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

[Duckimus Prime]

Barry Hall, '05. That off season what was deemed "in play" was tightened up again

You mean when South Melbourne and Bloods culture took up the battle against the West Coast Eagles?

 

[drcollossimo]

I think it's more in line with the 3 week suspensions than the higher suspensions personally. He didn't run past the ball, jump, or even get Rankine in the head. He bumped directly where the ball was in Rankine's arms.

I guess we'll save our outrage for the next time a Vic based media darling gets the good bloke discount, it's only a matter of time.

Exactly this scenario might even play out this finals series the most frustrating part of it all will be no parallels will be drawn to Houston or if they do it will be “pwoah gee <insert VFL team player here> was lucky to get off when you look at the precedent set with Houston”

I love footy but the state of the tribunal and the blatant VicBias makes it feel like WWE honestly

 

[ABAB]

Honest question, what do you really get out of salivating over Houston missing 5.
Do you hate us enough to want to see Vics win another flag.
Isnt that worse.
Im not a fan of your mob either but Id rather see you succeed than more of them.
Dan getting 5 wont change Saturday nights result, it wont heal Izaks injuries.

Just seems like youre obsessed with a moral victory that in reality wont help anyone.

What? You are also held accountable for your action, I was "salivating" for 6 weeks but after reading your BS posts to justify what happened to Rankine with an illegal shoulder bump and your crowd booing and sending off Rankine on a stretcher, I was "salivating" for 8 weeks.

 

[drcollossimo]

What? You are also held accountable for your action, I was "salivating" for 6 weeks but after reading your BS posts to justify what happened to Rankine with an illegal shoulder bump and your crowd booing and sending off Rankine in a stretcher, I was "salivating" for 8 weeks.

I’m with you ABAB when Rankine sniped Starcevich off the ball I was salivating for 6 weeks too

I get the hate I really do

I also love the outrage when it’s one of your own but when Rankine does it glory be it’s unfair

 

[ABAB]

I’m with you ABAB when Rankine sniped Starcevich off the ball I was salivating for 6 weeks too

I get the hate I really do

Accidental head clash as Rankine didn't protect himself with going shoulder first 2m out like Houston He went hip first after stopping 1m out so both head collided, sorry to correct you again.

 

[Cyclops]

I think 5 is a bit harsh.

As for the Victorian Plot, well I could explain how wrong you are but when Gil inducted me into the secret circle he mentioned we're not supposed to talk about it.

 

[Soggy2112]

I’m with you ABAB when Rankine sniped Starcevich off the ball I was salivating for 6 weeks too

I get the hate I really do

I also love the outrage when it’s one of your own but when Rankine does it glory be it’s unfair

Was there really that much outrage about the Rankine suspension?

I thought it was unfair that in the same week as that we saw deliberate strikes receive fines or only a week, but I thought four weeks was correct for Izak.

Unlucky because it was a head clash, but the bump was not needed and he deserved what he got. Same as Houston deserves his 5. I do think Houston’s needs a more severe penalty because of the speed of the hit.

 

[Brian McGee]

Was there really that much outrage about the Rankine suspension?

I thought it was unfair that in the same week as that we saw deliberate strikes receive fines or only a week, but I thought four weeks was correct for Izak.

Unlucky because it was a head clash, but the bump was not needed and he deserved what he got. Same as Houston deserves his 5. I do think Houston’s needs a more severe penalty because of the speed of the hit.

I don’t think rankine deserved 4, even though that’s what the mro matrix has as the minimum suspension for his offence. I also don’t think that Powell pepper or Peter wright deserved four. Both had extenuating circumstances to their contact. Just as I think 5 is too many for Houston. Suspensions are getting longer and longer for split second decisions and body positioning mistakes of less than 10cm.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Was there really that much outrage about the Rankine suspension?

I thought it was unfair that in the same week as that we saw deliberate strikes receive fines or only a week, but I thought four weeks was correct for Izak.

Unlucky because it was a head clash, but the bump was not needed and he deserved what he got. Same as Houston deserves his 5. I do think Houston’s needs a more severe penalty because of the speed of the hit.

For the guy that was guilty of intentional rough conduct with high contact, and severe impact getting the same suspension as others who were guilty of careless rough conduct with high contact and severe impact?

Yeah that was a shitty call of the MRO/Tribunal not being consistent and keeping up the hard stance that was set earlier in the year.

 

[bonehilda]

For the guy that was guilty of intentional rough conduct with high contact, and severe impact getting the same suspension as others who were guilty of careless rough conduct with high contact and severe impact?

Yeah that was a shitty call of the MRO/Tribunal not being consistent and keeping up the hard stance that was set earlier in the year.

The conduct/impact/contact system is just a guideline for the MRO and tribunal, then each incident is assessed individually; some might be tackles, some might be bumps. Careless, severe and high is 3 games or more, Webster’s was graded the same and he got 7 weeks. This argument that every incident graded that way needs a uniform amount of weeks makes no sense

 

[PenfoldsFan]

The conduct/impact/contact system is just a guideline for the MRO and tribunal, then each incident is assessed individually; some might be tackles, some might be bumps. Careless, severe and high is 3 games or more, Webster’s was graded the same and he got 7 weeks. This argument that every incident graded that way needs a uniform amount of weeks makes no sense

Actually it does, or you allow biases to enter the decision making at the critical point of the season.
So in example if Dans bump was this week it only needs to be 4, if it were rd22 it could be 6 if they wanted to keep him out of the GF.
Its not like they dont manipulate outcomes, Cotchins hit on Shiel should have triggered his points suspension, so they gave him the all clear.

