Certified Legendary Thread Patrick Cripps and Ah Chee

[Fadge]

do you honestly reckon if ah chee wasnt concussed cripps gets suspended? or if rowell doesnt get up and play out the game he still gets let off?

This is spot on.

AFL need to penalise intent and action over and above outcome if there is ever going to be any consistency applied to these cases.

 

[Fadge]

Yeah, why would people use a shot where Cripps has eyes only on the footy and has his arms out to try and take the ball safely on his chest?

While I know it's not actually a marking contest, this is just one guy trying to grab the ball out in front with arms outstretched vs the other trying to take it on his chest. You don't have to have your arms above your head to be contesting the ball. The mental gymnastics people are going to to try and say "Cripps' only intent was to bump" is insane.

Yeah ok, you've obviously never played footy.

 

[Toump Ass]

Personally I'm fine with the outcome being a factor in a penalty. It doesn't matter if you're trying to "make a statement" or you mis-time your attack on the ball. If a bloke ends up vomiting and concussed, there's a penalty.

 

[Area51]

As far as I can tell, no

And the grounds are pretty narrow, it's a tough gig to pull off

View attachment 1472382

Which of these do Blues fans (or anyone else for that matter) think has a realistic chance of success? I can understand why they are appealing if it's basically zero cost ($5k can fit in very small paper bag) as even the smallest chance of success would make it a value bet.

Personal opinion but the last three seem to be very very small prospects. Not sure about error of law as I don't have a clue what qualifies.

 

[JyeDye]

might have been 1 week under the grading system as medium rather than high impact

i dont see the relevance of the question given that Ah Chee was concussed. it was found cripps was careless and as such has to face the consequences flowing from that careless act

if the afl is serious about protecting players from cte and other chronic long term conditions that occur post football then the outcome of these incidents must absolutely remain a factor in determining how to punish them

Of course the outcome is relevant in grading these acts, but currently the AFL is way too reliant on it. I’m not even talking about the Cripps case here. Acts like the Maynard one earlier in the year are simply going to happen playing the game. He goes up for a spoil, hits the ball, then clips the player, the player loses balance and hits the ground and whiplashes his head. There is absolutely no malice in that play, it’s a football act you will see 50 times a game without a player getting concussed. Yet Maynard cops two weeks for that action.

Compared to Jai Culley deliberately elbowing Anderson in the head after Anderson had ran past him. This is not a football action, simply a dog hit and had much higher potential to cause genuine injury and concussion. But don’t worry because Anderson ran out the game, so only two weeks, same as Maynard for a much worse action.

Absolute joke.

 

[JyeDye]

Which of these do Blues fans (or anyone else for that matter) think has a realistic chance of success? I can understand why they are appealing if it's basically zero cost ($5k can fit in very small paper bag) as even the smallest chance of success would make it a value bet.

Personal opinion but the last three seem to be very very small prospects. Not sure about error of law as I don't have a clue what qualifies.

None.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

Which of these do Blues fans (or anyone else for that matter) think has a realistic chance of success? I can understand why they are appealing if it's basically zero cost ($5k can fit in very small paper bag) as even the smallest chance of success would make it a value bet.

Personal opinion but the last three seem to be very very small prospects. Not sure about error of law as I don't have a clue what qualifies.

Error of law is really technical administrative law stuff, think we can forget about that

So it's the other 3, they've got no hope

 

[Chief]

paper bag

 

[The Royal Sampler]

a) Case doesn't have to be brilliant. It's obvious.

b) if he did everything to the best of his ability but Ah Chee didn't match his jump or was a bit off where he was reasonably expected to be, it's not careless. It's all reasonable care taken.

Sometimes things go wrong though you took all reasonable care. The opposition also has a responsibility to protect themselves in a contest.

a) Obvious to you, but not the MRP, tribunal or general public, apparently.
b) I can be careless when driving, doesn’t mean I’ll have an accident but it does make me responsible if one occurs.

Blaming Ah Chee for not taking care that someone might jump in the air and bump him in the head is just plain stupid.

 

[Chief]

 

[The Royal Sampler]

If you were standing in front of a person running at you with their elbow out vs a person running at you in the tucked/braced position, which would you rather be hit by?

It's not about whether it caused injury anyway. It's about whether or not it was a reasonable action under the circumstances and, despite the injury, whether it could be deemed as the better option for protecting AhChee.

I dunno, running with your elbow out would look too ridiculous frankly. And running with arms tucked in would be awkward and difficult.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I don't understand people using that photo for evidence to why Cripps is contesting the ball

Cripps hands in red, ah chees in blue
View attachment 1472901
If you're "trying to win the ball", maybe try grabbing it before your opponent instead of just running through them

Amen. Either Cripps is a closet T-Rex or he just forgot he was trying to contest the ball.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

You don't have to have your arms above your head to be contesting the ball. The mental gymnastics people are going to to try and say "Cripps' only intent was to bump" is insane.

