MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[Duckimus Prime]

View attachment 2086296

Agonised over the decision... Or Warren Tredrea had to fight aganist the AFL plants to demand that its done.

 

[Amarula]

I would actually like to have video forensics with split camera angles, showing frame by frame to prove or disprove it. Or maybe Laura can invest in microchips in players shoulders.
But no doubt if it was shown that there was no illegal contact they will fall back on the "his head hit the ground and you are responsible so we still get to pick the number"

Yeah, sure, but if it was found that there is no evidence of high contact before Rankine hit the ground, we may be able to pull it back a week. Maybe even 2 weeks, if the AFL is at all concerned about being questioned about the poor quality of the evidence put forward (and not until the actual hearing) that they used to justify a longer ban.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

MRO charged Dan with Rough Conduct not a Charge.

From 2024 Laws of the Game

1.1 DEFINITIONS
Charge or Charging: the act of a Player colliding with an opposition Player where the
amount of physical force used is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances,
irrespective of whether the Player is or is not in possession of the football or whether
the Player is within five metres of the football.

Rough conduct frees

18.7 ROUGH CONDUCT
18.7.1 Spirit and Intention
Players shall be protected from unreasonable conduct from an opposition
Player which is likely to cause injury.

18.7.2 Free Kicks - Rough Conduct
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player when that Player engages in
rough conduct against an opposition Player which in the circumstances is unreasonable,
which includes but is not limited to:

(a) executing a dangerous tackle on an opposition Player;
(b) making forceful contact below the knees of an opposition Player or executing
a forceful action towards the lower leg of an opposition Player causing the
opposition Player to take evasive action;
(c) sliding knees or feet first into an opposition Player;
(d) using boot studs in a manner likely to cause injury.

22.2 REPORTABLE OFFENCES
22.2.1 Degree of Intent – Clarification
Where any of the Reportable Offences listed in Law 22.2.2 specify that conduct may be
intentional or careless:
(a) any report or notice of report which does not allege whether the conduct was
intentional or careless shall be deemed to and be read as alleging that the
conduct was either intentional or careless; and
(b) the Tribunal or other body appointed to hear and determine the report may find the
report proven if it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the conduct was
either intentional or careless.

22.2.2 Specific Offences
Any of the following types of conduct is a Reportable Offence:
(a) intentionally or carelessly:
(i) striking another person;
(ii) kicking another person;
(iii) kneeing another person;
(iv) Charging an opponent;
(v) engaging in Rough Conduct against an opponent;
(vi) bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from front-on when
that Player has their head down over the football;
.....
(z) intentionally shaking, climbing or otherwise interfering with a goal or behind post;
(aa) failing to leave the Playing Surface when directed to do so by an Umpire;
(bb) wearing boots, jewellery and equipment prohibited under Law 9; or
(cc) engaging in any other act of misconduct or serious misconduct.

I reckon this is why Ray is saying it wasn't a free kick. It wasn't a charge, and didn't hit him in the head.

 

[Interstater]

Why is it unreasonable to make a legal bump?

Was it just the vibe?

 

[PAFC66]

I have no idea why we, and to some extent clubs in general, are so submissive in the tribunal.

The AFL treats it like a murder trial and we treat it like a high school debate. I would love to see us directly challenge some of the statements made.

If the AFL are so comfortable about contact being made to the 'upper shoulder' then prove it. I haven't seen any videos that suggest that. The umpires at the ground didn't see it that way.

What is the charge. Where is the evidence. This is democracy manifest!

I think we are more submissive to the AFL in general , we have been forever.
Glad we've decided to appeal

 

[PAFC66]

They obviously didn't take Houstons remorse into consideration when they went in wanting 5 weeks , Houston apologized and he still got 5 weeks? Every other player has had a week subtracted for this. Not Dan.

 

[El_Scorcho]

They obviously didn't take Houstons remorse into consideration when they went in wanting 5 weeks , Houston apologized and he still got 5 weeks? Every other player has had a week subtracted for this. Not Dan.

Jordan DeGoey of all people gets a good bloke discount for running past the ball to snipe, and Dan Houston doesn't. Sort of makes it seem like the good bloke discount isn't actually for good blokes at all.

 

[Macca_1870]

Jordan DeGoey of all people gets a good bloke discount for running past the ball to snipe, and Dan Houston doesn't. Sort of makes it seem like the good bloke discount isn't actually for good blokes at all.

It's a "preferred club" discount.

 

[philreich]

Why is it unreasonable to make a legal bump?

Was it just the vibe?

It's only illegal because Rankine didn't get up.

