine. This could have all been avoided if the umpire took control of the game from the get go.

Umpires should have drawn a line in the sand in regards to thuggery tactics by Port.

 

[ABAB]

Oh I’m glad you brought up “dangerous” what Thilthorpe did is every damned bit as “dangerous” as what Houston did any outrage over that in here ladies and gentlemen?

My point as with the starcevich example is it isnt only outrageous only when a crows player gets hurt

There was a tunnelling incident early this year and neither a free kick was paid and it wasn't reported. The AFL see this as a football incident as no player in their right mind will try to KO themselves with an opponent's leg or hip.

 

[DukeX]

This is the level of stupidity on their board about why they should appeal ......

FMD

View attachment 2086532

The best bit about this is number 3, for 2 reasons:
a) If they can't prove it was a legal bump, the appeal is over.
b) if they do prove it was a legal bump, and a bump can cause concussion, according to this expert, he still gets rubbed out because of the 'potential to cause concussion' position, which they will have just proven

 

[The Karma Bus]

Oh I’m glad you brought up “dangerous” what Thilthorpe did is every damned bit as “dangerous” as what Houston did any outrage over that in here ladies and gentlemen?

My point as with the starcevich example is it isnt only outrageous only when a crows player gets hurt

Thilthorpe was running sideways, turned to see the player in the air not far from him and raised his arms up as he went under him.
It wasn't a vicious deliberate tunnel to tunnel. Should have been a free kick and that's all.

 

[Crow till I die]

Its a good point you raised, when I saw this live, I think they were like a pack of rabid animals.

The umpire failed clearly to protect Rankine. This could have all been avoided if the umpire took control of the game from the get go.

Umpires should have drawn a line in the sand in regards to thuggery tactics by Port.

I am a believer in not bleating about it but getting even hence the next showdown the coaches should have the team ultra focused to win but have the rankine sniping in pictures scattered around the changeroom and on the whiteboard and the team focused on making every tackle hurt and every 50 50 ball a port player sore. Doesn't have to be outside the rules, but when they come off the next showdown as losers and as sore and hurt as possible,they will know how we feel about them targeting our players

 

[Vader]

I agree one was in play one was behind the footy

And before I am carded my point is simply this

Our perspective on Houston is not dissimilar to your perspective on the Rankine hitting starcevich perhaps bear that in mind

One big difference being that most of us here accepted that Rankine had done the wrong thing, and understood why a 4 week holiday was appropriate.

The Power nuffies seem to be living in a parallel universe, where the facts as perceived by their 3 brain cells bear no resemblance whatsoever to what happened on the field.

 

[PeterSalt]

I agree one was in play one was behind the footy

And before I am carded my point is simply this

Our perspective on Houston is not dissimilar to your perspective on the Rankine hitting starcevich perhaps bear that in mind

Pretty sure the only incident this board has had a problem with was McAdam getting 3 weeks for a front on bump in which the player completed the game and played the week following - "potential to cause injury" was the explanation given from memory

Seemed weird in light of Pickett only getting 2 weeks for his effort the same weekend and comparing the incidents

And keeping in mind this was a last year and the AFL, particularly since the Maynard incident last year, has been generally appeared to push harsher penalties

 

[drcollossimo]

Pretty sure the only incident this board has had a problem with was McAdam getting 3 weeks for a front on bump in which the player completed the game and played the week following - "potential to cause injury" was the explanation given from memory

Seemed weird in light of Pickett only getting 2 weeks for his effort the same weekend and comparing the incidents

And keeping in mind this was a last year and the AFL, particularly since the Maynard incident last year, has been generally appeared to push harsher penalties

Depends on if it’s Patrick Cripps or Charlie Cameron the AFL seemed less concerned about concussion on those occasions

Anyways this is your board and I’ve out stayed my welcome

The severity of hits at the footy is in the eye of the beholder is my point, the spite in this game has robbed lots of us of that perspective I think

 

[El Doederino]

With Rankine's bump on Starcevich, the initial mood of most of this board (including me) was that it wasn't high, he got winded and so nothing to see

Once it came out that Starcevich was concussed, the mood generally changed to 'well, he's ****ed'

The club didn't appeal the tribunal verdict. Our argument at tribunal was that Rankine's actions were careless and not intentional. That didn't fly, and we accepted it.