It sure helps though if you arrive slightly late, and the guy you’re “contesting” with already has his arms extended and hands right next to the ball.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I dunno, running with your elbow out would look too ridiculous frankly. And running with arms tucked in would be awkward and difficult.

Good one. You're the top contributor to this thread (which is strange in itself) and this is probably the best thing you've come up with.

 

[Area51]

Cheap one I know but couldn't resist.

Anyway I would have thought anyone chugging adrenochrome would be right into conspiracy theories about paper bags. Much like the nutjobs that think there are aliens hidden away in area51.

 

[Hayes4PM]

Appeal of the appeal underway

"The first thing concerns interpretation of … we say the tribunal departed from the natural and correct interpretation of the clause bumping of an opponent," Townshend said.
"It provided two choices in the one contest of the ball.
"In a different era that would not have resulted in a report.
"The second theme concerns the conduct of the proceeding itself.
"There was a denial of natural justice. We say this error … would have affected the result."


ALSO. If anyone should be interested in a VISY ambassador role, I think it should be noted that VISY are a big fan of PATRICK CRIPPS

9

Patrick Cripps

Age

29

Ht

195cm

Wt

93kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

25.9

5star

K

9.8

4star

HB

16.1

5star

M

3.4

3star

T

5.8

5star

CL

7.4

5star

D

21.0

5star

K

10.1

4star

HB

10.9

5star

M

2.5

3star

T

3.8

4star

CL

6.3

5star

D

12.6

4star

K

4.8

2star

HB

7.8

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

3.2

5star

CL

1.4

4star

and the CARLTON FOOTBALL CLUB. So.... ya know.

 

[theyellowsash]

wow those are some dumb arguments.
"in past years, that wouldnt be a suspension"
"the tribunal didnt agree with us so its an error"

fmd, if the judges agree with arguments that pathetic they need some new appeals judges.

 

[Fadge]

Appeal of the appeal underway

"The first thing concerns interpretation of … we say the tribunal departed from the natural and correct interpretation of the clause bumping of an opponent," Townshend said.
"It provided two choices in the one contest of the ball.
"In a different era that would not have resulted in a report.
"The second theme concerns the conduct of the proceeding itself.
"There was a denial of natural justice. We say this error … would have affected the result."


ALSO. If anyone should be interested in a VISY ambassador role, I think it should be noted that VISY are a big fan of PATRICK CRIPPS and the CARLTON FOOTBALL CLUB. So.... ya know.

The Tribunal Chairperson should just stop it there and stay 'You are wasting everyone's time, appeal dismissed.'

 

[Corn Cobbers]

Appeal of the appeal underway

"The first thing concerns interpretation of … we say the tribunal departed from the natural and correct interpretation of the clause bumping of an opponent," Townshend said.
"It provided two choices in the one contest of the ball.
"In a different era that would not have resulted in a report.
"The second theme concerns the conduct of the proceeding itself.
"There was a denial of natural justice. We say this error … would have affected the result."


ALSO. If anyone should be interested in a VISY ambassador role, I think it should be noted that VISY are a big fan of PATRICK CRIPPS and the CARLTON FOOTBALL CLUB. So.... ya know.

So they HAVE gone the error of law route

Leaving no stone unturned

 

[Art Vandelay_]

"In a different era that would not have resulted in a report.

Stop drinking all. In a different era alcohol was banned so that clearly matters now.

 

[theyellowsash]

So they HAVE gone the error of law route

Leaving no stone unturned

except they didnt make any arguments about error of law. theyve again argued a classification, as well as basically just saying they were denied justice.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Good one. You're the top contributor to this thread (which is strange in itself)…

Thanks mate. Working tirelessly to educate the masses.

 

[Pugnacious1874]

Yeah, why would people use a shot where Cripps has eyes only on the footy and has his arms out to try and take the ball safely on his chest?

While I know it's not actually a marking contest, this is just one guy trying to grab the ball out in front with arms outstretched vs the other trying to take it on his chest. You don't have to have your arms above your head to be contesting the ball. The mental gymnastics people are going to to try and say "Cripps' only intent was to bump" is insane.

Assuming he successfully pulls off an attempt to contest the ball like this...

He's in the air, at speed, sideways, both arms cradling the ball to his chest (but not a mark) and contact from opponent . Then what?

Or... he was going the bump.

 

[Rob R]

So they HAVE gone the error of law route

Leaving no stone unturned

Easy solution if they find the proceedings were flawed, rerun it next week with a different panel and Cripps can miss week 1 of the finals instead.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The Royal Sampler]

The Tribunal Chairperson should just stop it there and stay 'You are wasting everyone's time, appeal dismissed.'

Chairperson here;