![](https://images.bigfootymedia.com/icons/mobile-bullets/carlton.png)
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #3
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 2 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
It’s not the same as the Cripps case though.while i believe he should be suspended. I can not argue the result that is the same as the one crippa got away with.
What collard said should never result in a 6-week suspension. Absolute joke.Collard was pretty stupid. The others who have done the same thing have got (in order), warning, 4 weeks, 5 weeks. He got 6 . The next one will get 7 then 8 till there is no one silly enough not to recognise what the consequences will be.
so both got off because of an error of law.It’s not the same as the Cripps case though.
In this one, the AFL, and the Tribunal stuffed up, by not including the argument that it was likely cause injury. If they included the argument, Cameron would have been found guilty. It was a legal mistake, which means Cameron can get off.
In Cripps’ case, they didn’t actually have an argument. They didn’t argue that he bumped, because he didn’t, ie it was only through the error of law that they were able to find him guilty in the first place. The appeals board threw out the case, and found it to be unreasonable.
What would you say then? Free to play?What collard said should never result in a 6-week suspension. Absolute joke.
It’s words on a football field. Most likely tongue and cheek in the heat of battle. Let's punish the player twice as much as someone with a brain injury. Make sense?What would you say then? Free to play?
Got to draw these lines somewhere
On Pixel 7a using BigFooty.com mobile app
By memory, the tribunal ended up upholding the decision of the MRO - however in their verdict they stated at Cripps elected to bump, yet the 'bump' was not even discussed at the hearing. Therefore the argument at appeal was that he was denied natural justice - or 'procedural fairness' - as he wasn't able to defend himself at the tribunal, as it was never discussed.It’s not the same as the Cripps case though.
In this one, the AFL, and the Tribunal stuffed up, by not including the argument that it was likely cause injury. If they included the argument, Cameron would have been found guilty. It was a legal mistake, which means Cameron can get off.
In Cripps’ case, they didn’t actually have an argument. They didn’t argue that he bumped, because he didn’t, ie it was only through the error of law that they were able to find him guilty in the first place. The appeals board threw out the case, and found it to be unreasonable.
That’s wrong.By memory, the tribunal ended up upholding the decision of the MRO - however in their verdict they stated at Cripps elected to bump, yet the 'bump' was not even discussed at the hearing. Therefore the argument at appeal was that he was denied natural justice - or 'procedural fairness' - as he wasn't able to defend himself at the tribunal, as it was never discussed.
Classic balls-up by the tribunal that the AFL closed the loophole immediately after. Both Gill and Dill were right royally pissed off with the determination of the appeals board
Tough one old fella. From another old fella, our era was full of off the cuff and mostly non vindictive “insults” which include so much that is taboo today.It’s words on a football field. Most likely tongue in cheek. Let's punish the player twice as much as someone with a brain injury. Make sense? Too many snowflakes these days. Let these players grow up with some resilience. Let the football do the talking.
In a way, but a more accurate way to think about it is that Cameron got off due to an error of law, while Cripps was only found guilty in the first place due to the error of law.so both got off because of an error of law.
By memory, the tribunal ended up upholding the decision of the MRO - however in their verdict they stated at Cripps elected to bump, yet the 'bump' was not even discussed at the hearing. Therefore the argument at appeal was that he was denied natural justice - or 'procedural fairness' - as he wasn't able to defend himself at the tribunal, as it was never discussed.
Classic balls-up by the tribunal that the AFL closed the loophole immediately after. Both Gill and Dill were right royally pissed off with the determination of the appeals board
That’s wrong.
They found it was an error of law AND that it was unreasonable, and that Cripps didn’t bump.
huh?It’s words on a football field. Most likely tongue and cheek in the heat of battle.
It’s articles like this one which leaves people confused about what actually happened in the Cripps case. The article itself, not only the quotes from Gill.Gill was furious
![]()
AFL CEO left 'agitated' by Cripps' successful Tribunal appeal
AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan has expressed his frustration at the decision to overturn Patrick Cripps' round 21 suspension, which ultimately made the Carlton star eligible to win the Brownlow Medalwww.afl.com.au
It's a ridiculous suspension any way you want to look at ithuh?
2 players this year have already copped suspensions for using the word that he used multiple times.
If he’s saying it tongue in cheek then he can have 6 weeks for being a moron.
Going by the ‘suspend him for being ahuh?
2 players this year have already copped suspensions for using the word that he used multiple times.
If he’s saying it tongue in cheek then he can have 6 weeks for being a moron.
Not completely wrong.....That’s wrong.
They found it was an error of law AND that it was unreasonable, and that Cripps didn’t bump.
Part of the Appeals Board’s findings were that the Tribunal, despite concluding Cripps bumped his opponent, did not actually receive any indication from Cripps or his counsel to suggest that, with neither even asked during the proceedings prior to the Tribunal’s verdict.
The Tribunal on Tuesday found that Cripps was engaged in a contest but also elected to bump, which Townshend said was a leap in logic and one that required transparent directions from Tribunal Chairperson Jeff Gleeson before the jury retired to deliberate.
He targeted multiple players on multiple occasions. 6 weeks more than appropriate.It's a ridiculous suspension any way you want to look at it
Sorry, I was sayingNot completely wrong.....
![]()
Blues star FREE TO PLAY as AFL Appeals Board overturns decision after marathon hearing
FREE TO PLAY: Extraordinary twist as Blues star’s ban overturned after 4.5hr hearingwww.foxsports.com.au
bit was wrong.By memory, the tribunal ended up upholding the decision of the MRO
Without wanting to start a debate and bore everyone to tears, it was actually correct. The tribunal upheld the MRO's ban of 2 weeks.Sorry, I was saying
bit was wrong.
For some reason I read that (repeatedly) as the Appeals Board upheld the Tribunal’s decision.Without wanting to start a debate and bore everyone to tears, it was actually correct. The tribunal upheld the MRO's ban of 2 weeks.
"But the tribunal upheld the two-match ban which the match review officer graded as careless, high impact and high contact"
![]()
Update: Blues taking Cripps ban to the AFL Appeals Board
Carlton is not finished in its bid to free Patrick Cripps for the final two games of the home and away season.7news.com.au