And the AFL has some pretty prescriptive guidelines on all of this. Perhaps some Port people should read that.

 

[BRL121]

Didnt someone post on here that said Kenny would accept whatever decision come down?

That's what he said, and he repeated it. Clearly, it's not his decision.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

Depends on if it’s Patrick Cripps or Charlie Cameron the AFL seemed less concerned about concussion on those occasions

Anyways this is your board and I’ve out stayed my welcome

The severity of hits at the footy is in the eye of the beholder is my point, the spite in this game has robbed lots of us of that perspective I think

I think the Houston incident escalated the spite exponentially.

 

[BRL121]

Hard to see how this gets downgraded but anything is possible in the AFL.

The way the Power's season has gone they will probably get him off on some kind of technicality.

He's doing a lot of work for charity this week!.

 

[beagle2]

The real irony is the Port posters pretending they are legal experts.

Most of them have probably had a lot of experience with the law

 

[beagle2]

Don’t think you read my post correctly. Yep they were both out of order and copped their whack.

My comment towards dog act was for Nicks calling it as such and the fans, a dog act is a king hit or something behind play.

My post was against people celebrating a suspension, I think it is in poor taste.

It was a king hit in that Rankine was looking up at the ball and never saw what was coming

 

[The Karma Bus]

It was a king hit in that Rankine was looking up at the ball and never saw what was coming

And intent is almost everything.
Izak stepped off 1 step after running backwards to body check the player, unluckily, their heads clashed slightly from the whip effect.

Houston came from way out like a train to put Izak into the River Torrens while vulnerable.

 

[GROTTO]

And intent is almost everything.
Izak stepped off 1 step after running backwards to body check the player, unluckily, their heads clashed slightly from the whip effect.

Houston came from way out like a train to put Izak into the River Torrens while vulnerable.

Houston had no intent whatsoever to go for the ball, it was to line up an open and vulnerable Rankine.

 

[FR0GGY]

And intent is almost everything.
Izak stepped off 1 step after running backwards to body check the player, unluckily, their heads clashed slightly from the whip effect.

Houston came from way out like a train to put Izak into the River Torrens while vulnerable.

IMO
1/10 times the Rankine hit would concuss someone
10/10 Houston’s hit is concussing someone.

 

[MrBarry]

Oh I’m glad you brought up “dangerous” what Thilthorpe did is every damned bit as “dangerous” as what Houston did any outrage over that in here ladies and gentlemen?

My point as with the starcevich example is it isnt only outrageous only when a crows player gets hurt

We copped it in the chin. The pathetic crying this week about Houston being a lovely bloke has been intensely cringe. But I'd expect nothing less from little brother, always the victim.

 

[rabidcrow]

I agree one was in play one was behind the footy

And before I am carded my point is simply this

Our perspective on Houston is not dissimilar to your perspective on the Rankine hitting starcevich perhaps bear that in mind

Most of us agree that Rankine would get 3 (he got 4), essentially for propping and blocking a guy - but hit heads and had to pay the price

Houston lined him up from a fair way off and hit him up the front.
Also 2 time this year a Power player has knocked out a Crows player from a clearly illegal act - and received a heavy penalty

Imagine if Hinge did that to Butters or Rozee!


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Crowboto]

So, as far as see it.

Port : don't like being called toothless bogans.
Also Port: React to everything they dont like in the same manner as a toothless bogan.

 

[GROTTO]

We copped it in the chin. The pathetic crying this week about Houston being a lovely bloke has been intensely cringe. But I'd expect nothing less from little brother, always the victim.

Im ashamed to call them South Australian.