The Crows’ case: What Adelaide will argue in Rankine submission to the AFL

Adelaide will argue that being suspended for finals should carry more weight than bans for home-and-away games when the AFL considers any penalty for Izak Rankine’s alleged on-field homophobic slur.

The Crows were granted more time on Wednesday to make their case to the league, which, if successful, would keep Rankine’s grand final dream alive.

Adelaide will argue a five-match ban on the star midfielder is manifestly excessive compared to suspensions for other offences but also because it would mean he would potentially miss the Crows entire finals series, according to two competition sources with knowledge of the matter.

The Crows’ submission to the AFL on Thursday will attempt to convince the league that giving Rankine a four-match ban or less for directing an alleged slur at a Collingwood opponent would remain consistent with previous penalties of four and five-match bans that other players served during home and away matches.

Typically, the AFL has treated finals the same as home-and-away matches, but there is sympathy at club level for recognising that finals are far more important matches to miss than home-and-away games and thus a more costly suspension.

If the league was to reduce the ban to four matches, Rankine would still be relying on the Crows losing their first final before winning their way into a grand final to play again this season. A three-game ban would see him certain to play in the grand final, were the Crows to reach it.

The Crows had been due to present their submission to the AFL on Wednesday afternoon but applied for, and were granted, a 24-hour extension by the AFL. No one at the Crows has claimed Rankine should not be banned, but the length of the ban is being contested.

The league is expected to consider the response on Thursday before delivering their verdict in the afternoon.

It would then be open to Adelaide to appeal the decision to the AFL’s disciplinary tribunal, something that would not happen until next week, if they still believed the ban to be too excessive, according to two sources with knowledge of the process.

Two other competition sources added that it could be open to the Crows to argue the disciplinary tribunal should ignore previous bans as a guiding precedent for the length of Rankine’s ban, as none of these cases had been challenged at an appeals board or disciplinary tribunal hearing and were made – as per AFL rules – at the discretion of the general counsel.

The proposed Rankine ban was made by general counsel Stephen Meade, in consultation with the broader executive team including Greg Swann and Andrew Dillon.

It could be argued these discretionary punishments should still be closer in line with suspensions for other offences under the AFL’s schedule of penalties for reportable offences.

Rankine allegedly directed a homophobic slur towards a Magpies opponent during Saturday night’s tense match at Adelaide Oval, prompting an investigation by the AFL’s integrity unit.

Adelaide had already made a submission as part of the league’s investigation, hoping to minimise any sanction for using the word “f----t” during the match, a fact two sources confirmed. The submission included reference to the byplay between Rankine and Collingwood players before the incident.

Despite the fact Rankine did not self-report, the club argued he was contrite and rang the Collingwood player whom the slur was directed at to apologise on Sunday. The club also argued it followed proper processes and did not attempt to defend the player’s action publicly or privately during the investigation.

Adelaide coach Matthew Nicks was scheduled to face the media in his weekly press conference on Wednesday, but that has been pushed back to Friday.

Speaking on Wednesday at his scheduled press conference, Collingwood coach Craig McRae said he didn’t want to “demonise” Rankine over the alleged taunt, but added the AFL must ensure the players’ workplace is safe for all.

McRae said the player on the receiving end of the alleged slur was doing OK.

“We had a good chat over the weekend and then again over Monday morning to check back in,” he said. “It’s about making sure our players are safe.

“But also I don’t want to demonise Izak either. Everyone’s allowed to make mistakes. The young lad seems like a really respectful young man, and he’s made an error.

“The AFL will take their own course on that, but you’re allowed to make mistakes too, so we respect that.”

The AFL investigation into Rankine’s alleged comments was told that the incident was preceded by a verbal exchange between Rankine and Collingwood player, Dan Houston.

There is no suggestion that Houston used inappropriate language, or that he was the target of Rankine’s alleged sledge.

Houston was playing for Port Adelaide last year when he concussed Rankine in a Showdown and received a five-match ban. He never played for the Power again, moving to Collingwood in the off-season.

McRae didn’t buy in to the Houston exchange.

“I don’t want to have, ‘He said, she said’ stuff,” McRae said.

“The reality is we’re all really comfortable with what we want our workplace to look like, and these things step over the boundary line.”

Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.