 

[Windy Cindy]

They obviously didn't take Houstons remorse into consideration when they went in wanting 5 weeks , Houston apologized and he still got 5 weeks? Every other player has had a week subtracted for this. Not Dan.

not to mention that they basically graded home and away games the same as finals

yet over history every player has received less when finals are involved or in some cases mysteriously got off.

for mine, he got 3 games for the hit, 1 for the outrage from the vanilla slice brigade and 1 for hitting their best player

reckon he hits murphy and its a straight 3, mind you it would be harder to hit someone flopping all over the place

 

[Port_Girl_92]

The first question is, What is the charge? (eating a succulent Chinese meal! RIP).

But in all seriousness, although they call this list non-exhaustive, one must look at it to decipher whether the conduct is firstly a reportable offence.

Forceful front on contact:

Requires:

The opponent to have his head over the ball.

Criteria not met.

Rough conduct (High Bumps):

Requires:

In the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonable or unreasonably) the Player causes contact that is at least low impact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck (top of shoulders also included).

Arguments

• Supporting witnesses, 2 field umpires in direct vicinity of incident and now Ray Chamberlain who was 60/70 metres away who says he had a great line of sight, all said it was contact to front of chest and front of shoulder, no free-kick paid.
• On video analysis, on the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal simply cannot be reasonably satisfied that high contact was made.

Criteria not met.

Rough Conduct (bumps to the body):

Requires:

• The conduct of the offender was unreasonable in the circumstances.
• They will take into account:
• The degree of force applied by the person bumping was excessive for the situation;
• The player being bumped was in a vulnerable position;
• The player could have reasonable expect the contact having regard to his involvement in the play or ability to influence the contest.

Arguments

• It was not a marking contest, wherever the ball landed it was a “play-on” situation, thus Rankine as an AFL standard player could have reasonably expected that he was going to be met by contact. It was not a situation where the players were unsure of whether the ball had been touched or not, it was a clear double fist from Mark Kean, and it was always going to be play on.
• The bump, is not “illegal” in the eyes of the AFL, as such, again a player of Rankine’s AFL standard would reasonable expect to be tackled or bumped in that situation 9i.e. a legal defensive action).
• The force of Daniel’s bump was high, but was it excessive? What determines excessive? In my opinion, Rankine had the ball in both of his hands with a fairly sturdy grip against his body. in the circumstances the force of the impact was high yes, as it needed to be to dislodge the ball, but excessive, certainly not..
• Was Rankine in a vulnerable position. His arms were in front of him, no arms pinned, he didn’t’ have his head over the ball, he was standing – where is the vulnerability. If he was vulnerable than any player on that pitch within 5 metres of the ball is vulnerable.

Before moving to the grading, I am simply not satisfied that any criteria relating to one of the relevant reportable offences has been met. The bump is legal still, and if executed correctly and without meeting the criteria set above, one simply cannot be reported for it. Having said this, the Tribunal rules indicate this is not an exhaustive list, and they are likely, if this argument was actually put forward, to make up some other charge.

Not that I agree there was a reportable offence, but nonetheless, let’s now look at the grading.

Conduct

Assessed as careless. This isn’t disputed

Impact

Assessed as severe.

Again, as mentioned earlier, should be argued it was high impact not severe. Severe would have left him motionless until he got to the hospital. Severe is the highest of high grades. Yes, Rankine had a fencing response, but he also lifts his right knee, consciously very soon after the bump, and got up with assistance, and could have walked off with assistance but for the little ambulance cart being there.

His Glasgow coma scale would not have been that high at all given he was up fairly soon after the incident.

Does he have post traumatic amnesia – I’m sure he does but to what extent I don’t know, would need to see the medical report, doubt it would have been in excess of a few hours after the incident.

I highly doubt that you would find any brain pathology on MRI or alternative imaging.

But these are questions we should be asking!

Yes it’s a concussion, but he was up soon after. High impact yes, severe no.

The inclusion of the shoulder AC joint injury is nonsensical and irrelevant.

Contact

It’s not high contact but in the AFL Tribunal rules it states that if your conduct leads to someone hitting their head on the floor then its high contact. This is a rubbish rule, but it’s there.

Unsure how to argue out of that one. But nevertheless it’s there.



So if they were to actually meet the criteria of a reportable offence, then the grading should be, in the order of conduct, impact, contact, Careless, high, high = 2 matches. If it could be argued that there is absolutely no direct contact with the head or neck (which on video evidence there isn’t) then the grading is careless, high, body = 1 match.



