Certified Legendary Thread Patrick Cripps and Ah Chee

[PetterdHoisted]

Answered like a true politician. The post I replied to indicated Cripps only got off because the AFL don’t want a suspended player winning the Brownlow and hence my retort.

IMO Cripps is no chance of winning the Brownlow this year regardless.

ahh OK, I really have no idea on that, the media were talking him up as 'one of the favourites' yesterday

 

[slashin_velvet]

This decision is an absolute joke and just proves how ineffectual the AFL 'ruling authorities' really are.

Cause a player to leave the field because of a high hit and said player was then not be able to come back on the field and play a part in the match.

See concussion rule because that means more than 1 match lost by the affected player and the guilty party walks away.

Great look AFL and so enforced the protection of head rule.

Are you arguing for a sin bin?

 

[Juddernaut08]

Eyes on the ball means nothing in this situation. You can watch the ball and still bump someone in the head and it's still a suspension.

wrong

 

[Juddernaut08]

This decision is an absolute joke and just proves how ineffectual the AFL 'ruling authorities' really are.

Cause a player to leave the field because of a high hit and said player was then not be able to come back on the field and play a part in the match.

See concussion rule because that means more than 1 match lost by the affected player and the guilty party walks away.

Great look AFL and so enforced the protection of head rule.

wrong

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

So your saying he did what he always does, therefore he should not be held responsible for his actions - that he jumped in the air and collided with an opposition players' head was not reasonably foreseeable.

This idea that you can go about doing what you always do, regardless of the situation or the position of other players, is just patently false.

The appeals tribunal DID allow the appeal on a technicality. That they didn't specifically use the word "bump", which Carlton then used as the basis for appeal. Nothing to do with the nature of the incident itself.

But it wasn't a marking contest, so it bears no relevance to this incident.

But for the sake of argument, if you charged into a player like Cripps did in a marking contest, and did not get to the ball - something that gets ignored in all these defences of his actions, the fact that Cripps did not get to the ball - then yes people would question his actions.

I'm allowed to punch the ball in a marking contest. If a player jumps really high in front of me in a marking contest and I see them and decide to follow through and punch them in the head, by any rationale should that be considered acceptable? Of course not.

I still look at that vision and try to understand how anyone thinks that is acceptable these days. And this is from a old fart who can still remember when a coach would drag you from the field if you didn't iron out the opponent.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I'm saying that he went for the ball, not for the bump. This is what he always does. Your carry on about not being held responsible for his actions and waxing lyrically about a spoil hitting someone in the head is neither here nor there.

You're obviously advocating for the result being punishable rather than the action and the context in which the action was taken.

You think he knew what was about to happen and should have decided on something different. Why someone would choose to spoil in a non marking situation, potentially putting the ball into the opposition's hands, away from where you are, is beyond me. Cripps is one of the premier ball stand and distribute players in the competition. Securing possession is his game. Not stopping and waiting for someone to take the ball so he can tackle and not spoiling a smaller player when he believed he could simply take the ball away from him.

The tribunal takes hours going over the finer points of the play and you think Cripps should have summed things up and not contested the ball in 2 seconds.

It's simple. The ball was there, his hands were reaching for the ball, his eyes were on the ball. It's a contact sport and collisions occur. This was just a collision where one player got up higher and the other copped the impact.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

And all the Carlton supporters in this thread do nothing but gaslight.

“There was no bump”
“Cripps’ arms were extended”
“He was contesting the ball”
“Ah Chee jumped into the air”

So which part of Cripps’ anatomy are you going to tell us knocked Ah Chee’s head off now?

Gaslighting is manipulating someone through psychological means into doubting their own sanity.

I'm not sure pointing out facts is manipulation. Meanwhile those who wanted Cripps suspended are making statements on intent, and denying some of the aforementioned facts. To them it's the vibe, whereby a player is concussed and they don't care how it happened.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Says the Carlton supporter

You're allowed to make your argument. Go for it.

 

[Maximus 2011]

It's going to be fun and games in here if Cripps does win the Brownlow.

Also will be fun and games when Carlton get belted by 10 goals tomorrow and miss the finals

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Let's be real here:

• if this was a player from outside of Victoria there is no way they would have got off from this.
• if this was a player not in the running for the Brownlow they would no have got off.
• if this was a player without a big name they would not have got off.

This is kind of like a Chris Judd getting off, same deal.

Hopefully the precedence is set now for the rest of the year. The head is not sacred and is fair game. Cripps showed no duty of care being 20kg heavier than his opponent and left the ground. Was definitely not going to get to the ball first.

