- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #3
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 2 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
MRP / Trib. 2024 - MRO Chook Lotto - Carlton Tribunal News & Reports
- Thread starter Aphrodite
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Aug 24, 2009
- 1,659
- 5,807
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Did they borrow Peter from us?
BluStreak
Norm Smith Medallist
while i believe he should be suspended. I can not argue the result that is the same as the one crippa got away with.
Blue and Silver
Brownlow Medallist
The tribunal has found in both these cases that if you are engaged in a football act that is not clearly likely to cause injury you should not be held liable for it.
In Cameron's case they determined that he did not tackle in an inherently dangerous way
In Cripps case that it was not determined that he had elected to bump and that therefore was not afforded the opportunity to contest the case fairly.
I think this is a bit of a glimmer as it should give good basis for future defences. It also allows for accidental injury as a possible outcome from otherwise reasonable football acts
On Pixel 7a using BigFooty.com mobile app
In Cameron's case they determined that he did not tackle in an inherently dangerous way
In Cripps case that it was not determined that he had elected to bump and that therefore was not afforded the opportunity to contest the case fairly.
I think this is a bit of a glimmer as it should give good basis for future defences. It also allows for accidental injury as a possible outcome from otherwise reasonable football acts
On Pixel 7a using BigFooty.com mobile app
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 collard said should never result in a 6-week suspension. Absolute joke.
BluStreak
Norm Smith Medallist
so both got off because of an error of law.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #1,232
Bedford also free to play
Blue and Silver
Brownlow Medallist
What would you say then? Free to play?
Got to draw these lines somewhere
On Pixel 7a using BigFooty.com mobile app
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?
By the way if you take drugs it's okay. We will give you 3 chances and keep it hush. Too many snowflakes these days. Let these players grow up with some resilience. Let the football do the talking.
Last edited:
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.
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.
I agree with the snowflake mentality, unable to separate banter from a vindictive slur. Fortunately or unfortunately depending on the eyes being seen through.
I prefer the old days overall, but in fairness lines were crossed. Very difficult for those or us having lives across multiple generations and value models/constructs.
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.
If the Cameron case was run properly, he would have been found guilty, but if the Cripps case was run properly, he wouldn’t have even been charged.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #1,240
Appeal won: Patrick Cripps in the clear over rough conduct charge
Patrick Cripps has sensationally been cleared to play this weekend after the AFL appeals board overturned Tuesday night’s tribunal decision to ban him for two matches on a rough conduct charge.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #1,241
Gill was furious
www.afl.com.au
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 Medal
www.afl.com.au
huh?
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.
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 Medal
It's a ridiculous suspension any way you want to look at it
TimeFor17
Debutant
- Aug 7, 2023
- 107
- 276
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Going by the ‘suspend him for being a
moron’ concept - 20% of all afl players should be rubbed out permanently… half of pies team would be done.
But 6 weeks is excessive but it is inline with the mainstream agenda at play so most of the followers will just agree.
Last edited:
Not 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 hearing
www.foxsports.com.au
He targeted multiple players on multiple occasions. 6 weeks more than appropriate.
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 hearing
bit was wrong.
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
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.
Sorry. I think I need to go to sleep.
Similar threads
- Locked
