Certified Legendary Thread Patrick Cripps and Ah Chee

[freddy mercury]

Carlton could do something good and donate to the ONJ cancer and wellness center instead of throwing money away on a case they can't win.

Patrick did the wrong thing on the footy ground, it's time to man up and admit he screwed up.

What do you reckon it's costing to appeal? They basically can't not play finals, unless results go against them, just rest him. He's probably overdue for one anyway.

 

[tiger_tough]

Unless you are Trent Cotchin, Willie Rioli, Tom Hawkins and Joel Selwood.

This Selwood "accidental collision" was awarded as "low contact".

I see a format now. They should have awarded Cripps's as "low impact" - if they can award this contact as "low impact".
Selwood is the bandaged warrior I guess so that gives him some dispensation.

Cripps' should be at most 1 week penalty. Some might question if he may be at a disadvantage as he doesn't play for Richmond or Geelong, but that is a low blow and not the right way to go around this. In future, he should never contest for a ball in the air unless he is 100% sure he knows he won't injure someone? I guess that is the rule. Maybe he can lose some weight or height as well, so he has less opportunity to harm other players.


Tribunal chairperson Jeff Gleeson explained the jury’s decision.


“He could’ve taken the ball with his arms outstretched, which would’ve meant there was no act of bumping at all ... Cripps changed his shape prior to impact from simply attempting to gather the ball to a bumping position in which he was airborne, that would very likely cause high contact to an opponent.”

So mid-air, operating within 1 milisecond - Cripps could have turned his brutish body flat and thought about what were the softest parts of his body and ensured that was the point of contact. Maybe he could have done a full-mid air loop and had his buttocks be the first point of contact?
I am guessing Jeff Gleeson has NEVER played football in his life.

It can't be one week. Careless, high contact and high impact = 2 weeks. And it fits perfectly. You're arguing as if it was graded intentional, it wasn't. Unfortunately he bumped Ah Chee and concussed him.

As for the old 'oh if he played for cats or tigers he'd get off'. Are you aware they're the two most suspended sides of the last decade? Obviously not. Only subjective sooks use that line.

Maybe he just shouldn't have bumped him? Then your season might still be alive

 

[Chief]

Was I? I've never bought a lotto ticket, but since you know everything, tell me the numbers and I will waltz down to the shops tomorrow and purchase a ticket.

Yeah. You know what you were doing

 

[The Royal Sampler]

What is wrong with having a crack?

Seems this thread is dominated by Demons and Pies supporters and gee wonder why that is??

Pies are the gift that just keeps giving and the quicker the finals exit the better starting with the Swans this week. Celebrating other teams demise is bad karma and the train is coming for you to head on.

Nothing is wrong with it, I assume you can afford it so whatever floats your boat.

As for the rest of your rhetoric, well 11 on the trot has been a damned entertaining season, and I don’t think anyone will be keen to be playing us in finals so strap yourself in.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

There’s nothing in the classification that could be argued as manifestly excessive. Obviously couldn’t be classed as less than careless. It didn’t go directly to the tribunal, and it wasn’t graded as severe impact to get the 3+. The sanction is in keeping with the classification, so...

Are the Blues arguing an error in law?

 

[smit_is]

I don't know if you know, but I'll repeat it.

I don't follow Essendon, was in fact a member, not anymore. So yes, that's how many days since Essendon won a final.

Find it strange though that a Carlton supporter is talking about finals etc. When off the top of my head they've won I think one, possibly two finals in that same time frame. And not to mention the real last successful season was in the year 2000 when Essendon won the premiership, I believe Carltons last premiership was last century? The mid-late 90s? I dont know, what do I know?

Did you stop following them due to it being 6,550 days since winning a final?

And 2013 turned out alright for the Blues. How’d the Bombers go that year? Off the top of my head, wasn’t great.

