Certified Legendary Thread Patrick Cripps and Ah Chee

[HereComesJuddy]

was his hand poking through the back of ahchees head like some kind of witchdoctor?

So he attacked the ball then. Glad you are on board with how the game works

 

[carlton_99]

"The appeals board found the findings of the tribunal jury were unreasonable due to a failure to afford procedural fairness which resulted in an error of law."

so basically, he gets off on a technicality.

is there any wonder the public has no faith in the judges of the justice system....

Maybe read on... clearly states that they found no evidence that "the actions of Cripps were in the bumping of an opponent"

 

[Worm4]

Plenty of melts especially by collingwood folk.
Poor old Eddie McChins with his own wrong opinion on the outcome. He must be part of the new bread who want the game to be more like basketball. Thats the way the game would be heading if contests such as this weren't allow to happen. Get over it you bunch of softies....

 

[Stamos]

There will need to be a rule change or a procedure change to eliminate the possibility of someone getting concussed from that kind of action and it being overturned. Either they need to specify that a bump and contesting a ball are able to happen simultaneously and if the result is a concussion the player needs to be sanctioned. The AFL needs to fix this because otherwise the CTE damages that will be paid out will be even more extortionate. Players welfare is at stake. Can't have this outcome given Venables etc.

If you aren't allowed to contest the ball they may as well just wrap the whole thing up and we can play netball.
Player welfare is vitally important, but it's a contact sport, and sometimes accidents happen.

If they were really concerned about concussion, they'd be much harsher on dangerous actions (elbows, sling tackles) regardless of outcome, and eliminate those actions from the game.

But Cripps going for the ball was not in any way unreasonable. It just had an unlucky outcome because Ah Chee hit his head on the ground.

 

[HereComesJuddy]

Chose to jump. Had time to turn his body, and protect himself whilst knocking an opposition player in the head.
Apparently not reasonably foreseeable. Not reckless. Just an accident that he had time to avoid, and didn’t.

You're allowed to jump at the ball. Watch a game and you'll see it happen all the time.

 

[adammania9]

Not sure why people are discussing fixtures suddenly but Carlton travel interstate 6 times this year

Wooooow 5 vs 6. Astronomical difference

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Yep keep your eyes on the ball and you will be protected.

Did ah chee take his eyes off the ball ?

 

[adammania9]

Well yeah I can and have ...

The only appalling decision was the MRO - and ex Collingwood flog and the 'tribunal' nuffies who were split on it until they got a call from Gill the Dill - there wasn't even a free paid and if you watch the video that wasn't played on TV - Cripps was all eyes for the ball ...

far worse 'incidents' have been let go by the MRO monkey

Probably the best result anyway. Nowhere to hide when the Blues lose their last two

 

[HereComesJuddy]

Wooooow 5 vs 6. Astronomical difference

What brings you to this thread anyways?

 

[theyellowsash]

We all know how it works...

afl see more money in helping carlton to finals than the dogs probably

 

[Stamos]

"The appeals board found the findings of the tribunal jury were unreasonable due to a failure to afford procedural fairness which resulted in an error of law."

so basically, he gets off on a technicality.

is there any wonder the public has no faith in the judges of the justice system....

It's not a technicality, the Tribunal's finding was "unreasonable".

 

[harmesy 37]

I love this. Really old school Carlton.

* your rules, we’ll throw so much money at this thing we make our own rules.

This was assessed as “low impact” last year.
I presume you think it was accidents well?

 

[Whiskers]

No. Cripps got 0.

He got 2 and Kelly got 1 by the MRO. The comparison ends there.

If Kelly appeals he might’ve got the same result - 0

 

[FourthTimeAround]

He has his hands in a position to take the ball at waist/low torso level which would of necessitated the jump. It was always going to cause contact and Cripps left the ground which is always historically a strike against the player (unless in a marking contest)

I’d consider that Cripps recklessly approached the contest. Apparently that’s ok, jumping in the air and having the time to turn the body, tuck in the elbow and collide with the head of an opposition player that could not protect themselves.

im betting that the next time this happens (this week?) that it’ll be a week or two. Guaranteed.

 

[carlton_99]

Wooooow 5 vs 6. Astronomical difference

Lol when did I mention fixturing. I was just replying to your comment that said Carlton were the same as Collingwood with interstate trips

 

[Bell Ringer]

There will need to be a rule change or a procedure change to eliminate the possibility of someone getting concussed from that kind of action and it being overturned. Either they need to specify what a bump is or that a bump and contesting a ball are able to happen simultaneously and if the result is a concussion the player needs to be sanctioned. The AFL needs to fix this because otherwise the CTE damages that will be paid out will be even more extortionate. Players welfare is at stake. Can't have this outcome given Venables etc.

**** that.

 

[theyellowsash]

It's not a technicality, the Tribunal's finding was "unreasonable".

based on a technicality, if you can read

 

[TheWeapon]

Looks like the precedent has been set. Can’t wait for more of the “Cripps setup handpass” to trend - handpass a ball above an opposition player then launch into them as a “contest” and knock them out cold

 

[Greggy]

So you're saying Cotchin was attacking the ball? Am I right?

Why are you bringing up Cotchin anyway? It’s an incident from 5 years ago, the AFL have altered every interpretation of head high contact since then, they’ve gone out of their way to protect players from concussion.

 

[SplintWhisky]

So sorry that contact is part of the game!

He jumped at the ball, which if you played the game, you'd know that's what you are meant to do

The contact aspect of the sport is fine. The issue is he jumped for a ball that was already on the downward trajectory and he was coming in second to the contest and chose to jump. As soon as he chose to jump then it was an issue and he became liable.

The fact he got of on a technicality is bullshit and the AFL have huge egg on their face because of this.

 

[JustaBattler]

"The appeals board found the findings of the tribunal jury were unreasonable due to a failure to afford procedural fairness which resulted in an error of law."

so basically, he gets off on a technicality.

is there any wonder the public has no faith in the judges of the justice system....

LOL what 'judges' you nuffy - the only officials are on the ground - the rest are paid monkeys - starting with the idjot who is a one man disaster area in tehe MRO

 

[Worm4]

I know you’re happy because you support Carlton, but it’s an appalling decision and you cannot say otherwise

Maybe AFL isn't the sport for you. Go and watch basketball

 

[Sea fog]

The amount of clowns in here that still don't get that the tribunal *ed up is why he got off. The AFL aren't saying the action was okay but their lawyers s**t the bed and Cripps got off on a technicality.

The AFL tribunal should have a clear set of rules which rely on justice not the legal eagles feasting on these cases.

 

[Stamos]

based on a technicality, if you can read

"error of law" is a technicality?

 

[adammania9]

Maybe AFL isn't the sport for you. Go and watch basketball

Sorry I care for head injuries