Port were also not able to establish the exceptional and compelling circumstances of a prior good record and great character in order to get a good record reduction. Cameron had 5 previous reportable offences, Dan one for a melee which was a fine. Was this properly argued and asked for, I think not. The request for leniency based on a potential missed Grand final was never going to work. The asking for 3 matches instead of 0 was crazy.



Hammer me all you want, this is just something I came up with quickly after reading the AFL Tribunal Rules. I am a lawyer, I’ve used Ben as counsel in my matters in the past, and he is exceptionally thorough and diligent. This just screams to me that he would have given sounds advice to Port to go hard, but the now vanilla administration we have would have instructed him against it and try to play the poor me card, instead of the “this isn’t Dan’s fault this is the AFLs fault” line that should have been pushed.



The appeal, I don’t know I think it is somewhat a pointless exercise because we didn’t’ raise these points at the initial tribunal hearing.

 

[VineValerian]

The first question is, What is the charge? (eating a succulent Chinese meal! RIP).

But in all seriousness, although they call this list non-exhaustive, one must look at it to decipher whether the conduct is firstly a reportable offence.

Forceful front on contact:

Requires:

The opponent to have his head over the ball.

Criteria not met.

Rough conduct (High Bumps):

Requires:

In the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonable or unreasonably) the Player causes contact that is at least low impact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck (top of shoulders also included).

Arguments

• Supporting witnesses, 2 field umpires in direct vicinity of incident and now Ray Chamberlain who was 60/70 metres away who says he had a great line of sight, all said it was contact to front of chest and front of shoulder, no free-kick paid.
• On video analysis, on the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal simply cannot be reasonably satisfied that high contact was made.

Criteria not met.

Rough Conduct (bumps to the body):

Requires:

• The conduct of the offender was unreasonable in the circumstances.
• They will take into account:
• The degree of force applied by the person bumping was excessive for the situation;
• The player being bumped was in a vulnerable position;
• The player could have reasonable expect the contact having regard to his involvement in the play or ability to influence the contest.

Arguments

• It was not a marking contest, wherever the ball landed it was a “play-on” situation, thus Rankine as an AFL standard player could have reasonably expected that he was going to be met by contact. It was not a situation where the players were unsure of whether the ball had been touched or not, it was a clear double fist from Mark Kean, and it was always going to be play on.
• The bump, is not “illegal” in the eyes of the AFL, as such, again a player of Rankine’s AFL standard would reasonable expect to be tackled or bumped in that situation 9i.e. a legal defensive action).
• The force of Daniel’s bump was high, but was it excessive? What determines excessive? In my opinion, Rankine had the ball in both of his hands with a fairly sturdy grip against his body. in the circumstances the force of the impact was high yes, as it needed to be to dislodge the ball, but excessive, certainly not..
• Was Rankine in a vulnerable position. His arms were in front of him, no arms pinned, he didn’t’ have his head over the ball, he was standing – where is the vulnerability. If he was vulnerable than any player on that pitch within 5 metres of the ball is vulnerable.

Before moving to the grading, I am simply not satisfied that any criteria relating to one of the relevant reportable offences has been met. The bump is legal still, and if executed correctly and without meeting the criteria set above, one simply cannot be reported for it. Having said this, the Tribunal rules indicate this is not an exhaustive list, and they are likely, if this argument was actually put forward, to make up some other charge.

Not that I agree there was a reportable offence, but nonetheless, let’s now look at the grading.

Conduct

Assessed as careless. This isn’t disputed

Impact

Assessed as severe.

Again, as mentioned earlier, should be argued it was high impact not severe. Severe would have left him motionless until he got to the hospital. Severe is the highest of high grades. Yes, Rankine had a fencing response, but he also lifts his right knee, consciously very soon after the bump, and got up with assistance, and could have walked off with assistance but for the little ambulance cart being there.

His Glasgow coma scale would not have been that high at all given he was up fairly soon after the incident.

Does he have post traumatic amnesia – I’m sure he does but to what extent I don’t know, would need to see the medical report, doubt it would have been in excess of a few hours after the incident.

I highly doubt that you would find any brain pathology on MRI or alternative imaging.

But these are questions we should be asking!

Yes it’s a concussion, but he was up soon after. High impact yes, severe no.

The inclusion of the shoulder AC joint injury is nonsensical and irrelevant.

Contact

It’s not high contact but in the AFL Tribunal rules it states that if your conduct leads to someone hitting their head on the floor then its high contact. This is a rubbish rule, but it’s there.

Unsure how to argue out of that one. But nevertheless it’s there.



