NO TROLLS Rankine handed a 4 match suspension by the AFL integrity unit for a homophobic slur against opponent

[Underarm]

That's the narrative because Eddie McGuire (no conflict of interest at all) annouced the five week ban on the Monday night despite no official statement

It was the Wednesday night. He said the AFL were going to present their findings to adelaide and offer a 5 week ban, and Adelaide would have a chance to respond or accept the findings and punishment. This is the same process every time, including the punishment being leaked earlier.

I just don't understand why Adelaide are copping heat for trying to get the best outcome for their player, club and supporters out of a shit situation

Because Adelaide took advantage of the AFL's cowardice. AFL wanted 5, Adelaide wanted 4 and the AFL blinked and gave him 5.

Any club would have fought for the player like that, and they would be copping the same heat.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

why should Adelaide be criticised for defending their player? How is bringing a defense to a tribunal 'making a mess' ?

Why should Adelaide be criticised for trying to defend the indefensible? Really?
Just like when they tried to defend the indefensible with Taylor Walker and his racial vilification.

And they didn't even go through a defence that neither player was guilty of the accusation, the defence was always trying to justify and minimise it.

 

[sr36]

It’s not the action, it’s the “justification” used to defend their player.
Somehow medical reasons (kept confidential quite correctly) make a 5 game suspension excessive, but a 4 match suspension fair.
That raises concerns for the process quite rightly. Clearly targets the potential consequence (a Grand Final) not the action.
Ever seen the AFL outwardly confirm that is possible? I’ve only ever seen them state that missing a Grand Final doesn’t count in setting a penalty.

Discipline hearings and procedures are expected to adhere to accepted legal principles. It's an accepted legal principle that the wrongdoers circumstances can alter the punishment. And medical reasons do so in courts all around the country - as do financial ones. It's pretty easy to guess what is probably meant by "compelling medical" reasons and why it might be a good idea for a one week reduction that gets him back at the club training - if it is actually compelling.

 

[The Blue Max]

Why should Adelaide be criticised for trying to defend the indefensible? Really?
Just like when they tried to defend the indefensible with Taylor Walker and his racial vilification.

And they didn't even go through a defence that neither player was guilty of the accusation, the defence was always trying to justify and minimise it.

Not to mention Nicks very lame and spineless after-match Presser.

“When asked on the Adelaide Oval crowd’s booing of Isaac Quaynor, Nicks responded: “It’s not one for me to comment on.”

Oh yes it bloody is - show some leadership Nicksy, provide some guidance to your ignorant supporter base.

Genuinely effected my opinion of him.

 

[radiojake]

So any player from now on at the tribunal better not put up a defence against their charges - you just gotta admit you did wrong and cop it, right?

Even Lynch had a defence after his haymaker

 

[Orfullrules]

Not to mention Nicks very lame and spineless after-match Presser.

“When asked on the Adelaide Oval crowd’s booing of Isaac Quaynor, Nicks responded: “It’s not one for me to comment on.”

Oh yes it bloody is - show some leadership Nicksy, provide some guidance to your ignorant supporter base.

Genuinely effected my opinion of him.

Not to mention it five times?

 

[RCAB]

That's the narrative because Eddie McGuire (no conflict of interest at all) annouced the five week ban on the Monday night despite no official statement

I just don't understand why Adelaide are copping heat for trying to get the best outcome for their player, club and supporters out of a shit situation

You keep sprouting the same shit like a broken record.

You still haven't answered why the AFL said they considered "compelling medical evidence" in their submission, and why they felt the need to mention it.

Oh that's right, you can't.

 

[radiojake]

You still haven't answered why the AFL said they considered "compelling medical evidence" in their submission, and why they felt the need to mention it.

because they got compelling medical evidence... would have thought that was straight fwd

 

[RCAB]

because they got compelling medical evidence... would have thought that was straight fwd

So your answer to why the AFL publicly invoked “compelling medical evidence” in a homophobic slur case… is literally “because they had it”?

radiojake you're being circular and evasive, so I'm going to call you out on it..IDC if it upsets you.


I asked...

Why did the AFL mention “compelling medical evidence” in their justification?

Your answer:

Because they had compelling medical evidence.

That’s not an answer, it’s a tautology.

I didn’t ask if there was medical evidence, I'm asking why it was relevant to a homophobic slur, and why the AFL felt the need to say so publicly. Why did the AFL highlight this in their statement?

It implies they were anticipating backlash and wanted cover.

It weakens the integrity unit’s stance by introducing sympathy optics for a perpetrator, not the victim.

Also...

Why is this the first time “medical evidence” has been used to alter a suspension, particularly like this?

Has it ever happened in racial vilification cases? Abuse cases?

Is this a one-off, or are we setting a precedent?

 

[radiojake]

I can't answer those questions because I don't know the answers

 

[The Blue Max]

Not to mention it five times?

Not sure of the point you’re making?

 

[sr36]

You still haven't answered why the AFL said they considered "compelling medical evidence" in their submission, and why they felt the need to mention it.

Because they'd let everyone know that they were at 5 weeks, so had to include their reason for dropping it to 4.

 

[RCAB]

Rankine should've received a 6 week suspension, instead he got a paid week holiday in Italy, and a chance to play in a Grand Final.

 

[Couch Coach]

Rankine should've received a 6 week suspension, instead he got a paid week holiday in Italy, and a chance to play in a Grand Final.

