Certified Legendary Thread Patrick Cripps and Ah Chee

[FourthTimeAround]

You know, I’ll put my thoughts this way

Where two players are approaching a ground ball, the player coming in second at speed

• is braced for contact in a way to put themselves between the opposition player and the ball
• cups their arms to collect the ball on the chest
• is beaten to the ball by the opposition player
• lifts their body up and hit the opposition player in the head, causing a concussion injury.

is two weeks every single time, if not more.

Now Cripps, despite also jumping in the air so far that he collects Ah Chee high when he is reaching up at full height to get the ball, with everything else the same as above…

… gets off.

Farce.

 

[Hoops]

Is there a single non-Carlton fan that thinks it shouldn’t have been weeks? I mean, Freo have an interest in Carlton winning both games but theres no-one without navy blue goggles arguing the act was fine right?

AFL has no choice but to throw out the book and start again, the damage control is gonna be through the roof and hopefully something good comes of it.

I can't tell based on the grainy footage and stills I have seen and not knowing his mindset at the time. So I am content that he wasn't suspended based on natural justice.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Your willingness to posit self-interested opinions as fact gives great insight into how cults and terrorist organisations are able to indoctrinate the disenfranchised.

Just when I think you couldn't possibly get any worse, you raise the bar. Bravo.
What opinions have I stated as fact? Is that like saying there's no evidence to support the theory that Cripps was contesting the ball? Is that an opinion stated as fact? Is that like saying that there's zero chance that Cripps' arms are extended?
Is that like saying Cripps bumped Ah Chee with his hip? Is that like saying it was his intention to bump?

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Great question, my answer is “no”. The J Riewoldt picture you posted would be the exception, because the flexion at the hips/trunk actually means his arms do have to extend. Toovey there might be similar but hard to tell front-on. Mr. Walker a definite “no”.

So by that logic, you would have to agree that a player doesn't have to have their arms extended to be contesting the ball, or trying to take possession?

For the record, I would consider those to be arms extended. There can be differing degrees of extension. The upper arms tucked close to the body, with the forearms "extended" out in the direction of the fall of the ball, is an attempt to catch the ball. This can't be done without some form of arm extension. The ball would just bounce off your chest while your arms are by your side.

 

[tiger_tough]

A Richmond fan complaining about another club being 'whiny' - that's the funniest thing I've read all day.

Just a simple 'yeah you're right' would've done

Admittedly, I just saw the comment that you replied to that mentioned "The Cotchin Rule" and assumed it was referring to getting off for reportable acts in general. I didn't go back any further. Surely you can understand the confusion? I mean he does seem to get away with a lot of things that others wouldn't.

The amount of whining going on in this thread by oppo supporters and you have the audacity to call us whiny?!?

Bigfooty is 99% whining and shitfighting these days. Perhaps #rentfree would've been more fitting.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

No I guarantee you it already has a definition, I’m just working within it.

Anatomically, extension of the shoulder/arm is putting it behind you, so no, I’m not being pedantic and just using jargon.

Extension is the opposite of flexion. If his arms weren't static by his side, or in the act of flexion, then he was extending them (or at the very least, one of them). You know, away from the body.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Just when I think you couldn't possibly get any worse, you raise the bar. Bravo.
What opinions have I stated as fact? Is that like saying there's no evidence to support the theory that Cripps was contesting the ball? Is that an opinion stated as fact? Is that like saying that there's zero chance that Cripps' arms are extended?
Is that like saying Cripps bumped Ah Chee with his hip? Is that like saying it was his intention to bump?

Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, but no, there isn’t any evidence on video to say he was contesting the ball.

Nor to say that his arms are extended. Flexing your elbows isn’t extending your arms, no matter how much you want it to be.

Can’t be certain it was his hip, but it was either hip, or elbow, or both.

LOL that you think the video confirms your opinion that he was contesting the ball, and at the same time refutes that he made forceful contact with Ah Chee’s head. It is fascinating the extent to which people can interpret visual evidence differently depending on their point of view, and frankly terrifies me if ever I’m to be reliant on eyewitness testimony for any reason.

 

[Vankri]

Awful outcome for many reasons.

Firstly process wise the way he got off is setting a dangerous precedent to challenge the tribunal decisions on procedural grounds during an appeal.

Secondly in games this now means that outside of marking contests you can slam into a player with both feet off the ground nowhere near the ball and get off even if you end up bumping them high in the head. A ridiculous footballing situation if you think about it.

A marking contest is an understood situation and we know how to make it fair (no tunnelling, don’t block a players run etc).

A bump is a clear football action and we know how to make it fair and are strict on it (no high contact).

But what the hell is this Cripps ‘jump-slam’ into a player to bump them without contesting the ball when they’re waiting like a sitting duck for a ball drop? Surely it’s not something we want to see replicated, it carries a way higher risk of ending in concussions than the fiercest of high tackles and that’s been such a focus of the past few years.