So if they were to actually meet the criteria of a reportable offence, then the grading should be, in the order of conduct, impact, contact, Careless, high, high = 2 matches. If it could be argued that there is absolutely no direct contact with the head or neck (which on video evidence there isn’t) then the grading is careless, high, body = 1 match.



Port were also not able to establish the exceptional and compelling circumstances of a prior good record and great character in order to get a good record reduction. Cameron had 5 previous reportable offences, Dan one for a melee which was a fine. Was this properly argued and asked for, I think not. The request for leniency based on a potential missed Grand final was never going to work. The asking for 3 matches instead of 0 was crazy.



Hammer me all you want, this is just something I came up with quickly after reading the AFL Tribunal Rules. I am a lawyer, I’ve used Ben as counsel in my matters in the past, and he is exceptionally thorough and diligent. This just screams to me that he would have given sounds advice to Port to go hard, but the now vanilla administration we have would have instructed him against it and try to play the poor me card, instead of the “this isn’t Dan’s fault this is the AFLs fault” line that should have been pushed.



The appeal, I don’t know I think it is somewhat a pointless exercise because we didn’t’ raise these points at the initial tribunal hearing.

Great post. Reasoned, logical, articulated well (and simply), and it points out obvious facts and strategies that don't appear (at least at first sight, albeit we weren't there to actually witness it) to have been followed through.

I often think we go in like marshmallows at tribunals. Rarely ruthless enough.

Makes you wonder if the players feel let down by the club at times? I know I feel that way - a lot!

 

[Capital Power]

The first question is, What is the charge? (eating a succulent Chinese meal! RIP).

But in all seriousness, although they call this list non-exhaustive, one must look at it to decipher whether the conduct is firstly a reportable offence.

Forceful front on contact:

Requires:

The opponent to have his head over the ball.

Criteria not met.

Rough conduct (High Bumps):

Requires:

In the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonable or unreasonably) the Player causes contact that is at least low impact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck (top of shoulders also included).

Arguments

• Supporting witnesses, 2 field umpires in direct vicinity of incident and now Ray Chamberlain who was 60/70 metres away who says he had a great line of sight, all said it was contact to front of chest and front of shoulder, no free-kick paid.
• On video analysis, on the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal simply cannot be reasonably satisfied that high contact was made.

Criteria not met.

Rough Conduct (bumps to the body):

Requires:

• The conduct of the offender was unreasonable in the circumstances.
• They will take into account:
• The degree of force applied by the person bumping was excessive for the situation;
• The player being bumped was in a vulnerable position;
• The player could have reasonable expect the contact having regard to his involvement in the play or ability to influence the contest.

Arguments

• It was not a marking contest, wherever the ball landed it was a “play-on” situation, thus Rankine as an AFL standard player could have reasonably expected that he was going to be met by contact. It was not a situation where the players were unsure of whether the ball had been touched or not, it was a clear double fist from Mark Kean, and it was always going to be play on.
• The bump, is not “illegal” in the eyes of the AFL, as such, again a player of Rankine’s AFL standard would reasonable expect to be tackled or bumped in that situation 9i.e. a legal defensive action).
• The force of Daniel’s bump was high, but was it excessive? What determines excessive? In my opinion, Rankine had the ball in both of his hands with a fairly sturdy grip against his body. in the circumstances the force of the impact was high yes, as it needed to be to dislodge the ball, but excessive, certainly not..
• Was Rankine in a vulnerable position. His arms were in front of him, no arms pinned, he didn’t’ have his head over the ball, he was standing – where is the vulnerability. If he was vulnerable than any player on that pitch within 5 metres of the ball is vulnerable.

Before moving to the grading, I am simply not satisfied that any criteria relating to one of the relevant reportable offences has been met. The bump is legal still, and if executed correctly and without meeting the criteria set above, one simply cannot be reported for it. Having said this, the Tribunal rules indicate this is not an exhaustive list, and they are likely, if this argument was actually put forward, to make up some other charge.

Not that I agree there was a reportable offence, but nonetheless, let’s now look at the grading.

Conduct

Assessed as careless. This isn’t disputed

Impact

Assessed as severe.

Again, as mentioned earlier, should be argued it was high impact not severe. Severe would have left him motionless until he got to the hospital. Severe is the highest of high grades. Yes, Rankine had a fencing response, but he also lifts his right knee, consciously very soon after the bump, and got up with assistance, and could have walked off with assistance but for the little ambulance cart being there.

His Glasgow coma scale would not have been that high at all given he was up fairly soon after the incident.

Does he have post traumatic amnesia – I’m sure he does but to what extent I don’t know, would need to see the medical report, doubt it would have been in excess of a few hours after the incident.