The thing that you mob are missing in all this is the AFL dont care about Izak or the bump wouldnt be a part of the game to begin with.
Dan just handed them an excuse to weakrn a non Vic club and they've applied the games required, we'll probably get offered 4 on appeal which will be seen as giving him hope, but it'll really be so he's available rd1 if he heads to Victoria.

They dont do anything without reason.

 

[The Hobo]

Can there be an argument the AFL endorses the bump as it is not illegal, the AFL accept the bump is fine in the game as long as the outcome is not concussion.
How on earth can players play under such ambiguity? knowing I am allowed to bump but I will get in trouble if I bump.
The AFL need to take some responsibility.

They don't want to deal with the uproar and outrage of banning the bump. So they do it by stealth like this.

 

[Brian McGee]

The conduct/impact/contact system is just a guideline for the MRO and tribunal, then each incident is assessed individually; some might be tackles, some might be bumps. Careless, severe and high is 3 games or more, Webster’s was graded the same and he got 7 weeks. This argument that every incident graded that way needs a uniform amount of weeks makes no sense

That makes it pretty subjective and open to manipulation though doesn’t it.

 

[Soggy2112]

I don’t think rankine deserved 4, even though that’s what the mro matrix has as the minimum suspension for his offence. I also don’t think that Powell pepper or Peter wright deserved four. Both had extenuating circumstances to their contact. Just as I think 5 is too many for Houston. Suspensions are getting longer and longer for split second decisions and body positioning mistakes of less than 10cm.

I think the hefty suspensions are valid for two reasons.

A) the amount of time a player has to miss for a concussion is increasing.

B) we are learning more and more about the severe impacts of concussions.

It’s only fair that suspensions be high for players who put their opponents at an increased risk of concussion. I get that these are split second decisions, but in both the Rankine and Houston hits both players had other options. Bumping wasn’t necessary, so ther argument that they only missed by 5-10cm is not relevant in my view.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Posters here need to look beyond the Houston and Maynard tribunal cases, and look to the bigger picture of what's at risk to the AFL if they do not take measures to protect players from concussion.

I would not be surprised to see Brayshaw lodge a application through the class action against the AFL


This is an example of what the AFL is facing, re: class action for

Max Rooke brings this proceeding in his own right and as a representative proceeding under Part 4A of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic).

11. In so far as the claim is brought as a representative proceeding, Rooke brings this proceeding on behalf of all persons who:
(a) played in the AFL Competition during the period; and
(b) during the course of matches or training sustained head knocks; and
(c) after sustaining head knocks, suffered from temporary loss of normal brain function or symptoms consistent with temporary loss of normal brain function, known as concussion ( ); and
(d) suffered an acquired brain injury after sustaining concussion/s the injured players .


12. Further, Rooke brings this proceeding on behalf of and for the benefit of the estates of persons within the meaning of section 29(1) of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) who would have come within the definition of and have died (the deceased players) .

13. Further, Rooke brings this proceeding on behalf of persons who were dependants of the deceased players at the time of their death within the meaning of Part III of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) the Wrongs Act ).

14. Further, Rooke brings this proceeding on behalf of persons who:
(a) were in a close relationship with the injured players or the deceased players within the meaning of section 73 of the Wrongs Act; and
(b) have suffered pure mental harm by way of a recognised psychiatric illness because of the injury of the injured players or death of the deceased players.

15. Each of the persons identified in paragraphs 11 to 14 above is a group member within the meaning of section 33A of the Supreme Court Act 1986 group members and at the commencement of this proceeding there are more than seven group members who make the claims set out in this Statement of Claim against the AFL.

The case will argue that

• the AFL had a duty of care
• the the AFL did not meet the standard of care
• there was a foreseeable risk of concussion
• the AFL did not take reasonable precautions to mitigate or prevent its occurrence
• had the AFL implemented measures the probability of the harm occurring would be reduced
• the AFL owed the players a duty of care in relation to concussion management

This is a long process and could take years to get a ruling on, the AFL will do itself no favors in the meanwhile if it ignores the issue of concussion and does nothing. A finding against the AFL for negligence can see potential damages against the AFL in the $100's of Millions in compensation. This is why we're now seeing mandatory sidelining of concussion cases to have proper medical checks done.

https://margalitlawyers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/FINAL-Jarad-Rooke-Statement-of-Claim-6-December-2023-1.pdf

The bold is where I don't get the threats of lawsuits. Need to see how it plays out but I can't understand how an organization where head high contact / dangerous tackles have been free kicks / outlawed throughout this period. I don't particularly understand why suspending a player after the fact for an accident mitigates or prevents the occurrence of concussions, and even if you were to argue it did what is the difference between a player being suspended for one week and a player being suspended for 5?

