MRP / Trib. 2022 - MRO Chook Lotto - Carlton Tribunal News & Reports

[LanceRomance]

wh

Jesus the radio today is glorious

which station do you recommend?

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I doubt it. Most supporters have brains

Not sure about that. The vitriol I'm seeing from this overturn is mind numbing.

 

[Bell Ringer]

Not sure about that. The vitriol I'm seeing from this overturn is mind numbing.

Empty vessels make the most noise...

 

[bradfisher14]

Is it likely the AFL will appeal? If they are, when would we find out?

 

[jooce8891]

Is it likely the AFL will appeal? If they are, when would we find out?

the AFL aint gonna take their own system to court, would be hillarious if they did though.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Issue is the inconsistencies. Marlion Pickett got a week suspension for a shepherd on Dylan Moore. The result: Moore had no injury, no concussion, and played out the rest of the match and the following week (so no delayed concussion/issues).

There's always going to be inconsistencies unfortunately. Surely the aim (and preference) is to get as many right as possible though? Not to get them all wrong because a couple of others were wrong.

This just shows the problem with the current grading system. There's very little wriggle room for incidents like this. Had Cripps copped a fine, I think most people would have been ok with that, but the current grading system doesn't allow that. It was always going to be 2 weeks and would always have to be fought.
No amount of rules or suspensions will remove incidental or accidental contact/injury from the game. I'm all for protecting the head, but protect it from deliberate, malicious and reckless acts. Not two blokes contesting the ball in a hard, but fair way.
Kennedy had his jaw broken (and concussion?) in a contest the other week. There was nothing in it. I would have hated to see that player suspended simply because they both went hard at the ball and our player came off second best and missed 2 weeks through injury.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Glad he got off but i hate it when clubs bring in QC's - i reckon just about any decision in the AFL could be overturned using QC's

Both sides use QC's mate. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

And if a decision could be overturned by a QC its a bad decision.

AFL needs to be better, we don't need to be more amateur.

 

[FRUMPY]

Both sides use QC's mate. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

And if a decision could be overturned by a QC its a bad decision.

AFL needs to be better, we don't need to be more amateur.

just another reminder it isnt a game and its a business - gets further from it every year

 

[forever blue 1]

...you reckon ???

I have faith but in other areas of life I gave that up quite a while ago, so fair comment.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Hey Wickzki, I enjoy your posts, but I don’t agree Cripps got off on a technicality (ie. the bolded part above).

Imagine this scenario….

I get taken to court for committing a criminal act. The jury finds I did not commit the criminal act, but instead carried out a different act, which is not illegal.

The judge however tells the jury, it is possible that I committed both acts at the same time, without any evidence or debate. This theory is presented as fact. I am not asked if I committed the criminal act and my lawyer is not given an opportunity to explore this or cross-examine.

The judge then explains to the jury, the technical aspects of the law which it must consider, but this is done behind closed doors, so my lawyer and I have no idea what is happening.

The jury then bizarrely determine that I did commit the criminal act, even though they previously said I didn’t.

My lawyer takes the case to appeal and successfully argues there was an error in the law AND the jury acted unreasonably. During the appeal, the jury review video footage, and determine that I did not commit the criminal act, and that I committed another act, which is not illegal. The judge who also reviewed the footage, said in his summation - "The video did not reveal a (criminal act)"

Did I get off on a technicality? Or was I not guilty in the first place. I suggest the latter, and if you replace the words ‘criminal act’ with 'bump' and ‘I’ with Cripps, then the above scenario is my take on what happened, based on various reports in the media, with the last paragraph pretty much a carbon copy of the way it was explained on the AFL's own website.

In my opinion, the jury at appeal absolutely found Cripps was not guilty. He is completely exonerated and his crystal clean record continues.

Without a ****ing question.

 

[Boy with chook]

Has Simon Whelan of the Coodabeens retired from being a judge now? If so could he be considered for a role on the tribunal? At least the legal stuff when directing the tribunal should then be kosher, as well as knowing a bit about the game (as all supporters should).