I highly doubt that you would find any brain pathology on MRI or alternative imaging.

But these are questions we should be asking!

Yes it’s a concussion, but he was up soon after. High impact yes, severe no.

The inclusion of the shoulder AC joint injury is nonsensical and irrelevant.

Contact

It’s not high contact but in the AFL Tribunal rules it states that if your conduct leads to someone hitting their head on the floor then its high contact. This is a rubbish rule, but it’s there.

Unsure how to argue out of that one. But nevertheless it’s there.



So if they were to actually meet the criteria of a reportable offence, then the grading should be, in the order of conduct, impact, contact, Careless, high, high = 2 matches. If it could be argued that there is absolutely no direct contact with the head or neck (which on video evidence there isn’t) then the grading is careless, high, body = 1 match.



Port were also not able to establish the exceptional and compelling circumstances of a prior good record and great character in order to get a good record reduction. Cameron had 5 previous reportable offences, Dan one for a melee which was a fine. Was this properly argued and asked for, I think not. The request for leniency based on a potential missed Grand final was never going to work. The asking for 3 matches instead of 0 was crazy.



Hammer me all you want, this is just something I came up with quickly after reading the AFL Tribunal Rules. I am a lawyer, I’ve used Ben as counsel in my matters in the past, and he is exceptionally thorough and diligent. This just screams to me that he would have given sounds advice to Port to go hard, but the now vanilla administration we have would have instructed him against it and try to play the poor me card, instead of the “this isn’t Dan’s fault this is the AFLs fault” line that should have been pushed.



The appeal, I don’t know I think it is somewhat a pointless exercise because we didn’t’ raise these points at the initial tribunal hearing.

I did wonder about the quality of our legal representation, but you've put this in focus here - is it the Club instructing our lawyers to take the soft path rather than their preferred legal approach?

 

[Ford Fairlane]

So does the AFL Integrity Unit take action now against Matt Crouch

5

Matt Crouch

Age

29

Ht

183cm

Wt

85kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

28.4

5star

K

12.0

4star

HB

16.4

5star

M

3.3

3star

T

3.9

5star

CL

4.8

5star

D

24.9

5star

K

9.7

4star

HB

15.1

5star

M

2.4

3star

T

2.4

3star

CL

4.4

5star

D

21.2

5star

K

10.4

4star

HB

10.8

5star

M

4.4

4star

T

3.4

5star

CL

2.0

4star

?

 

[MrMeaner]

It seems to be a pattern at the tribunal of our club anchoring at far too high a point. But I would be surprised if the club went for a baseline of 3 weeks if Krupka advised starting at a lower number.

 

[Nemisis]

Port should appeal but should put it back a week to gather evidence:
1. Proof that the neck was not hit by Dan.
2. Medical proof of the severity of the shoulder injury.
3. Expert witness regarding the impact of a chest bump (proving that a LEGAL bump can bring on concussion)
4. Two years of video in regards to past 'hits' that have been let go or given lesser punishment.
5. Bring up the 'Good Bloke' instance regarding Cameron. 170 plus games without a suspension deserves some discount.
Port need to lift their game and break away from the small little suburban club image and have a red hot crack at the AFL. Koch should be on the phone getting opinions from every legal contact he has.

 

[Port_Girl_92]

I did wonder about the quality of our legal representation, but you've put this in focus here - is it the Club instructing our lawyers to take the soft path rather than their preferred legal approach?

I often advise my client's to go one way, but they often instruct me to go in a different direction for one reason or another. For example, i may be very bullish about running a matter to a trial, but my clients have no interest in sticking around for 12 - 18 months for resolution of heir matter and will opt to settle instead. Ultimately, we are their mouthpiece, and can only ac on their instructions.

Like I said having dealt with Ben in the past, he would had provided several options, and ultimately it is Port Adelaide who instruct him what to do and what to argue.

 

[MrMeaner]

I often advise my client's to go one way, but they often instruct me to go in a different direction for one reason or another. For example, i may be very bullish about running a matter to a trial, but my clients have no interest in sticking around for 12 - 18 months for resolution of heir matter and will opt to settle instead. Ultimately, we are their mouthpiece, and can only ac on their instructions.

That is my life. Nothing runs, despite advice that clients have decent prospects. I have a trial in a couple of weeks that I have advised on but I'm not cancelling anything for the two weeks it is supposed to run because all the parties are keen to settle beforehand. It is just a question of who will blink first.

