Dan Houston’s season over as Port Adelaide fail last-ditch AFL appeal

Port Adelaide’s Dan Houston has failed his last-ditch attempt to be available for a potential grand final at the AFL Appeal Board.

ADELAIDE, AUSTRALIA – AUGUST 17: Izak Rankine of the Crows is knocked out by a late hit from Dan Houston of the Power during the round 23 AFL match between Port Adelaide Power and Adelaide Crows at Adelaide Oval, on August 17, 2024, in Adelaide, Australia. (Photo by Mark Brake/Getty Images)

Port Adelaide’s Dan Houston has failed in his last-ditch attempt to be available for a potential grand final at the AFL Appeal Board.

The All-Australian defender has likely played his last game for the club – given his interest in being traded to Victoria – with a five-game suspension for a bump on Adelaide’s Izak Rankine upheld.

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 >

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 make it that far, he will join the likes of Andrew Gaff as missing the decider through suspension.

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”.

Izak Rankine of the Crows is knocked out by a late hit from Dan Houston. (Photo by Mark Brake/Getty Images)

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 performs.

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 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 new 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.

David Zita provides the latest update on Dan Houston's case at the appeals board.

📺Watch #MidweekTackle on Ch. 504 or stream via @kayosportshttps://t.co/GJ6aKthxZypic.twitter.com/3utMXxT1rH

— Fox Footy (@FOXFOOTY) August 22, 2024

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.

“High contact means head, neck or the top of the shoulder,” the Power said.

“Or the top part of the shoulder?” Houghton said.

“No, Mr Chair, I disagree,” the Power responded.

He later added as part of the back-and-forth, trying to define what top of the shoulder meant: “The lid is the top of the paint can, but it’s also part of the paint can.”

The incident has ended Houston’s season. (Photo by James Elsby/AFL Photos via Getty Images)

They said even if this hit was high contact, it was “a width of a hair” high.

The Power’s initial Tribunal representative also made arguments, saying five games was manifestly excessive for a bump which did not make contact to the head.

They argued three games is the appropriate penalty when you compare the incident to other cases, such as Rankine copping four games for an intentional high bump earlier this year.

Board chair Houghton questioned why five games would not have been within the range of options available to the Tribunal, effectively arguing they were making the same case they had already lost.

The Power said Houston should’ve received the same benefit for his exemplary record as Charlie Cameron did for his less exemplary record earlier in the year.

The AFL’s core argument was that by pleading guilty the Power already accepted the elements of the rough conduct charge and that the Tribunal was within its rights to make the decision that it made.

Originally published as Dan Houston’s season over as Port Adelaide fail last-ditch AFL appeal