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

[sigur]

Question here ..... if you bump your opponent fairly ... with no high contact .... but you say break a rib / puncture a lung / stuff their ac joint up ..... is that suspendable?

Or is a bump only deemed OK ... if ..... you don't hurt/injury your opponent?

From the AFL rules:-

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

So if the bump is a fair hip and shoulder then the contact still needs to avoid likely hood of injury - coming in at high pace at a player not in a position to brace would still result in a suspension, but two players bumping each other and one busts a rib then play on.

Houston case was probably charging anyway:-

"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."

Charging is a free kick under rule "18.3.2 Free Kicks - Prohibited Contact"

If the ball had been kicked to Rankine rather than stupidly fisted by Keane then no-one would dispute 5 weeks here - we accept that in a marking contest the player marking the ball will be vulnerable to front on contact so have rules against that. Rankine should expect the same protection from a ball fisted 20 meters in the air as a ball kicked 20 meters.

 

[_Mike_]

Forget the appeal, why do the AFL have council for the first tribunal hearing?

The Chairperson manages process and decides on points of law. This person is impartial to the parties to ensure that the law is correctly applied. Making sure that the rules of the tribunal process are followed and not affected by bias or emotion. That person holds a formal legal qualification and is licensed to appear before the Court - i.e. Kings Counsel.

» The Tribunal Jury, which is a mix of experience and not necessarily of any legal capacity, determines whether the Reportable Offence occurred and applies an appropriate sanction (if applicable) based on a predetermined criteria

» The Chairperson will communicate Tribunal outcomes with a verbal explanation outlining the reasons for the decision, developed in conjunction with the Jury. This is a person with legal qualifications to make decisions on legal principles.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The Chairperson manages process and decides on points of law. This person is impartial to the parties to ensure that the law is correctly applied. Making sure that the rules of the tribunal process are followed and not affected by bias or emotion. That person holds a formal legal qualification and is licensed to appear before the Court - i.e. Kings Counsel.

» The Tribunal Jury, which is a mix of experience and not necessarily of any legal capacity, determines whether the Reportable Offence occurred and applies an appropriate sanction (if applicable) based on a predetermined criteria

» The Chairperson will communicate Tribunal outcomes with a verbal explanation outlining the reasons for the decision, developed in conjunction with the Jury. This is a person with legal qualifications to make decisions on legal principles.

Far out, what a load of crap they are following. Its a bloody footy tribunal. Gee they make it complicated. This is why it has become what it is. It should not be anything like a court of law.
The AFL should have a spread of weeks which is the suspension for this and the 3 men just simply hand it down. Not rocket science.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Far out, what a load of crap they are following. Its a bloody footy tribunal. Gee they make it complicated. This is why it has become what it is. It should not be anything like a court of law.
The AFL should have a spread of weeks which is the suspension for this and the 3 men just simply hand it down. Not rocket science.

Tha AFL should have no say in any of it and certainly not asking for x weeks prior as it prejudices the process.
The AFL has an MRO to hand down its own sanctions, once they decide its beyond their scope and handball it to an independant then it should be ttuly independant.
They shouldnt be able to say we want 5 as this insinuates it must be real bad and influences the hearing before the first submissions are made.

But of course, doing so is AFL 101, they dont ask questions unless they know the answer they'll get.

 

[DazalenkoUBewty]

No suspension through 18 SANFL games and 168 AFL games. So the clean record along with not getting Rankine high should hopefully reduce the suspension down to 3 games.

 

[TubbsFarquhar]

Good luck being successful with Lionel Hutz as your legal rep.

 

[ABAB]

No suspension through 18 SANFL games and 168 AFL games. So the clean record along with not getting Rankine high should hopefully reduce the suspension down to 3 games.

How so? They are trying to argue that the ACL joint is top of the shoulder which is deem high but is also part of the shoulder with that "lid" statement.

 

[_Mike_]

The AFL should have a spread of weeks which is the suspension for this and the 3 men just simply hand it down. Not rocket science.

It’s got to be a fair process either way.

The panel are effectively layman, not having the understanding or knowledge of legal principles. The chair doesnt argue for or against the suspension, the chair is to direct the panel on the interpretation of the rules and whether there is sufficient evidence to support the recommendation of suspension, fine, etc based on the charges presented.

Loosely modelled on the civil arbitration framework it provides a level playing field to ensure that the AFL bringing charges against a player does do in matter which is lawful and equitable under the rules set out.

Rules/laws are far from perfect, even Courts make errors in the application of laws, that’s why there is an appeals process

 

[PeterSalt]

lol .. vegemite lids for $10K

 

[Underarm]

Womp womp.

