Certified Legendary Thread Covid, Life, UFOs, Food, & Wordle :(

[ZEV]

Have no fear, there’s not even grounds for the appeal in the first place.

IS it Carlton's home game?

EDIT: just saw the news... wtf

 

[NMBB]

Have no fear, there’s not even grounds for the appeal in the first place.

A bunch of scumbag supporters say hi

 

[sideswipe]

IS it Carlton's home game?

EDIT: just saw the news... wtf

The AFL will not be happy about this. They will need to further tweak the guidelines

The grey line between what is a decision to bump versus contesting the ball just got greyer and thicker.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[NMBB]

The AFL will not be happy about this. They will need to further tweak the guidelines

The grey line between what is a decision to bump versus contesting the ball just got greyer and thicker.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

AFL is forever tweaking rules etc - hire another floor of strategic advisers to report to Brad Scott who reports to Gil

 

[Vicky Park]

The AFL will not be happy about this. They will need to further tweak the guidelines

The grey line between what is a decision to bump versus contesting the ball just got greyer and thicker.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

C Townshend must have been very persuasive.

 

[sideswipe]

C Townshend must have been very persuasive.

Despite it being a Blue, I kinda like that “not bumps” resulting in a KO might not result in suspensions.

But after this and Rioli I am completely confused - even if this was a more legalistic thingy.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Despite it being a Blue, I kinda like that “not bumps” resulting in a KO might not result in suspensions.

But after this and Rioli I am completely confused - even if this was a more legalistic thingy.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Sure, but this wasn’t a “not bump”, it was a bump. Just because he turned late doesn’t mean he didn’t turn side on, with arm tucked in, and drill him in the head with a hip/elbow.

 

[manicpie]

Is it true that there is a little bit of all of us in Werribee.

 

[jathanas]

Sure, but this wasn’t a “not bump”, it was a bump. Just because he turned late doesn’t mean he didn’t turn side on, with arm tucked in, and drill him in the head with a hip/elbow.

I agree that it was a bump directed 100% at the opposition player, it's plain to see. Not sure he was going for his head though.

"Bumps" are generally permissible and the legality of this one was expertly argued.

I want Cripps in when we wipe the floor with them in 2 weeks time; we'll smash them by 9 points.

 

[NMBB]

I agree that it was a bump directed 100% at the opposition player, it's plain to see. Not sure he was going for his head though.

"Bumps" are generally permissible and the legality of this one was expertly argued.

I want Cripps in when we wipe the floor with them in 2 weeks time; we'll smash them by 9 points.

It's a conundrum - beating the filth with Cripps in is satisfying for us - beating the filth with Cripps out means they winge and whine which is also satisfying - which form of satisfaction would you find more satisfying?

 

[jathanas]

It's a conundrum - beating the filth with Cripps in is satisfying for us - beating the filth with Cripps out means they winge and whine which is also satisfying - which form of satisfaction would you find more satisfying?

Hard to know. If I'm to go by my Carlton supporting bestie they have been putrid for so long, their supporters now expect that their side will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory every.single.time.

The chronic malaise of that organisation's insipidness has affected them such that they have become numb to the pain.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I agree that it was a bump directed 100% at the opposition player, it's plain to see. Not sure he was going for his head though.

"Bumps" are generally permissible and the legality of this one was expertly argued.

I want Cripps in when we wipe the floor with them in 2 weeks time; we'll smash them by 9 points.

Bumps are permissible but any contact to the head is the responsibility of the bumper. You jump in the air and deliver one, whether it was your initial intention or not, and that’s on you. The decision has no basis in reality; it’s one born of a courtroom and not a football field. They may as well have decided that the ball is a cucumber and the object of the game is to create crop circles in the grass.

 

[jathanas]

Bumps are permissible but any contact to the head is the responsibility of the bumper. You jump in the air and deliver one, whether it was your initial intention or not, and that’s on you. The decision has no basis in reality; it’s one born of a courtroom and not a football field. They may as well have decided that the ball is a cucumber and the object of the game is to create crop circles in the grass.

Clear as, isn't it? Like you I thought there was no way he was getting off if the principle you describe is "not-negotiable".

The Carlton counsel "mobilised the full power of the English language" to get Cripps off.

Not sure how much this will murk the waters going forward but this case raises more questions than it answers.

 

[sideswipe]

Bumps are permissible but any contact to the head is the responsibility of the bumper. You jump in the air and deliver one, whether it was your initial intention or not, and that’s on you. The decision has no basis in reality; it’s one born of a courtroom and not a football field. They may as well have decided that the ball is a cucumber and the object of the game is to create crop circles in the grass.

That's not quite right. Leaving aside the legalese around directions to the tribunal, etc., the real test is as follows:

Rough Conduct (High Bumps)
A Player will be guilty of Rough Conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) the Player causes forceful contact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck. Unless Intentional, such conduct will be deemed to be Careless, unless:

the Player was contesting the ball and it was reasonable for the player to contest the ball in that way; or

The last bit is what got Crippa seems to have satisfied, ie. he was contesting the ball. The above is from the regs. This is the relevant "helpful" part of the guidelines:

For the purpose of these Guidelines, head clashes that result when a Player has elected to bump are circumstances that can reasonably be foreseen. Players will ordinarily be liable if they elect to bump if not contesting the ball.

I am completely confused. The question of "contesting the ball" is not an easy one.