A lot of paranoia in this post. All you have to do is read the tribunal's findings to understand why he got off.

I'm pretty sure players from outside Victoria have got off hotly debated charges before.

 

[Maximus 2011]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I'm saying that he went for the ball, not for the bump. This is what he always does. Your carry on about not being held responsible for his actions and waxing lyrically about a spoil hitting someone in the head is neither here nor there.

You're obviously advocating for the result being punishable rather than the action and the context in which the action was taken.

You think he knew what was about to happen and should have decided on something different. Why someone would choose to spoil in a non marking situation, potentially putting the ball into the opposition's hands, away from where you are, is beyond me. Cripps is one of the premier ball stand and distribute players in the competition. Securing possession is his game. Not stopping and waiting for someone to take the ball so he can tackle and not spoiling a smaller player when he believed he could simply take the ball away from him.

The tribunal takes hours going over the finer points of the play and you think Cripps should have summed things up and not contested the ball in 2 seconds.

It's simple. The ball was there, his hands were reaching for the ball, his eyes were on the ball. It's a contact sport and collisions occur. This was just a collision where one player got up higher and the other copped the impact.

So if he went for the ball but was late that matters does it? He was never making it to the ball first. Sure he only wanted to knock the player over and slow the play possibly and didn't mean to knock the bloke out who will now deal with the consequences of head trauma for the rest of his life...

Take off your navy blue and white glasses

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Also will be fun and games when Carlton get belted by 10 goals tomorrow and miss the finals

Ah see, you're not worried about the integrity and consistency of the thing. You have an axe to grind. Just say that and save us from debating your posts on their merits. No shame in it.

 

[Maximus 2011]

Ah see, you're not worried about the integrity and consistency of the thing. You have an axe to grind. Just say that and save us from debating your posts on their merits. No shame in it.

No the only reason I want Carlton to lose is because of this decision. Why would any supporter of an opposition team have an axe to grind with Carlton when they have been irrelevant since Fevola left?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

So if he went for the ball but was late that matters does it? He was never making it to the ball first. Sure he only wanted to knock the player over and slow the play possibly and didn't mean to knock the bloke out who will now deal with the consequences of head trauma for the rest of his life...

Take off your navy blue and white glasses

The ball was right there for the taking and the footage bears that out. Your contention that he wanted to knock the player over is stupid and the tribunal bears that out.

You should put some glasses on.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

No the only reason I want Carlton to lose is because of this decision. Why would any supporter of an opposition team have an axe to grind with Carlton when they have been irrelevant since Fevola left?

Yet you keep saying things about Carlton that suggests you do have an axe to grind. Are you in this thread in good faith because your arguments are those of a poor troll right now?

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Gaslighting is manipulating someone through psychological means into doubting their own sanity.

I'm not sure pointing out facts is manipulation. Meanwhile those who wanted Cripps suspended are making statements on intent, and denying some of the aforementioned facts. To them it's the vibe, whereby a player is concussed and they don't care how it happened.

That’s because you’re coming up with “alternative facts”.

The facts of the matter are that;

Cripps jumped off the ground
Cripps made forceful contact with Ah Chee’s head
Ah Chee was concussed either as a direct or indirect result

Until recently the mantra was “duty of care” but the appeals board saw it differently. Them’s the breaks.

 

[Maximus 2011]

Yet you keep saying things about Carlton that suggests you do have an axe to grind. Are you in this thread in good faith because your arguments are those of a poor troll right now?

So you are arguing that Cripps actually believed he had a chance to get the ball?

I have zero axe to grind with Calrton. I love Michael Voss.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

People know what happened - they just think it's bullshit that a loophole is what determined the outcome.

The loophole determined nothing. The original tribunal did not ask certain questions of Cripps or his legal team. They then instructed the panel to consider something that had not been asked. Carlton were allowed to appeal based on further evidence or an error in law. That was the error in law that got them to present their case again. When presented with all of the evidence to consider and not given inappropriate instructions, the panel found in Cripps' favour.

Every single person here would want procedural fairness for their player.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

That’s because you’re coming up with “alternative facts”.

The facts of the matter are that;

Cripps jumped off the ground
Cripps made forceful contact with Ah Chee’s head
Ah Chee was concussed either as a direct or indirect result

Until recently the mantra was “duty of care” but the appeals board saw it differently. Them’s the breaks.

The facts also are that Cripps had his eyes on the ball. Cripps had his arms extended to try to take possession of the ball.