Watch the AFL now be embarrassed and overreact the other way by tightening concussion risk rules…

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Just a simple 'yeah you're right' would've done

Bigfooty is 99% whining and shitfighting these days. Perhaps #rentfree would've been more fitting.

If you want to see rent free, check out the Richmond bloke on Twitter who comments on EVERY single post about Carlton.
It's actually quite sad. Like a few around here who only comment on Carlton stuff and never even discuss their own team unless it's brought up in a Carlton thread by someone else.

 

[Robertio]

I truly hope that all the Carlton fans now come to an understanding on the back of this decision that when Darren Milburn did what we now know was contesting the ball with Stephen Silvangi and carried on like pork chops will now send messages of apology to Dasher for their behaviour that day and how they treated him over the consequent years.

They will, won't they?

Not likely mate, it what empty head Milburn done after he hit Silvagni that got him offside with the Carlton supporters.

 

[HereComesJuddy]

Both players jumped into a contest and knocked the opposition player out, oh that's right I forgot Cripps apparently had eye for the ball. I guess Milburn was just guessing where Silvagni was.

I'll have what you're on!

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Extension is the opposite of flexion. If his arms weren't static by his side, or in the act of flexion, then he was extending them (or at the very least, one of them). You know, away from the body.

Oh Christ, here we go.

The reference point for movement of the body is called the anatomical position, which has the arms by the side, palms forward, elbows extended.

Elevation of the shoulder from the anatomical position is called flexion. His shoulders were not flexed. They were close to the neutral anatomical position.

His elbows were flexed, which as you’ve stated, is the opposite of flexion.

Ergo, arms not extended.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, but no, there isn’t any evidence on video to say he was contesting the ball.

Nor to say that his arms are extended. Flexing your elbows isn’t extending your arms, no matter how much you want it to be.

Can’t be certain it was his hip, but it was either hip, or elbow, or both.

LOL that you think the video confirms your opinion that he was contesting the ball, and at the same time refutes that he made forceful contact with Ah Chee’s head. It is fascinating the extent to which people can interpret visual evidence differently depending on their point of view, and frankly terrifies me if ever I’m to be reliant on eyewitness testimony for any reason.

You really do live on a different planet, don't you?
Arm held (I will avoid using terms like extended, because you are being a ridiculous pedant) in a manner that a player taking a chest mark, or catching the ball on their chest, and eyes on the ball the whole time, are both evidence of contesting the ball. Just because you don't agree, or don't want them to be, doesn't stop them from being reality.

His hip never gets anywhere near his head. The footage quite clearly shows that. This goes beyond interpretation of visual evidence and enters the realm of hallucination.

Please feel free to show me where I have once claimed that he doesn't make forceful contact with his head...

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Awful outcome for many reasons.

Firstly process wise the way he got off is setting a dangerous precedent to challenge the tribunal decisions on procedural grounds during an appeal.

Secondly in games this now means that outside of marking contests you can slam into a player with both feet off the ground nowhere near the ball and get off even if you end up bumping them high in the head. A ridiculous footballing situation if you think about it.

A marking contest is an understood situation and we know how to make it fair (no tunnelling, don’t block a players run etc).

A bump is a clear football action and we know how to make it fair and are strict on it (no high contact).

But what the hell is this Cripps ‘jump-slam’ into a player to bump them without contesting the ball when they’re waiting like a sitting duck for a ball drop? Surely it’s not something we want to see replicated, it carries a way higher risk of ending in concussions than the fiercest of high tackles and that’s been such a focus of the past few years.

Watch the AFL now be embarrassed and overreact the other way by tightening concussion risk rules…

It doesn't mean any of those things. This is just a really, really poor interpretation of what happened, the reason he got off and what it means going forward.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

For people wanting Cripps rubbed out - do you think he was

a) eyes on the ball attempting to collect it

or

b) eyes on the player electing to bump


For me - the vision I have seen - a) looks the most likely scenario. The fact Ah Chee is injured should only come into it once it has been shown that the action was wrong.

An example I use a lot - 2009 Round 14 - Michael Gardiner take a mark in the goal square to win arguably one of the greatest H&A matches ever.

In the same marking contest - Harry Taylor was knocked out cold from Gardiner's elbow. Are we saying that because he was conussed Gardiner should be suspended? Or do we accept that in a brutal physical sport, that two players going for the ball - that injury can ensue?

The shrill call about "but, but, but - someone got hurt.... " Weakest argument ever

 

[Eshay187]

Why do we as a society put up with lawyers?

All lawyers should have a maximum fee of $60 per hour. Would solve a lot of problems.

All contracts 1 page max.

All legal disagreements decided by a Tradie with a good heart and a strong sense of right and wrong.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Oh Christ, here we go.

The reference point for movement of the body is called the anatomical position, which has the arms by the side, palms forward, elbows extended.

Elevation of the shoulder from the anatomical position is called flexion. His shoulders were not flexed. They were close to the neutral anatomical position.