 

[drcollossimo]

Look forward to <insert VFL player> doing the exact same thing and playing in the prelim or granny bookmark it

 

[greatwhiteshark]

It’s got to be a fair process either way.

The panel are effectively layman, not having the understanding or knowledge of legal principles. The chair doesnt argue for or against the suspension, the chair is to direct the panel on the interpretation of the rules and whether there is sufficient evidence to support the recommendation of suspension, fine, etc based on the charges presented.

Loosely modelled on the civil arbitration framework it provides a level playing field to ensure that the AFL bringing charges against a player does do in matter which is lawful and equitable under the rules set out.

Rules/laws are far from perfect, even Courts make errors in the application of laws, that’s why there is an appeals process

It’s not a court of law, it’s a footy tribunal. You accidentally kneed a guy in the head. That’s 3 weeks. See ya.
Treating it as a court of law is making it complicated

 

[PeterSalt]

Look forward to <insert VFL player> doing the exact same thing and playing in the prelim or granny bookmark it

Doubt anyone would GAF if they were sanctioned in a GF if they won

Sadly, Houston won't get the chance to explore that option this year

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Was always a stupid appeal. Bumped when he didn't need to and caused concussion.
Ending his season is the right whack.

 

[Greasyrhys]

Now I would love for Port to win the flag and Rozee to say on the podium “up yours afl, or should I say vfl!!!”

It’s obvious they don’t want their precious cup to leave victoria.

 

[PeterSalt]

Now I would love for Port to win the flag and Rozee to say on the podium “up yours afl, or should I say vfl!!!”

It’s obvious they don’t want their precious cup to leave victoria.

Or maybe he could do something different and recreate mark williams pretending to choke himself

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Let me get this straight they challenged this?

Deserved 5 weeks

 

[T2B_]

Now I would love for Port to win the flag and Rozee to say on the podium “up yours afl, or should I say vfl!!!”

It’s obvious they don’t want their precious cup to leave victoria.

 

[_Mike_]

It’s not a court of law, it’s a footy tribunal. You accidentally kneed a guy in the head. That’s 3 weeks. See ya.
Treating it as a court of law is making it complicated

Well, you asked so I provided information as to why. These are regulations of the game and further explained on pages 6-7, 14,16 & 17 of the AFL Tribunal guidelines

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2024/03/13/bfe20552-9e6a-4464-88b6-509b31d77ed8/2024-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

 

[BringFevBack2021]

Now I would love for Port to win the flag and Rozee to say on the podium “up yours afl, or should I say vfl!!!”

It’s obvious they don’t want their precious cup to leave victoria.

hahahahahaha you watch too much TV

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Well, you asked so I provided information as to why. These are regulations of the game and further explained on pages 6-7, 14,16 & 17 of the AFL Tribunal guidelines

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2024/03/13/bfe20552-9e6a-4464-88b6-509b31d77ed8/2024-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

Fair enough, cheers mate.

 

[DazalenkoUBewty]

How so? They are trying to argue that the ACL joint is top of the shoulder which is deem high but is also part of the shoulder with that "lid" statement.

A hip-&-shoulder shouldn't involve a shoulder?

 

[ABAB]

A hip-&-shoulder shouldn't involve a shoulder?

The AC joint is consider top of the shoulder so is classified as high which is why it also subsequently hit Rankine's neck. That's what he was trying to argue using that "lid" analogy but it was an illegal bump as it collected Rankine high as Houston lead with his shoulder and not hip.

 

[Purple7x08_24]

The AC joint is consider top of the shoulder so is classified as high which is why it also subsequently hit Rankine's neck. That's what he was trying to argue using that "lid" analogy but it was an illegal bump as it collected Rankine high as Houston lead with his shoulder and not hip.

So we can all agree now that any forceful bump will likely result in a suspension, even if your opponents head hits the ground after the bump.

It really isn't worth taking the risk. Unfortunately Dan is the case example.

My concern for the state of the game is that they will move to other areas after this one: Marking contests, and tackles.

It's only a matter of time until they hand out suspensions if you knee someone in the back of the head in a marking contest.

Then it's only a matter of time that someone goes in for a tackle and there's a head high hit and it's a suspension.

 

[The Mares Leg]

I guess we'll have to wait and see then hey.
Im pretty comfortable with the result either way so there will be no outrage here.

Not all supporters understand a ‘legal’ process can’t be barracked like a footy match. Some things are irrefutable.

That said, the Power lawyer made a valid point, neither the tackle or bump is illegal, so why wasn’t ‘duty of care’ evaluated by the tribunal?

I guess Houston feels like Heeney now - a victim of a Kangaroo Court.