 

[neilk]

It's clear that he's mastered the most important culinary skill - opening beer.

Buying's another story.

 

[NMBB]

That's not quite right. Leaving aside the legalese around directions to the tribunal, etc., the real test is as follows:

Rough Conduct (High Bumps)
A Player will be guilty of Rough Conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) the Player causes forceful contact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck. Unless Intentional, such conduct will be deemed to be Careless, unless:

the Player was contesting the ball and it was reasonable for the player to contest the ball in that way; or

The last bit is what got Crippa seems to have satisfied, ie. he was contesting the ball. The above is from the regs. This is the relevant "helpful" part of the guidelines:

For the purpose of these Guidelines, head clashes that result when a Player has elected to bump are circumstances that can reasonably be foreseen. Players will ordinarily be liable if they elect to bump if not contesting the ball.

I am completely confused. The question of "contesting the ball" is not an easy one.

If you're completely confused - consider sending your CV to the AFL - get to pick your own highly paid job

 

[sideswipe]

If you're completely confused - consider sending your CV to the AFL - get to pick your own highly paid job

Maybe Keeper of the Guidelines? The first two guidelines are listed below. Not quite sure last night did much on either front.

The guiding principles of the Tribunal system are:
To prioritise the health and safety of AFL players;
To operate a simple system which is fair and reasonable and can be understood readily by the industry and wider public;

 

[NMBB]

Maybe Keeper of the Guidelines? The first two guidelines are listed below. Not quite sure last night did much on either front.

The guiding principles of the Tribunal system are:
To prioritise the health and safety of AFL players;
To operate a simple system which is fair and reasonable and can be understood readily by the industry and wider public;

The 2nd one just ain't happening

 

[jathanas]

Maybe Keeper of the Guidelines? The first two guidelines are listed below. Not quite sure last night did much on either front.

The guiding principles of the Tribunal system are:
To prioritise the health and safety of AFL players;
To operate a simple system which is fair and reasonable and can be understood readily by the industry and wider public;

 

[sideswipe]

I just don’t post photos of my food like sideswipe does in an attempt to obtain cheap likes from all the screen lickers.

I’m above all that

Just saw this - your jinxing bullshit during Covid should have seen you banned from BF.

No one should forget that.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

That's not quite right. Leaving aside the legalese around directions to the tribunal, etc., the real test is as follows:

Rough Conduct (High Bumps)
A Player will be guilty of Rough Conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) the Player causes forceful contact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck. Unless Intentional, such conduct will be deemed to be Careless, unless:

the Player was contesting the ball and it was reasonable for the player to contest the ball in that way; or

The last bit is what got Crippa seems to have satisfied, ie. he was contesting the ball. The above is from the regs. This is the relevant "helpful" part of the guidelines:

For the purpose of these Guidelines, head clashes that result when a Player has elected to bump are circumstances that can reasonably be foreseen. Players will ordinarily be liable if they elect to bump if not contesting the ball.

I am completely confused. The question of "contesting the ball" is not an easy one.

Right, so it’s careless, which we all agree on, because he probably jumped in the air with the ball as his object.

Problem is, after that, his momentum was going toward Ah Chee, he turned himself sideways, tucked in his right arm and drilled Ah Chee in the head.

What is the evidence that he was contesting the ball? His left hand was partly open… I’ve heard people say that meant he was trying to catch the ball on his chest, but Ah Chee already had arms fully extended and hands touching (granted not controlling) the ball. It’s not reasonable to suggest Cripps was contesting the ball. Contesting the ball drop? Maybe. Take the other guy out and leave yourself free to win the ball.

But the real kicker is “… AND it was reasonable to contest the ball in this way”. Uh… no. Not reasonable. Had several perfectly viable alternatives and forewent them to jump in the air and bump Ah Chee in the head. Should be dead to rights, right there. The appeals board completely lost the plot at this point.

 

[sideswipe]

Right, so it’s careless, which we all agree on, because he probably jumped in the air with the ball as his object.

Problem is, after that, his momentum was going toward Ah Chee, he turned himself sideways, tucked in his right arm and drilled Ah Chee in the head.

What is the evidence that he was contesting the ball? His left hand was partly open… I’ve heard people say that meant he was trying to catch the ball on his chest, but Ah Chee already had arms fully extended and hands touching (granted not controlling) the ball. It’s not reasonable to suggest Cripps was contesting the ball. Contesting the ball drop? Maybe. Take the other guy out and leave yourself free to win the ball.

But the real kicker is “… AND it was reasonable to contest the ball in this way”. Uh… no. Not reasonable. Had several perfectly viable alternatives and forewent them to jump in the air and bump Ah Chee in the head. Should be dead to rights, right there. The appeals board completely lost the plot at this point.

Can't help but agree!

 

[Vicky Park]

The Cripps decision is great - it will give Carlton some misplaced hope. Just a little extra oomph for them until we kick their sorry arses out of the MCG in the last round.

Typical Carlton privilege too. If this was a nobody from a bottom dwelling team then the decision would not have been overturned.

I’m having a ball this season.

 

[sideswipe]

The Cripps decision is great - it will give Carlton some misplaced hope. Just a little extra oomph for them until we kick their sorry arses out of the MCG in the last round.

Typical Carlton privilege too. If this was a nobody from a bottom dwelling team then the decision would not have been overturned.

I’m having a ball this season.

Chris Townshend is a lock for Carlton's Most Courageous Award 2022.

 

[NMBB]