News AFL Tribunal appeals board upholds Houston's 5 Week Suspension

[Mutineer]

Kenny finally got something right...5 indeed.

 

[Orange crush]

How did maynard not get a ban for a worse hit?

I think we all know the answer to that

 

[hippyhippy]

How did maynard not get a ban for a worse hit?

He plays for Collingwood

 

[kirky]

Got what he deserved. Thankfully the AFL took his good record into consideration otherwise it would have been more matches. Adelaide medical report with concussion and AC shoulder joint injury didn’t help.

Rankine was targeted all match, just like the Power have done with Gawn.

 

[ClintEastwood]

That makes you a loser.

I see you've forgotten the game already, LOSER.

 

[Maddo11]

How did maynard not get a ban for a worse hit?

As the rules were written, what he did was a "reasonable action" because he had no alternative to try and win the ball

Houston had alternative options, tackling

 

[Royal Chode]

VFL

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Why are Port fans over the site thinking this is BS. He left the ground and bumped a player in the head causing concussion and an AC joint injury.

5 weeks is about right for that.

 

[applesyrup]

How so?

If he’s charged with high contact, doesn’t the AFL have to prove he was hit high?
Again, they may have done so, but haven’t read anywhere apart from “we believe he did”, a charge Port Adelaide rejects.

Rankine has an injured ac joint - this is on the top of the shoulder - top of shoulder and neck count as high. Also wouldn’t have been able to damage it by the head hitting the ground so must have been as part of the bump.

 

[kirky]

5 weeks would be perfectly understandable if it was going to be 5 H&A games, but surely the fact that he’s going to miss a bunch of finals ought to come into it.

I mean surely missing a grand final for instance is worth 5 regular season games on its own, so the difference between 4 and 5 games here could be monumental.

I reckon a 5 game ban now, for a guy who’s team is pretty much guaranteed to play at least two finals, is the equivalent of at least a 10 game ban earlier in the season, or in the preseason.

It’s seriously harsh and IMO out of proportion.

Which is why you should consider your decisions carefully. He had the option to tackle, he didn’t. You wear the consequences. Quite simple.

 

[SC_Power]

Again, the AC joint is consider high.

Is every hip and shoulder, bump and tackle that causes a broken collarbone considered a reportable offence?
Or isn’t the collarbone considered high?

Don’t get me wrong, I expected he would get 4-6, but I thought he should get 1-2 for the collision and don’t think he deserved the penalty tax for the outcome hitting the ground.

 

[hippyhippy]

5 weeks would be perfectly understandable if it was going to be 5 H&A games, but surely the fact that he’s going to miss a bunch of finals ought to come into it.

I mean surely missing a grand final for instance is worth 5 regular season games on its own, so the difference between 4 and 5 games here could be monumental.

I reckon a 5 game ban now, for a guy who’s team is pretty much guaranteed to play at least two finals, is the equivalent of at least a 10 game ban earlier in the season, or in the preseason.

It’s seriously harsh and IMO out of proportion.

They targetted rankine all night and he took it way too far ... He deserved even more games. 5 was really a best case scenario for him.

 

[Royal Chode]

Why are Port fans over the site thinking this is BS. He left the ground and bumped a player in the head causing concussion and an AC joint injury.

5 weeks is about right for that.

The tribunal admitted he didn't hit him in the head

 

[theouthouse]

Reasons:



Izak Rankine was waiting under a high ball, he moving in the same direction as the ball, his eyes were on the ball, and he was exposed and vulnerable to any forceful contact from an opposing player.



An opposing player has a clear duty of care in these circumstances not to commit an act which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a reported offense.



Houston breaches that duty of care, and his breach was significant.



He had time to think, he had time to weigh up his options. He had time and the clear opportunity to tackle. He chose to run at speed for several meters and forcefully bumped Rankine.



We are satisfied he made forceful contact to Rankine's upper shoulder and neck. His forceful contact also resulted in Rankine's head making forceful contact with the ground.



