What did people think of the Houston bump

[the claw]

If he has made no contact with his head then i say it was a ripper bump. Did everything right

As usual if he got him high the outcome will mean 6 weeks when imo all it should have been is high contact free kick.

Keep the bump at all costs. Take end results out of all desicions and ping them purely on intent.

Last time i looked the bump is still a legal action.

[Andyy]

Great bump.

Ball within reach/contest, clean hard hit.

Not Houston's fault he got concussed IMO. It happens.

[Assange Tiger 😎]

It's an interesting one. They'll say he had the chose to tackle which is true...but if there was no head high contact it should be a legal bump. Hard to tell from the vision tbh if it was totally clean IMO. If proven it was then I hope he gets off for the good of the game

[Andyy]

It's an interesting one. They'll say he had the chose to tackle which is true...but if there was no head high contact it should be a legal bump. Hard to tell from the vision tbh if it was totally clean IMO. If proven it was then I hope he gets off for the good of the game

Well they keep saying if you choose to bump and someone gets concussed then you get suspected, but they really need to address this nonsense. You can't be responsible for the outcome surely - not everyone has a glass or iron jaw etc.

[WilliamPowell]

Whether I think it was a good bump, bad bump doesn't matter

Rankine was concussed, so Houston is goneskis

Only question is how many weeks?

[Diocletian]

Should be drummed out of the game for good....heinous act.....

[Francois Jackson]

so he bumped his shoulder, and not his head. AFL accepted this.

As a result of the bump not to his head, he fell to the ground and hit his head.

I find this 5 week ban nonsense.

[one-eyed]

Port Adelaide star Dan Houston won't play again in 2024 - and might have played his last game for the club - after copping a five-match ban for his brutal bump on Izak Rankine.

Lisa Hannon KC, representing the AFL, argued Houston did in fact make contact with the top of Rankine's shoulder and neck.

Additionally, club medical records showed Rankine suffered an injury to his shoulder's AC joint as a result of the bump, as well as a concussion.

The Tribunal sided with Hannon, even though it acknowledged Houston's clean rap sheet.

Chair Jeff Gleeson KC said Houston had a duty of care not to tackle Rankine in a way that would result in an offence of rough conduct.

"Houston breached that duty of care, and his breach was significant," he said.

"The carelessness was significant, the impact was severe, and the consequences for Rankine were evident."

https://www.afl.com.au/news/1201613/the-verdict-is-in-giants-dasher-learns-his-fate-at-tribunal

[tdy]

So many players have been rubbed out for innocuous bumps without malicious intent. Its become a joke who gets suspended each week.