 

[Port_Girl_92]

That is my life. Nothing runs, despite advice that clients have decent prospects. I have a trial in a couple of weeks that I have advised on but I'm not cancelling anything for the two weeks it is supposed to run because all the parties are keen to settle beforehand. It is just a question of who will blink first.

Yea mate, don't cancel.

Mine settle either on the morning of trial, or after my client has given his evidence.

Just the job I guess.

 

[It Just Is]

Despite lots of attempts from Whateley, Razor is pretty steadfast that there was no free against Houston on the night and that was the right call.

From about 2:45 in.

To add to the evidence of Gerards stupidity, he includes Sam Powell Pepper as an example this year of when the send of rule was clearly appropriate. Its clear to me there are journo types that simply have no feel for the game and should stick to calling horses.

Interesting, you could see Ray telling crows players it was a fair bump at the time too.

Instead of calling a senior umpire as witness, we rolled out Dan’s murder confession.

 

[El_Scorcho]

The first question is, What is the charge? (eating a succulent Chinese meal! RIP).

But in all seriousness, although they call this list non-exhaustive, one must look at it to decipher whether the conduct is firstly a reportable offence.

Forceful front on contact:

Requires:

The opponent to have his head over the ball.

Criteria not met.

Rough conduct (High Bumps):

Requires:

In the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonable or unreasonably) the Player causes contact that is at least low impact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck (top of shoulders also included).

Arguments

• Supporting witnesses, 2 field umpires in direct vicinity of incident and now Ray Chamberlain who was 60/70 metres away who says he had a great line of sight, all said it was contact to front of chest and front of shoulder, no free-kick paid.
• On video analysis, on the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal simply cannot be reasonably satisfied that high contact was made.

Criteria not met.

Rough Conduct (bumps to the body):

Requires:

• The conduct of the offender was unreasonable in the circumstances.
• They will take into account:
• The degree of force applied by the person bumping was excessive for the situation;
• The player being bumped was in a vulnerable position;
• The player could have reasonable expect the contact having regard to his involvement in the play or ability to influence the contest.

Arguments

• It was not a marking contest, wherever the ball landed it was a “play-on” situation, thus Rankine as an AFL standard player could have reasonably expected that he was going to be met by contact. It was not a situation where the players were unsure of whether the ball had been touched or not, it was a clear double fist from Mark Kean, and it was always going to be play on.
• The bump, is not “illegal” in the eyes of the AFL, as such, again a player of Rankine’s AFL standard would reasonable expect to be tackled or bumped in that situation 9i.e. a legal defensive action).
• The force of Daniel’s bump was high, but was it excessive? What determines excessive? In my opinion, Rankine had the ball in both of his hands with a fairly sturdy grip against his body. in the circumstances the force of the impact was high yes, as it needed to be to dislodge the ball, but excessive, certainly not..
• Was Rankine in a vulnerable position. His arms were in front of him, no arms pinned, he didn’t’ have his head over the ball, he was standing – where is the vulnerability. If he was vulnerable than any player on that pitch within 5 metres of the ball is vulnerable.

Before moving to the grading, I am simply not satisfied that any criteria relating to one of the relevant reportable offences has been met. The bump is legal still, and if executed correctly and without meeting the criteria set above, one simply cannot be reported for it. Having said this, the Tribunal rules indicate this is not an exhaustive list, and they are likely, if this argument was actually put forward, to make up some other charge.

Not that I agree there was a reportable offence, but nonetheless, let’s now look at the grading.

Conduct

Assessed as careless. This isn’t disputed

Impact

Assessed as severe.

Again, as mentioned earlier, should be argued it was high impact not severe. Severe would have left him motionless until he got to the hospital. Severe is the highest of high grades. Yes, Rankine had a fencing response, but he also lifts his right knee, consciously very soon after the bump, and got up with assistance, and could have walked off with assistance but for the little ambulance cart being there.

His Glasgow coma scale would not have been that high at all given he was up fairly soon after the incident.

Does he have post traumatic amnesia – I’m sure he does but to what extent I don’t know, would need to see the medical report, doubt it would have been in excess of a few hours after the incident.

I highly doubt that you would find any brain pathology on MRI or alternative imaging.

But these are questions we should be asking!

Yes it’s a concussion, but he was up soon after. High impact yes, severe no.

The inclusion of the shoulder AC joint injury is nonsensical and irrelevant.

Contact

It’s not high contact but in the AFL Tribunal rules it states that if your conduct leads to someone hitting their head on the floor then its high contact. This is a rubbish rule, but it’s there.

Unsure how to argue out of that one. But nevertheless it’s there.