They are not alternative facts.

Your facts suggest that anybody knocked out as a result of any action by an opposition player, means that the player has to be suspended. What do you think that will do to this 360 degree contact sport where the ball is travelling in the air and along the ground constantly?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

So you are arguing that Cripps actually believed he had a chance to get the ball?

I have zero axe to grind with Calrton. I love Michael Voss.

Yes, Cripps believed he was a chance to get the ball and it damned well nearly did. Cripps testified to this point so I don't have to believe it and considering how he has played his whole career, I have no reason to think he's a liar.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Not that it’s important, but his profile picture was a picture of Cripps, so likely just a supporter.

A screenshot doing the rounds, supposedly from Ah Chee, showing the profile picture was of Bontempelli.

 

[Maximus 2011]

The facts also are that Cripps had his eyes on the ball. Cripps had his arms extended to try to take possession of the ball.

They are not alternative facts.

Your facts suggest that anybody knocked out as a result of any action by an opposition player, means that the player has to be suspended. What do you think that will do to this 360 degree contact sport where the ball is travelling in the air and along the ground constantly?

he. was. late.
left. the. ground.
knocked. him. out.

Quit it please. We all know where you stand. We all know where supporters for the other 17 clubs stand.

 

[FourthTimeAround]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I'm saying that he went for the ball, not for the bump. This is what he always does. Your carry on about not being held responsible for his actions and waxing lyrically about a spoil hitting someone in the head is neither here nor there.

You're obviously advocating for the result being punishable rather than the action and the context in which the action was taken.

You think he knew what was about to happen and should have decided on something different. Why someone would choose to spoil in a non marking situation, potentially putting the ball into the opposition's hands, away from where you are, is beyond me. Cripps is one of the premier ball stand and distribute players in the competition. Securing possession is his game. Not stopping and waiting for someone to take the ball so he can tackle and not spoiling a smaller player when he believed he could simply take the ball away from him.

The tribunal takes hours going over the finer points of the play and you think Cripps should have summed things up and not contested the ball in 2 seconds.

It's simple. The ball was there, his hands were reaching for the ball, his eyes were on the ball. It's a contact sport and collisions occur. This was just a collision where one player got up higher and the other copped the impact.

No point continuing, you can’t see past the Navy Blue glasses.

And it doesn’t matter what I think, as I don’t make AFL decisions.

But my opinion is based on this angle of vision (20 secs in) that shows me what Cripps intent is, in my opinion only. The premier ball winner that Cripps is, knows where Ah Chee is. And his actions are not simply securing possession, but ironing out a player to make a statement because of those little numbers in the bottom left of the screen.

Good luck to the Blues this week.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

The loophole determined nothing. The original tribunal did not ask certain questions of Cripps or his legal team. They then instructed the panel to consider something that had not been asked. Carlton were allowed to appeal based on further evidence or an error in law. That was the error in law that got them to present their case again. When presented with all of the evidence to consider and not given inappropriate instructions, the panel found in Cripps' favour.

Every single person here would want procedural fairness for their player.

The loophole is that Cripps concussed a bloke.

And got off.


The MRO and the tribunal both thought he was 'guilty' of careless conduct, that resulted in high impact that resulted in concussion.

We all know that's what he was being accused of.

Everyone knows that. And they all found him guilty of it.


The loophole is that there's a way to weasel out of that via technicalities.


I mean seriously. An ex-player that has been responsible for making these decisions for 3 years made the call. Then a panel of ex-players that have been doing this for years made the same decision.

Then a lawyer comes.in and makes a different call.

I mean, think about that for a second.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

The facts also are that Cripps had his eyes on the ball. Cripps had his arms extended to try to take possession of the ball.

They are not alternative facts.

Yes, they are. Many here have debated the truth of them over the course of the thread. Notice how no-one has argued any if the three facts I listed? That’s because they’re facts.

Your facts suggest that anybody knocked out as a result of any action by an opposition player, means that the player has to be suspended. What do you think that will do to this 360 degree contact sport where the ball is travelling in the air and along the ground constantly?

My facts? I don’t have facts. They simply are, and I don’t make up additional ones to suit any agenda or narrative you think they add up to.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Every single person here would want procedural fairness for their player.

No they wouldn't.

I think many football fans find this type of stuff grotesque and a stain on the game.

If you whack someone, you get done.

You don't need legal procedure to work through this.

It's bullshit, and simply yet another way for people to drink from the trough of the AFL industry.