Will we make finals?

[Foxman98]

We really have been and continue to be given every opportunity to make finals. The fact we likely won’t is incredibly poor.

We are getting so many things fall our way it is destined to fail

 

[Next Waiting]

Timing is everything. Risk it all to win it all.

Cliches notwithstanding, we stand on the precipice. It goes this way...or that way. We have to win....every game...until there are no more games to win or lose.

Martin back, fit, VFL games under the belt. Mclean back, VFL games under the belt. Hunter back, VFL games under the belt (not sold but OK). Darcy introduced. JUH getting comfortable at the level.

If it's a gamble, I'm OK with it. Bow out, OK. Make finals, anything can happen. 22 on 22, pressure does funny things. Some rise, most fall. At least a core of ours have risen to the point where they make the last day, twice. And then, anything can happen. 22 on 22, pressure does funny things....

 

[Optimistic Dog]

The longer the appeal the more chance Cripps gets off. Not good for us gives them a chance without Cripps no hope of beating the dees or pies.

 

[WAbulldog]

The longer the appeal the more chance Cripps gets off. Not good for us gives them a chance without Cripps no hope of beating the dees or pies.

I see them beating Collingwood without Cripps anyway.

 

[LovevShaqBB13]

If your hopes of us making finals rested on wether or not Cripps was suspended you've got to take a good hard look at our own backyard first.

 

[dogwatch]

If your hopes of us making finals rested on wether or not Cripps was suspended you've got to take a good hard look at our own backyard first.

I take it you haven't been reading this board much lately. There's barely a post that doesn't lament the state of our own backyard.

We've reached the straw-clutching stage.

 

[X_box_X]

The longer the appeal the more chance Cripps gets off. Not good for us gives them a chance without Cripps no hope of beating the dees or pies.

I reckon Carlton taking on City Hall and succeeding is a great result for all clubs.

IMO there was no malice by Cripps and what he did was a pure football action. This successful result now sets a precedent and IMO the game will be better for it.

 

[Dogs Rule]

I reckon Carlton taking on City Hall and succeeding is a great result for all clubs.

IMO there was no malice by Cripps and what he did was a pure football action. This successful result now sets a precedent and IMO the game will be better for it.

I remember a precedent involving one of our players in 1997.

Hasn't happened since.

The AFL don't just look at the incident, they look at wider considerations just as much.

Suspensions that make no sense, charges being dropped that also make no sense. If the didn't have double standards they would have no standards at all.

Door is open now. Anything goes in the finals.

 

[Optimistic Dog]

If your hopes of us making finals rested on wether or not Cripps was suspended you've got to take a good hard look at our own backyard first.

Do not see the difference no Toby makes it easier for us to beat the GWS if there was no Cripps makes it easier for the Dees and Pies to beat the blues. We need all of this happen to make it. Far from ideal but it is what it is.

 

[X_box_X]

I remember a precedent involving one of our players in 1997.

Hasn't happened since.

The AFL don't just look at the incident, they look at wider considerations just as much.

Suspensions that make no sense, charges being dropped that also make no sense. If the didn't have double standards they would have no standards at all.

Door is open now. Anything goes in the finals.

I wouldn't say 'anything goes'.

What Cripps did should be considered only on its merits. It was a football act. It never warranted a suspension.

 

[Outback Footy]

We really have been and continue to be given every opportunity to make finals. The fact we likely won’t is incredibly poor.

We will.

 

[Anja_Nees]

I remember Jeff White sinking our season one year

Skipper was extremely stiff, and all Cooney had to do was kick the leather of it for the boundary, but he let it get smothered.

Shocking couple of seconds.

 

[Dogs Rule]

I wouldn't say 'anything goes'.

What Cripps did should be considered only on its merits. It was a football act. It never warranted a suspension.

He hit Ah Chee in the head, Ah Chee is concussed and out this week. If they were serious about protecting the head (as they pretend to be), Cripps would be suspended.

 

[Doggy]

He hit Ah Chee in the head, Ah Chee is concussed and out this week. If they were serious about protecting the head (as they pretend to be), Cripps would be suspended.

That's no good foe 90,000 at the MCG in the last round though

 

[Dogs Rule]

That's no good foe 90,000 at the MCG in the last round though

Exactly. Look forward to AFL HQ distancing themselves today and pretending they had no influence whatsoever on the result.

 

[X_box_X]

He hit Ah Chee in the head, Ah Chee is concussed and out this week. If they were serious about protecting the head (as they pretend to be), Cripps would be suspended.

Bit unlucky if you cop a falcon then. Automatically suspended for accidentally kicking the ball into someone's head.

If you think I'm being silly, I'd counter that by saying it's also silly to suspend someone if you unintentionally collect someone in the head in the process of fairly contesting the ball.

If it's good for the Goose, it's gotta be good for the gander.

 

[Libbaaaa]

Cripps was nowhere near the ball but its a football act because???

 

[X_box_X]

Cripps was nowhere near the ball but its a football act because???

No where near the ball?

Where do we draw the line, cause I'd argue he was near the ball. The ball was kicked directly towards the contest in which he was approaching at speed. His eyes were on the ball.

 

[Foxman98]

Cripps was nowhere near the ball but its a football act because???

