has that been burning since 3pm yesterday??
FlowersByIrene was super petty and thought they were cool with the Newness cheapshot but I was still happy to keep on walking.
But when an opportunity like this presents itself, well...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 13
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
EUFA EURO 2024 - Group Stage ⚽ EPL 24/25 starts Aug 17
has that been burning since 3pm yesterday??
No they conceded that Cripps was going for the ball and did not bump
Absolutely. The decision by the board of appeal is case law now.Precedence has been set. Players can jump into another and claim going for the ball.
Always the hyped players getting preferential treatment.
Absolutely. The decision by the board of appeal is case law now.
So whenever a player goes back with the flight, everyone else needs to go "hey stand back everyone, he's vulnerable, let's just let him take the mark uncontested."
Why isn't the argument here that Ah Chee should've seen a bigger stronger opponent coming toward him, so he should've stayed down, let Cripps take the ball, then tackle Cripps?
Cripps couldn't have known who was going to get hands on the ball first before he left the ground. The ball could've gone over Ah Chee, through his hands etc. It was still in contention.No, but if you jump in the air, brace, don’t make contact with the ball but make contact with someone’s head and concuss them… the onus is on you.
If it’s two players generally going for the footy, accidents can happen and it’s no one’s fault, regardless of the medical outcome.
That is not what happened here.
If you are attempting to defend Cripps here, explain the difference between this incident and Jeremy Cameron/Andrews incident a few years ago.
(Also, this has nothing to do with Cripp’s character or anything, it is a split second decision. As a player, you have to be prepared to cross the line, otherwise those split second decisions will mean you hesitate. Just like McKay last night running back with the ball. Would have marked it if he didn’t hesitate)
Remind me to suggest that next time someone charges into a loose ball contest and takes someone’s head offCripps couldn't have known who was going to get hands on the ball first before he left the ground. The ball could've gone over Ah Chee, through his hands etc. It was still in contention.
Still looking for footage of players contesting in the air like a chest mark when it is not a marking contest.Cripps had eyes on the ball, arms and hands in a catching position (going for the ball).
I am a physiotherapist, but thanks for your pointless contribution.Mate give it up.
You were harping on about legal terms the other day and in the process of doing so, made a fool of yourself to anyone with half a clue… trying to ‘educate’ everyone on what was and wasn’t evidence… and evidently, you had no clue.
Remember, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Ginnivan deserved it for being a flog
That was what allowed Carlton to appeal.No, they conceded that the AFL never even bothered discussing whether it was a bump.
You would have noted that Cripps gave his version of events on Tuesday night. Was it fact? Certainly not. But, was it evidence? 100%I am a physiotherapist, but thanks for your pointless contribution.
And I wasn’t “harping on about legal terms”, I was arguing that your theory about what Cripps was trying to do when entering the contest was just a theory, and doesn’t constitute “evidence”. The benchmark for something to be considered “evidence”, is higher than some fluff you just made up to suit your argument.
You would have noted that Cripps gave his version of events on Tuesday night. Was it fact? Certainly not. But, was it evidence? 100%
Have a spell
Haha what ‘L’? Cripps got off?Yes, if Cripps says it, it’s evidence. Albeit evidence to be taken with a grain of salt.
If you say it, it’s speculation.
Have one yourself, or better still take the “L” and move on.
What occurred was unquestionably a bump, he will argue he was contesting the ball and the bump was an unintentional, split-second outcome, but there is no video evidence to support any claim he was contesting the ball. He didn’t reach for it. At all.
That’s not evidence. That’s narrative. An open hand could mean absolutely anything and you have to craft it to suit your agenda.
The other points are evidence, as they are indisputable facts. Cripps DID choose to jump in the air, Cripps DID collect him with a hip/elbow bump, Cripps DID hit him in the head, Ah Chee WAS concussed, Ah Chee DIDN’T take any further part in the game (and won’t next week).
Thanks mate. Working tirelessly to educate the masses.
On the argument, mate, the argument… try to keep up.Haha what ‘L’? Cripps got off?
Yep, I’m coming to appreciate that nuance and detail aren’t your strong points, but what I’ve repeatedly said is that I don’t believe (but can’t be sure based on a lack of evidence) Cripps entered the contest intending to bump Ah Chee, but a bump was the outcome regardless.…it is noted that you’ve gone from, he wasn’t contesting the ball, to he wasn’t lining him up, to he was contesting the ball but didn’t show a duty of care (and I have no doubt a few other variations would have been in there as well)….seemingly softening on your stance after the findings.
On the argument, mate, the argument… try to keep up.
Yep, I’m coming to appreciate that nuance and detail aren’t your strong points, but what I’ve repeatedly said is that I don’t believe (but can’t be sure based on a lack of evidence) Cripps entered the contest intending to bump Ah Chee, but a bump was the outcome regardless.
As Cripps was not in a marking contest and had alternatives, he has a duty of care to avoid making forceful contact with his opponent’s head.
Some Carlton fans deny even that a bump occurred, possibly aligning the word “bump” more with intent than outcome, so for those special individuals I go more with the “forceful contact” phrase… but it’s tantamount to the same thing.
Hahahahhaha!!! No, you clearly said here there was no evidence.there is no video evidence to support any claim he was contesting the ball.
No you're not. You haven't done one bit of research into it and you know that nobody else will either, because it proves nothing. Then, when no evidence turns up (because nobody's looking), you can claim that you won that argument, even though it would prove nothing either way.Still looking for footage of players contesting in the air like a chest mark when it is not a marking contest.
I haven't read every single post, but I don't recall seeing any Carlton fans denying that a bump occurred. I'm assuming you can point to some of these posts?Some Carlton fans deny even that a bump occurred, possibly aligning the word “bump” more with intent than outcome, so for those special individuals I go more with the “forceful contact” phrase… but it’s tantamount to the same thing.
Cripps doesn’t have “arms and hands in a catching position”. He has 1 arm and hand, the other is tucked in and in a fist, ready to collect Ah Chee.Cripps couldn't have known who was going to get hands on the ball first before he left the ground. The ball could've gone over Ah Chee, through his hands etc. It was still in contention.
The difference with Cameron's is Cameron didn't go for the ball whatsoever. Had eyes on Andrews, arms not in a catching position (not going for the ball), and elbow raised instead of in a bracing position. Andrews should've been expecting to get destroyed in that contest also, not necessarily an elbow to the face, but knees to the ribs or a severe winding at the least. Cripps had eyes on the ball, arms and hands in a catching position (going for the ball).
I haven't read every single post, but I don't recall seeing any Carlton fans denying that a bump occurred. I'm assuming you can point to some of these posts?
As I’ve previously posted;Hahahahhaha!!! No, you clearly said here there was no evidence.
You were confusing evidence and fact and thinking they are one and the same.
As I’ve previously posted;
“Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence”.
The lack of video evidence that Cripps was contesting the ball, doesn’t mean he wasn’t contesting the ball. It means the video isn’t proof that he was.
You’re out of your depth in this conversation. I’m going to direct my energies to more fruitful discussion. Cheers.
You claimed it, and now you either can't or refuse to back it up, so I'll just mark it down as a lie, or at the very least, you misinterpreting other posts.I honestly can’t be *ed. Feel free to have a look, they’re there. You’re probably just as good with the search function as me, and I’m not going to derive any satisfaction or pleasure from it.
You claimed it, and now you either can't or refuse to back it up, so I'll just mark it down as a lie, or at the very least, you misinterpreting other posts.