If Hawthorn get the job done we won't have to worry about Rankine until Round 3 next year.
The AFL will probably fixture Adelaide versus Collingwood at AO because you know Vicbias.

 

[jakson68]

If Hawthorn get the job done we won't have to worry about Rankine until Round 3 next year.
The AFL will probably fixture Adelaide versus Collingwood at AO because you know Vicbias.

Well it would be good to get some early wins.

 

[sr36]

Rankine should've received a 6 week suspension, instead he got a paid week holiday in Italy, and a chance to play in a Grand Final.

You're just being dramatic. They seem to have settled on 5 as the going rate. The only bloke who got 6 was for slurs against 2 different players. He got a reduction - they're saying for medical reasons - no one knows the details of the mitigating medical circumstances, so there's nothing to complain about.

 

[RCAB]

If Hawthorn get the job done we won't have to worry about Rankine until Round 3 next year.
The AFL will probably fixture Adelaide versus Collingwood at AO because you know Vicbias.

Certainly a 50/50 game, but even if they win, they're less likely to beat Geelong next week, certainly not banking on Adelaide making the grand final at the moment.

 

[HairyO]

Not to mention Nicks very lame and spineless after-match Presser.

“When asked on the Adelaide Oval crowd’s booing of Isaac Quaynor, Nicks responded: “It’s not one for me to comment on.”

Oh yes it bloody is - show some leadership Nicksy, provide some guidance to your ignorant supporter base.

Genuinely effected my opinion of him.

Yeah, Ken after the Ginnivan fun last year took it on the chin and now is able to smile about it and everyone has moved on.

Obviously Nicks isnt expected to smile, but to have a genuine reaction is far better than saying "Nope, not touching that".

To the Crows defence, obviously they should defend their player always, but how you defend is what matters. I dont think anyone like the mental welfare excuse given Rankine was the one in trouble not the victim. Its just been terribly handled by a club that has a history of not handling things well.

 

[BigLefty]

Yeah, Ken after the Ginnivan fun last year took it on the chin and now is able to smile about it and everyone has moved on.

Obviously Nicks isnt expected to smile, but to have a genuine reaction is far better than saying "Nope, not touching that".

To the Crows defence, obviously they should defend their player always, but how you defend is what matters. I dont think anyone like the mental welfare excuse given Rankine was the one in trouble not the victim. Its just been terribly handled by a club that has a history of not handling things well.

Who has said it was "mental welfare" that got it reduced?

This is the problem with the AFL, they make decisions with no transparency and expect everyone to fall in line and understand.

Maybe he is distraught and deserves leniency?

Maybe Collingwood players provoked him until he snapped?

Maybe he made it up to get a lesser punishment?

Who ****ing knows, because the AFL don't disclose enough info and leave it all the speculation.

 

[SC_Power]

Who has said it was "mental welfare" that got it reduced?

This is the problem with the AFL, they make decisions with no transparency and expect everyone to fall in line and understand.

Maybe he is distraught and deserves leniency?

Maybe Collingwood players provoked him until he snapped?

Maybe he made it up to get a lesser punishment?

Who ****ing knows, because the AFL don't disclose enough info and leave it all the speculation.

Rankine could disclose enough info.
But he clearly doesn’t want to (quite rightfully), so the Crows or the AFL can’t.

So we are left with hypotheses, and no one can provide a credible hypotheses where medical evidence can explain why a 5-match penalty is excessive, but a 4-match penalty is not. There clearly is one if we take Rankine, the Crows, the AFL at its word.

Where does this lead to though?

Q1: If Rankine is done for a future offence, it’s right to assume he could receive a more lenient penalty if he presents the same confidential medical evidence and it’s applicable. Does it mean that a future 1-match penalty might be argued down to a fine?

Q2: If medical evidence is presented to explain why penalties for breaking competition rules don’t apply equally, then it can be argued that Rankine’s declared illness has allowed for different working conditions to others. Should the AFL consider umpires on a “need to know” so they can adjust their on field penalties appropriately?

I might be seen as being over dramatic, but I would have previously said that about others if they claimed that medical evidence can alter a penalty (not to justify or explain a breach of rules, but reduce the sanction).

 

[sr36]

So we are left with hypotheses, and no one can provide a credible hypotheses where medical evidence can explain why a 5-match penalty is excessive, but a 4-match penalty is not. There clearly is one if we take Rankine, the Crows, the AFL at its word.

It's standard in legal situations that excessive hardship due to individual circumstances can result in a reduced consequence. It happens for financial, as well as physical and mental health issues. Fines get reduced, alternatives to incarceration, shortened sentences, etc. They all occur. They've most likely argued he's at high risk with supporting evidence. 5 to 4 has him back at the club training, which reduces the risk.

 

[matthew_s]

I hope this isn’t too damaging for Izak’s mental health.

 

[Altum Volantes]

So just to confirm - he CAN play in the Grand Final - just not this year.

 

[projectv]

The irony in all this is that even if Rankine had played, they'd still have lost both games.

Enjoy the off season Crom.

 

[RCAB]

The irony in all this is that even if Rankine had played, they'd still have lost both games.

Enjoy the off season Crom.

The irony is...

If Adelaide has handled this better they'd be a better club... and team. Who would have thought that not been homophobic would be beneficial?