It was one of those 10 years ago you wouldn't bat an eye but with their discussions about concussion and changes they made after Mackay/Clark hit last year baffling how they've let him off. AFL should challange but we know they haven't got the stones too. They wouldn't want long term brain issues for Ah Chee

 

[Foxman98]

No where near the ball?

Where do we draw the line, cause I'd argue he was near the ball. The ball was kicked directly towards the contest in which he was approaching at speed. His eyes were on the ball.

Ball was spoiled his attack on the ball for said contest was unreasonable no need to launch off the ground like he did eyes on the ball or not

 

[X_box_X]

Ball was spoiled his attack on the ball for said contest was unreasonable no need to launch off the ground like he did eyes on the ball or not

Well that's the argument the AFL tried to mount and ultimately it was an unsuccessful argument.

The AFL's sole objective is to avoid any player successfully suing them for any head injuries resulting from contact. That's the only reason they weren't prepared to hear Cripps' evidence on Tuesday night. It was only when Carlton paid good money to have strong legal respresentation at the appeal that the AFL realised they were fighting a (legally) unwinnable battle.

 

[footscray1973]

Well that's the argument the AFL tried to mount and ultimately it was an unsuccessful argument.

The AFL's sole objective is to avoid any player successfully suing them for any head injuries resulting from contact. That's the only reason they weren't prepared to hear Cripps' evidence on Tuesday night. It was only when Carlton paid good money to have strong legal respresentation at the appeal that the AFL realised they were fighting a (legally) unwinnable battle.

Cripps elected to bump an unsuspecting player rather than punch or spoil, or wait for Ah Chee to take possession then tackle him. The bump and consequence were his decision - he had options to attack that contest in different ways. He chose his method, and was directly responsible for Ah Chee being concussed. A player backing into a pack in a marking contest expects and braces for impact from behind. Ah Chee would reasonably be expecting to be tackled if he took possession, not be slammed into the ground by an opponent who collected him while airborne.

Cripps went past the ball and his arms and upper body collected Ah Chee high - the frames before this he launches his body but makes no attempt to punch or spoil, as his arms were down, not up. Cripps was targeting the man and not the ball.

 

[X_box_X]

Cripps elected to bump an unsuspecting player rather than punch or spoil, or wait for Ah Chee to take possession then tackle him. The bump and consequence were his decision - he had options to attack that contest in different ways. He chose his method, and was directly responsible for Ah Chee being concussed. A player backing into a pack in a marking contest expects and braces for impact from behind. Ah Chee would reasonably be expecting to be tackled if he took possession, not be slammed into the ground by an opponent who collected him while airborne.

Cripps went past the ball and his arms and upper body collected Ah Chee high - the frames before this he launches his body but makes no attempt to punch or spoil, as his arms were down, not up. Cripps was targeting the man and not the ball.

View attachment 1474126

Carlton successfully appealed.

It never warranted a suspension. It's a footy act.

You say Ah Chee would reasonably be expected to be tackled. More fool him if he expected that.

Footy is a contact sport and it's important we all remember that because we don't want our game turning into something it's not meant to be.

My greatest concern is the AFL successfully brainwashing future generations into turning the game into a non contact sport. It's certainly heading that way but unless supporters make a stance, the AFL will have their way.

 

[footscray1973]

Carlton successfully appealed.

It never warranted a suspension. It's a footy act.

You say Ah Chee would reasonably be expected to be tackled. More fool him if he expected that.

Footy is a contact sport and it's important we all remember that because we don't want our game turning into something it's not meant to be.

My greatest concern is the AFL successfully brainwashing future generations into turning the game into a non contact sport. It's certainly heading that way but unless supporters make a stance, the AFL will have their way.

Ah Chee was receiving the ball from Rich's spoil, not a mark, so if/as he took possession he is open to being tackled, or alternatively an opponent attempting to spoil his possession attempt. I know it's a contact sport, it was one of, if not the, main aspect I enjoyed throughout my own junior and senior career. But the AFL has pivoted towards ensuring contact with the head is avoided. They're not eliminating contact all together.

 

[dogwatch]

Carlton successfully appealed.

It never warranted a suspension. It's a footy act.

You say Ah Chee would reasonably be expected to be tackled. More fool him if he expected that.

Footy is a contact sport and it's important we all remember that because we don't want our game turning into something it's not meant to be.

My greatest concern is the AFL successfully brainwashing future generations into turning the game into a non contact sport. It's certainly heading that way but unless supporters make a stance, the AFL will have their way.

No doubt it was a "footy act" but the AFL has been saying for some time that certain footy acts are no longer acceptable. I think the debate is (or should be) about what now constitutes an acceptable footy act. Over recent years it has certainly become very different to what it was in the era of Jack Dyer and Charlie Sutton.

None of us want to see the robust physical aspect of the game taken away but equally none of us want to see more players have the same post-career experience as Zantuck, Frawley, Picken and numerous others who now have a lifetime of after-effects. In Frawley's case it appears to have led to his premature death. We also don't want to scare off Mums and Dads from registering their kids at the local junior footy club.

It seems incongruous that the AFL judicial system makes an exception (on appeal) to an instance that seems more severe and more reckless than others that have been penalised in recent times.