Plus, I thought the whole point of organised sport at common law was that you accept the risks of the sport when you voluntarily elect to play it. I guess that doesn't apply when its an employment setting...

Personally I think anyone who sues the AFL is a coward.

 

[The Mares Leg]

The Tribunal didn't suspend Maynard. And ex-Collingwood player Michael Christian had to be dragged along by his boss, kicking and screaming to even charge him.

Interesting how these Collingwood guys get treated, ain’t it?

 

[Brian McGee]

I think the hefty suspensions are valid for two reasons.

A) the amount of time a player has to miss for a concussion is increasing.

B) we are learning more and more about the severe impacts of concussions.

It’s only fair that suspensions be high for players who put their opponents at an increased risk of concussion. I get that these are split second decisions, but in both the Rankine and Houston hits both players had other options. Bumping wasn’t necessary, so ther argument that they only missed by 5-10cm is not relevant in my view.

That’s fair enough, and I respect that opinion. But my view is 5 weeks is nearly a quarter of a season. For an action that is legal, but either mistimed or misplaced. I would get it for deliberate off the ball actions, but the afl has already managed to stamp that sort of thing out of the game.

 

[The Hobo]

I don't think he gets weeks for this incident if Rankine bounces back up. We've seen big hits get celebrated this season, where the player that got hit didn't get knocked out.

Whilst I agree it's Houston's duty of care here - and that he should get some weeks, I would consider that this would then be a lesser penalty than those that would get weeks regardless of if there was a concussion or not - ie. actual high contact to the head.

By that, I mean he hasn't left the ground, he's lowered himself somewhat (acknowledged by AFL), tucked arm in etc - ie done everything by the book.

Then you get the alternate of Webster, who's come flying in late, left the floor, arm raised - the whole polar opposite of what you're SUPPOSED to do, and he's only copped 2 weeks extra. Seems highly disproportionate.

Punish the action AND the outcome. If you do the right thing and get a bad outcome > you still cop weeks, fine. But it should be proportionate to doing the wrong thing and getting a bad outcome.

If Houston is 5 weeks, Webster should be 10.
If Webster is 7, Houston should be 3 or 4.

They simply do not correlate correctly in my mind.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

They don't want to deal with the uproar and outrage of banning the bump. So they do it by stealth like this.

Id go as far as to say they leave it grey, like many of the rules, so they can pull the lever if/when faux outrage is required.

It amazes me that they overlook a raised knee that all but severes a spleen and leaves a player with ptsd, yet get a bump wrong and youre out for 5.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Port announces it will appeal
Just not sure yet on what grounds

 

[The Mares Leg]

NO ONE, can confirm if Rankine was out before or after he hit the ground.

As such, the action resulted in a severe concusson.

Houston’s lucky he only got 5.

 

[The Hobo]

Id go as far as to say they leave it grey, like many of the rules, so they can pull the lever if/when faux outrage is required.

It amazes me that they overlook a raised knee that all but severes a spleen and leaves a player with ptsd, yet get a bump wrong and youre out for 5.

Another example of not wanting to deal with the uproar.

I can't recall the exact figure, but it was ~40% of concussions were a result of marking contests. That includes knees to the back of skulls etc. Yet do we cut that out? Nope, that's fine, because the public would be up in arms of losing out on the high flying marks.

It's very much pick and choose

 

[Del165198]

I think the hefty suspensions are valid for two reasons.

A) the amount of time a player has to miss for a concussion is increasing.

B) we are learning more and more about the severe impacts of concussions.

It’s only fair that suspensions be high for players who put their opponents at an increased risk of concussion. I get that these are split second decisions, but in both the Rankine and Houston hits both players had other options. Bumping wasn’t necessary, so ther argument that they only missed by 5-10cm is not relevant in my view.

It's a contact sport though played at high speed and high intensity. Concussions will happen sometimes and players accept that risk. It doesn't mean the player who did it is a vicious thug and needs to miss a quarter of season.

Gary Rohan knocked out Jeremy Cameron in a marking contest. If he'd played for the opposite team he would have got rubbed out for that, but since it's his teammate we accept it's an accident.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Anyone notice the language around the incident has started to soften by certain media.
Its like they go hard to get the big sentence, its handed down, the appeal is lodged and now they've softened in anticipation of the downgrading.
Always looking to be instep, meanwhile, the outraged nufties soak it up only to be left looking stupid when sanity prevails.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

It's a contact sport though played at high speed and high intensity. Concussions will happen sometimes and players accept that risk. It doesn't mean the player who did it is a vicious thug and needs to miss a quarter of season.

Gary Rohan knocked out Jeremy Cameron in a marking contest. If he'd played for the opposite team he would have got rubbed out for that, but since it's his teammate we accept it's an accident.

And that introduces the question of intent.
A player wouldnt deliberately KO his team mate during contact, so the outcome is accidental.
But a player from am opposing team gets done for a contact KO as he must have meant it.
Who's the mind reader at AFL house that can testify beyond doubt to someone elses intent?

Apparently accidents only happen when youre wearing the same colours in the minds of people at AFL house.