Although Houston's feet did not leave the ground, and he appears to have made some attempt to lower his body, the time he had to decide not to bump, the vulnerability of Rankine and the speed and force of his impact, lead us to conclude that this was a serious breach of the duty of care.



Rankine could have expected to be tackled, he could not reasonably have expected to be bumped high.



The sanction is to be determined in the Tribunal's discretion. We’ve taken into account Houston's guilty plea, among other things, including his good record, his contrition and the need for consistency compared with other recent comparable Tribunal decisions.



Having done so, we consider the appropriate sanction is five weeks for the reasons set out above.



His carelessness was significant, the impact was severe. The immediate consequences for Rankine were evident, he was concussed, it appears his shoulder was hurt and there was the potential for more serious injury.



We do not consider the circumstances give rise to exceptional and compelling circumstances.



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.

Got to love how the AFL is allowing its blessing for junior players to be taught from a very young age that we want all players to run at the ball with no protection for themselves and not expect anything except to be tackled and that players will look out for each others welfare but not their own.

What a shitshow of an organisation.

 

[T2B_]

I woulda gone 6 weeks, but 5 is close enough I guess especially as it ends his season anyway.

 

[ABAB]

Is every hip and shoulder, bump and tackle that causes a broken collarbone considered a reportable offence?
Or isn’t the collarbone considered high?

Don’t get me wrong, I expected he would get 4-6, but I thought he should get 1-2 for the collision and don’t think he deserved the penalty tax for the outcome hitting the ground.

I suggest you go read the ruling and you'll get a better understanding.

 

[aussierulesrules]

Why are Port fans over the site thinking this is BS. He left the ground and bumped a player in the head causing concussion and an AC joint injury.

5 weeks is about right for that.

Not when at least two of those games are going to be finals, and one may be a GF. Missing 3 of those games is equivalent to missing about 10 or more H&A games.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Have you read it? Goes on about not wanting to miss a Grand Final so trying to play that card. Talks about his record so trying to play that card. Don't know why he choose to bump as he has always tackle in that situation so trying to play that card.

I’m confused about what you expected him to say?

“Yeah I’m a shit bloke and a thug and a Grand Final’s just gonna get in the way of an early break anyway. Actually can you give me twelve, I don’t really want to have to suit up for Melbourne either come to think of it?”

 

[brutus76]

Bury your face in pancakes Dan

 

[Paul Kersey]

Ken probably called it 'operation Reece Walsh'.

 

[aussierulesrules]

Which is why you should consider your decisions carefully. He had the option to tackle, he didn’t. You wear the consequences. Quite simple.

The penalty still has to fit the crime though, does it not?

And missing at least two finals and possibly a GF means that a 5 game ban now is worth 10 regular season games or more, and I don’t think anyone reasonable would be asking for a 10 week ban, if that was 6 weeks ago.

 

[bonehilda]

Not when at least two of those games are going to be finals, and one may be a GF. Missing 3 of those games is equivalent to missing about 10 or more H&A games.

Perhaps Dan should have taken that into account before he did it

 

[1990crow]

The penalty still has to fit the crime though, does it not?

And missing at least two finals and possibly a GF means that a 5 game ban now is worth 10 regular season games or more, and I don’t think anyone reasonable would be asking for a 10 week ban, if that was 6 weeks ago.

No. 1 game = 1 game.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Not when at least two of those games are going to be finals, and one may be a GF. Missing 3 of those games is equivalent to missing about 10 or more H&A games.

Then he should have used a fraction of common sense and gone for a tackle and not bumped him to next week. Rankine has a significant AC joint injury. What happens if he’s out for 2-3 himself it’s irrelevant they aren’t playing finals.

 

[ABAB]

I’m confused about what you expected him to say?

“Yeah I’m a shit bloke and a thug and a Grand Final’s just gonna get in the way of an early break anyway. Actually can you give me twelve, I don’t really want to have to suit up for Melbourne either come to think of it?”

Leave out the missing Grand Final BS and his record.