Port Adelaide’s Dan Houston is making a last-ditch attempt to be available for a potential Grand Final at the AFL Appeal Board.
The All-Australian defender will have likely played his last game for the club – given his interest in being traded to Victoria – if his five-game suspension for a bump on Adelaide’s Izak Rankine is upheld.
On Tuesday night, the Tribunal found Houston made a “significant” breach of his duty of care when he made “forceful contact to Rankine’s upper shoulder and neck”.
Watch every game until the 2024 AFL Grand Final LIVE with no ad-breaks during play on Kayo. New to Kayo? Start your free trial today >
IMAGINE WHAT YOU COULD BE BUYING INSTEAD. For Free and confidential support call 1800 858 858 or visit gamblinghelponline.org.au.
They took into account his good record, guilty plea and contrition, along with the fact he didn’t actually make contact to the head; yet still handed Houston a five-game ban which will rule him out for the entire finals series, no matter how Port Adelaide goes.
In his statement to the Tribunal, Houston begged for lenience, saying: “I’ve played in many finals, but never in a grand final. Losing the opportunity to play in a grand final would be crushing to me.”
If the Power can downgrade Houston’s ban to four weeks, he would be eligible for a Grand Final if the Power lose their qualifying final yet win their way through.
Rankine suffered both a concussion and an AC joint (shoulder) injury in the incident and will miss Round 24, thus making the Crows superstar ineligible for the All-Australian team, given he has not played enough games this AFL season.
The Power can argue on four grounds at the Appeal Board:
1. An error of law that had a material impact on the decision of the Tribunal has occurred;
2. The decision of the Tribunal is so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it;
3. The classification of the offence by the Tribunal was manifestly excessive or inadequate; or
4. The sanction imposed by the Tribunal was manifestly excessive or inadequate.
They argued there was a denial of fairness in the process the Tribunal went through, and an error of law because Houston had a right to elect to bump instead of tackling. They said if the board agrees it “would open the sentencing discretion”.
The Power claimed having regard to the evidence, it couldn’t have been established there was forceful high contact to Rankine when the initial contact was made.
“The top of the shoulder means just that,” their lawyer said.
Appeal Board chair Will Houghton disputed whether it mattered exactly what was said in the Tribunal hearing, in regards to forceful high contact, “if it’s patently obvious from the video”.
“What’s the error of law?” Houghton asked.
The Power lawyer replied: “It’s a false factual finding in the sentencing discretion … it’s an error of law to make wrong factual findings.”
Houghton responded: “I have to disagree with you, that’s not a conclusion the High Court reached back in 1936. You’ve got to persuade us the finding of fact was not only wrong, but there was no material before the Tribunal below that could’ve led it to make that finding.”
The Power argued you could not conclude Rankine’s AC joint (shoulder) injury occurred because of the contact to the top of the shoulder.
Follow David Zita’s coverage of the Dan Houston AFL Appeal Board hearing live below!
Source Agencies