So if they were to actually meet the criteria of a reportable offence, then the grading should be, in the order of conduct, impact, contact, Careless, high, high = 2 matches. If it could be argued that there is absolutely no direct contact with the head or neck (which on video evidence there isn’t) then the grading is careless, high, body = 1 match.



Port were also not able to establish the exceptional and compelling circumstances of a prior good record and great character in order to get a good record reduction. Cameron had 5 previous reportable offences, Dan one for a melee which was a fine. Was this properly argued and asked for, I think not. The request for leniency based on a potential missed Grand final was never going to work. The asking for 3 matches instead of 0 was crazy.



Hammer me all you want, this is just something I came up with quickly after reading the AFL Tribunal Rules. I am a lawyer, I’ve used Ben as counsel in my matters in the past, and he is exceptionally thorough and diligent. This just screams to me that he would have given sounds advice to Port to go hard, but the now vanilla administration we have would have instructed him against it and try to play the poor me card, instead of the “this isn’t Dan’s fault this is the AFLs fault” line that should have been pushed.



The appeal, I don’t know I think it is somewhat a pointless exercise because we didn’t’ raise these points at the initial tribunal hearing.

Excellent analysis, thanks.

It is well in line with our general conduct as a club that we'd go for the soft "please have mercy on us" style defence instead of a harder no case to answer defence.

You know that if this was a Collingwood or Hawthorn player, there is no way in a million years they're conceding anything. They'd be saying fair bump to the body, legal under the laws of the game, not excessive, not unreasonable.

 

[Skindy]

The first question is, What is the charge? (eating a succulent Chinese meal! RIP).

But in all seriousness, although they call this list non-exhaustive, one must look at it to decipher whether the conduct is firstly a reportable offence.

Forceful front on contact:

Requires:

The opponent to have his head over the ball.

Criteria not met.

Rough conduct (High Bumps):

Requires:

In the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonable or unreasonably) the Player causes contact that is at least low impact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck (top of shoulders also included).

Arguments

• Supporting witnesses, 2 field umpires in direct vicinity of incident and now Ray Chamberlain who was 60/70 metres away who says he had a great line of sight, all said it was contact to front of chest and front of shoulder, no free-kick paid.
• On video analysis, on the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal simply cannot be reasonably satisfied that high contact was made.

Criteria not met.

Rough Conduct (bumps to the body):

Requires:

• The conduct of the offender was unreasonable in the circumstances.
• They will take into account:
• The degree of force applied by the person bumping was excessive for the situation;
• The player being bumped was in a vulnerable position;
• The player could have reasonable expect the contact having regard to his involvement in the play or ability to influence the contest.

Arguments

• It was not a marking contest, wherever the ball landed it was a “play-on” situation, thus Rankine as an AFL standard player could have reasonably expected that he was going to be met by contact. It was not a situation where the players were unsure of whether the ball had been touched or not, it was a clear double fist from Mark Kean, and it was always going to be play on.
• The bump, is not “illegal” in the eyes of the AFL, as such, again a player of Rankine’s AFL standard would reasonable expect to be tackled or bumped in that situation 9i.e. a legal defensive action).
• The force of Daniel’s bump was high, but was it excessive? What determines excessive? In my opinion, Rankine had the ball in both of his hands with a fairly sturdy grip against his body. in the circumstances the force of the impact was high yes, as it needed to be to dislodge the ball, but excessive, certainly not..
• Was Rankine in a vulnerable position. His arms were in front of him, no arms pinned, he didn’t’ have his head over the ball, he was standing – where is the vulnerability. If he was vulnerable than any player on that pitch within 5 metres of the ball is vulnerable.

Before moving to the grading, I am simply not satisfied that any criteria relating to one of the relevant reportable offences has been met. The bump is legal still, and if executed correctly and without meeting the criteria set above, one simply cannot be reported for it. Having said this, the Tribunal rules indicate this is not an exhaustive list, and they are likely, if this argument was actually put forward, to make up some other charge.

Not that I agree there was a reportable offence, but nonetheless, let’s now look at the grading.

Conduct

Assessed as careless. This isn’t disputed

Impact

Assessed as severe.

Again, as mentioned earlier, should be argued it was high impact not severe. Severe would have left him motionless until he got to the hospital. Severe is the highest of high grades. Yes, Rankine had a fencing response, but he also lifts his right knee, consciously very soon after the bump, and got up with assistance, and could have walked off with assistance but for the little ambulance cart being there.

His Glasgow coma scale would not have been that high at all given he was up fairly soon after the incident.

Does he have post traumatic amnesia – I’m sure he does but to what extent I don’t know, would need to see the medical report, doubt it would have been in excess of a few hours after the incident.