 

[Azzurro]

Hey Wickzki, I enjoy your posts, but I don’t agree Cripps got off on a technicality (ie. the bolded part above).

Imagine this scenario….

I get taken to court for committing a criminal act. The jury finds I did not commit the criminal act, but instead carried out a different act, which is not illegal.

The judge however tells the jury, it is possible that I committed both acts at the same time, without any evidence or debate. This theory is presented as fact. I am not asked if I committed the criminal act and my lawyer is not given an opportunity to explore this or cross-examine.

The judge then explains to the jury, the technical aspects of the law which it must consider, but this is done behind closed doors, so my lawyer and I have no idea what is happening.

The jury then bizarrely determine that I did commit the criminal act, even though they previously said I didn’t.

My lawyer takes the case to appeal and successfully argues there was an error in the law AND the jury acted unreasonably. During the appeal, the jury review video footage, and determine that I did not commit the criminal act, and that I committed another act, which is not illegal. The judge who also reviewed the footage, said in his summation - "The video did not reveal a (criminal act)"

Did I get off on a technicality? Or was I not guilty in the first place. I suggest the latter, and if you replace the words ‘criminal act’ with 'bump' and ‘I’ with Cripps, then the above scenario is my take on what happened, based on various reports in the media, with the last paragraph pretty much a carbon copy of the way it was explained on the AFL's own website.

In my opinion, the jury at appeal absolutely found Cripps was not guilty. He is completely exonerated and his crystal clean record continues.

This post is excellent. POTY nominee. Criminally under-liked!!!

 

[Monty1978]

That decision gave everyone an extra skip in their step today .. that was glorious how we stuck it up the AFL ass for once

 

[katmanblue]

I was totally convinced Cripps was guilty and justifiably gone right up until the club produced that footage from front on where you can clearly see him with eyes for the ball and no intentional bump.

BUT, given the clubs argument to get him off (he wasn’t asked if his intention was to bump), and the shitstorm thats about to rain on our club, again, as well as the extra attention he will get on the field for the next 2 weeks, I’m wondering if it was all worth it.

I mean if we can’t win a home and away game without him, would playing finals even matter?

It's not just him though. It's Kennedy and Hewett too. That's a major part of out on ball brigade.

On SM-F926B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[katmanblue]

It’s worth it. If the club isn’t going to do everything it can to stick up for the captain who are they going to stick up for?

Certainly not Hayes.

On SM-F926B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[TwiggleyFanClub]

Haha. To the main board!

YouTube

 

[btdg]

If this result doesn't fire the lads up, nothing will.....

Blues by 23.

If they don't fire up and win, we can always challenge the result in court?

I reckon that QC bloke from last night might just get us over the line...

 

[thegreatbeast]

Has Simon Whelan of the Coodabeens retired from being a judge now? If so could he be considered for a role on the tribunal? At least the legal stuff when directing the tribunal should then be kosher, as well as knowing a bit about the game (as all supporters should).

Excuse me Boy with chook, I need answers.

ANSWERS.

 

[Aphrodite]

AFL's statement on the Appeals Board's decision ...

 

[FRUMPY]

AFL's statement on the Appeals Board's decision ...

In other words, 'next year he (and anyone else who does the same) will get 2 weeks for the same action, we'll make sure of it'

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

AFL's statement on the Appeals Board's decision ...

Tommy Morris tweeted last night that the AFL would go to the Supreme Court and challenge it

 

[katmanblue]

I haven't seen mentioned anywhere is that players first duty of care is to themselves. Cripps contested the ball in a manner which would minimise injury risk to himself. CAC throws himself sideways and back leaving himself in a vulnerable position.

Akin to a mini pulling in front of a truck and not matching speed.

 

[Aphrodite]

Good afternoon all

 

[goreds]

Good afternoon all

That look of intent…

 

[forever blue 1]

Good afternoon all

You Tonkin’ to me