His elbows were flexed, which as you’ve stated, is the opposite of flexion.

Ergo, arms not extended.

You're being incredibly pedantic about this one term. Take a step back from your training. Nobody gives a **** about flexion and extension and how it relates to Cripps' arms.
When people say his arms were extended, they simply mean not tucked in and not by his side. They simply mean out in front of him (regardless of which joints are in the technical act of flexion or extension) in a manner to take possession of the ball. You won't win the argument by proving that somebody is using the flexion/extension wrong.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Why do we as a society put up with lawyers?

All lawyers should have a maximum fee of $60 per hour. Would solve a lot of problems.

All contracts 1 page max.

All legal disagreements decided by a Tradie with a good heart and a strong sense of right and wrong.

Ha ha tradies
Give me a break

 

[Stamos]

It's not a forgotten fact. It's an irrelevant fact.


What would they pay a Free for?

If you bump someone fairly, and they get concussed when their head hits the ground - there is no Free Kick.

It's illegal and you get 2 weeks from the MRO, but there's no Free Kick

That's the problem. If you bump someone fairly, it should not be illegal if their head happens to hit the ground after, and you should not be suspended. The AFL has gaslighted everyone.

The MRO/Tribunal should not outcome based, they should be action based.

 

[Stamos]

Tim Kelly gets a week for the potential to cause an injury,where his opponents head suffered no impact and he got up and took his kick. Cripps gets off after causing a serious injury.
Makes perfect sense.

Although the MRO and Tribunal tried to stuff it up, they finally got it right.
Punish the action, not the outcome.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Somebody else has perfectly summed up the events of the initial suspension and appeals process:

Imagine this scenario….

I get taken to court for committing a criminal act. The jury finds I did not commit the criminal act, but instead carried out a different act, which is not illegal.

The judge however tells the jury, it is possible that I committed both acts at the same time, without any evidence or debate. This theory is presented as fact. I am not asked if I committed the criminal act and my lawyer is not given an opportunity to explore this or cross-examine.

The judge then explains to the jury, the technical aspects of the law which it must consider, but this is done behind closed doors, so my lawyer and I have no idea what is happening.

The jury then bizarrely determine that I did commit the criminal act, even though they previously said I didn’t.

My lawyer takes the case to appeal and successfully argues there was an error in the law AND the jury acted unreasonably. During the appeal, the jury review video footage, and determine that I did not commit the criminal act, and that I committed another act, which is not illegal. The judge who also reviewed the footage, said in his summation - "The video did not reveal a (criminal act)"

Did I get off on a technicality? Or was I not guilty in the first place. I suggest the latter, and if you replace the words ‘criminal act’ with 'bump' and ‘I’ with Cripps, then the above scenario is my take on what happened, based on various reports in the media, with the last paragraph pretty much a carbon copy of the way it was explained on the AFL's own website.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

Your willingness to posit self-interested opinions as fact gives great insight into how cults and terrorist organisations are able to indoctrinate the disenfranchised.

You lose credibility when you compare Carlton fans to Trumps Qanon Dissidents or the Israeli Army/Government.

You crossed a line Samples.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

That's the problem. If you bump someone fairly, it should not be illegal if their head happens to hit the ground after, and you should not be suspended. The AFL has gaslighted everyone.

The MRO/Tribunal should not outcome based, they should be action based.

I think I agree.

To be honest, I'm in the camp that pretty much believes that if you choose to play footy, you're taking on some risk.

No one forces you to play footy, and no one forces you make it your career.

You can always find something else to do.

UFC fighters, NFL players, etc. etc.

It's risky shit.

The AFL do need to be clear about this though. They've created a rod for their own back with their whole 'the head is sacrosanct' nonsense. And as a result, confusion reigns supreme.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

So by that logic, you would have to agree that a player doesn't have to have their arms extended to be contesting the ball, or trying to take possession?

Well those are two different things. None of those marks are contested marks, a contest requires an opponent. Trying to take possession, certainly.

For the record, I would consider those to be arms extended. There can be differing degrees of extension. The upper arms tucked close to the body, with the forearms "extended" out in the direction of the fall of the ball, is an attempt to catch the ball. This can't be done without some form of arm extension. The ball would just bounce off your chest while your arms are by your side.

Agree to disagree then. Not going to change the result.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

You're being incredibly pedantic about this one term. Take a step back from your training. Nobody gives a * about flexion and extension and how it relates to Cripps' arms.
When people say his arms were extended, they simply mean not tucked in and not by his side. They simply mean out in front of him (regardless of which joints are in the technical act of flexion or extension) in a manner to take possession of the ball. You won't win the argument by proving that somebody is using the flexion/extension wrong.

Most people think of extension as elongation or reaching. An extendable umbrella goes out and up, it starts out compact and stretches. It doesn’t just bend in position. Call it whatever you like but it flies in the face of logic.