I highly doubt that you would find any brain pathology on MRI or alternative imaging.

But these are questions we should be asking!

Yes it’s a concussion, but he was up soon after. High impact yes, severe no.

The inclusion of the shoulder AC joint injury is nonsensical and irrelevant.

Contact

It’s not high contact but in the AFL Tribunal rules it states that if your conduct leads to someone hitting their head on the floor then its high contact. This is a rubbish rule, but it’s there.

Unsure how to argue out of that one. But nevertheless it’s there.



So if they were to actually meet the criteria of a reportable offence, then the grading should be, in the order of conduct, impact, contact, Careless, high, high = 2 matches. If it could be argued that there is absolutely no direct contact with the head or neck (which on video evidence there isn’t) then the grading is careless, high, body = 1 match.



Port were also not able to establish the exceptional and compelling circumstances of a prior good record and great character in order to get a good record reduction. Cameron had 5 previous reportable offences, Dan one for a melee which was a fine. Was this properly argued and asked for, I think not. The request for leniency based on a potential missed Grand final was never going to work. The asking for 3 matches instead of 0 was crazy.



Hammer me all you want, this is just something I came up with quickly after reading the AFL Tribunal Rules. I am a lawyer, I’ve used Ben as counsel in my matters in the past, and he is exceptionally thorough and diligent. This just screams to me that he would have given sounds advice to Port to go hard, but the now vanilla administration we have would have instructed him against it and try to play the poor me card, instead of the “this isn’t Dan’s fault this is the AFLs fault” line that should have been pushed.



The appeal, I don’t know I think it is somewhat a pointless exercise because we didn’t’ raise these points at the initial tribunal hearing.

This is great analysis however for the rough conduct charge the AFL would certainly argue that the degree of force Houston applied was excessive for the situation. As he had the option to tackle (which he has already foolishly admitted to) the fact that his bump resulted in a player being concussed means that his degree of force is clearly excessive.

 

[JohnHinckleyJr]

This is great analysis however for the rough conduct charge the AFL would certainly argue that the degree of force Houston applied was excessive for the situation. As he had the option to tackle (which he has already foolishly admitted to) the fact that his bump resulted in a player being concussed means that his degree of force is clearly excessive.

That's bitch talk ..
For having no nads

 

[Festerz]

Forceful front on contact:

Requires:

The opponent to have his head over the ball.

Criteria not met.

Some excellent research there but not sure if your literal reading of the rules is quite as black and white as it is in application.

For example,

In 2022 (iirc) correctly, the AFL changed the rule relating to front on contact which used to read 'The opponent to have his head down over the ball'

The rule now reads:

'The opponent to have his head over the ball'

Why did they remove the word 'down' from that rule?

I don't know. But my (out of date and rarely used) legal training suggests to me that removing words matter when it comes to how legislation (or in this case rules of the game in a court-like Tribunal setting) are subsequently applied. And my guess is that they did that to remove the specificity about the position of the head in relation to the ball to cover exactly the sort of scenario that is presented with the Houston bump. That 'over the ball' becomes a more generic 'catch all' term that can be used to cover any circumstances where a player has forward momentum and the ball is in his immediate path even if not in his possession.

Could be wrong of course. Just saying. And it's why Clubs and the AFL use KCs to argue Tribunal penalties.

 

[Port_Girl_92]

Some excellent research there but not sure if your literal reading of the rules is quite as black and white as it is in application.

For example,

In 2022 (iirc) correctly, the AFL changed the rule relating to front on contact which used to read 'The opponent to have his head down over the ball'

The rule now reads:

'The opponent to have his head over the ball'

Why did they remove the word 'down' from that rule?

I don't know. But my (out of date and rarely used) legal training suggests to me that removing words matter when it comes to how legislation (or in this case rules of the game in a court-like Tribunal setting) are subsequently applied. And my guess is that they did that to remove the specificity about the position of the head in relation to the ball to cover exactly the sort of scenario that is presented with the Houston bump. That 'over the ball' becomes a more generic 'catch all' term that can be used to cover any circumstances where a player has forward momentum and the ball is in his immediate path even if not in his possession.

Could be wrong of course. Just saying. And it's why Clubs and the AFL use KCs to argue Tribunal penalties.

I understand that, and youa re correct the inclusion of omission of words is paramount to legislative interpretation. But, then the argument would be the only situaiton in which the head isn't over the ball is when a player raises the ball above his head. I don't think that is what they meant.
Razor said in his interview today is the player whose bent down with head over the ball to get it who is then in the "vulnerable position".