 

[Lets Roar like '44]

There’s nothing in the classification that could be argued as manifestly excessive. Obviously couldn’t be classed as less than careless. It didn’t go directly to the tribunal, and it wasn’t graded as severe impact to get the 3+. The sanction is in keeping with the classification, so...

Are the Blues arguing an error in law?

Yeh I’m not sure what they are arguing as nothing meets what is required to appeal.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Yeh I’m not sure what they are arguing as nothing meets what is required to appeal.

The vibe?

 

[Carl Tone]

Wow ! Same as us. How many days since your last one ?

No, not the same.

Carlton have ‘won’ all 16 in grand finals. Essendon only 14 and were gifted 2 for finishing on top of the ladder in years when there was not a finals series - including one cup where your team lost its last game of the year.

Furthermore, Essendon are the only team to have won a cup in a salary cap cheating year.

So at best, 13.

 

[My_Username]

I think it's all pretty clear.

AFL gave him 2 weeks, when it probably deserved more, because if Carlton makes finals, the AFL want the best players playing (as always, regardless of club).

Carlton realises that they need to win one of the next 2 games to ensure they make finals, and that without one of their best players, 2 hard games become a lot harder, so they'll take even the smallest of chances to appeal it and get him playing again.

Carlton also probably realises that the chance of him getting suspended for longer is nigh on impossible, so really, what do they have to lose? The chances of success are pretty slim, but when there is no real cost to trying, the risk/reward is beyond a doubt in their favor here.

In Carlton's place, every club would do exactly the same thing, so those complaining need to calm down and think about how they'd feel if positions were reversed.

Is there bias involved, yes, but it's more situational than specific to club/player.

 

[Chief]

Decision should stand.

I haven't argued it shouldn't.

 

[Sterge]

I think the fact he left the ground, choose to bump and got to the contest late (even if it was a split second) coupled with the fact the player left the game with concussion makes over turning impossible.

If he gets off the tribunal is a farce, but lets face it we kind of already know that. We have seen the AFL say the head is sacrosanct and then turn a blind eye when Cotchin ko's a player in a preliminary final so who knows

How many times do people need to be told, Shiel came back on and was levelled a second time by Macca that was the one that knocked him out. Cotch was fine but you stay mad friend

 

[00Stinger]

How many times do people need to be told, Shiel came back on and was levelled a second time by Macca that was the one that knocked him out. Cotch was fine but you stay mad friend

It was about the fine not being handed out for the high hit, which it should have been. That would have been his third for the year (after two gutless stomach punches to unsuspecting players previously) and thus would have resulted in a suspension.

I'm not mad, had no impact on the grand final result or anything to do with my team but you can happily stay in denial that the AFL didn't choose not to apply the rules to him

 

[JyeDye]

Man this thread is absolute trash now. Anything actually relevant to the incident has been discussed in depth and now it’s just bickering. Nothing is going to change from this appeal and Cripps is still getting two weeks. Probably time to just move on.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Yep, it’s people coming in with “what about Cotchin?!” or “what does it matter if it wasn’t a marking contest?!”.

Nothing gained by going over those again for the millionth time.

 

[My_Username]

Yep, it’s people coming in with “what about Cotchin?!” or “what does it matter if it wasn’t a marking contest?!”.

Nothing gained by going over those again for the millionth time.

Yep.

Cotchin case was 5 years ago, and whatever the rights or wrongs of it, things (interpretations, enforcement) have changed since. If memory serves, AFL MRO/tribunal doesn't accept precedents, but even if it did, that one would be too dated for them to consider.

It is irrelevant to this case.

 

[Kanye West]

That's fine but Cripps was contesting the ball. Did it badly and another player was hurt.

It happens.

Nat Fyfe likes this post

How many times do people need to be told, Shiel came back on and was levelled a second time by Macca that was the one that knocked him out. Cotch was fine but you stay mad friend

Your memory isn't as good as you think it is. I suggest you cast your eye over the highlights clip that has been posted in here!

 

[Sterge]

Nat Fyfe likes this post



Your memory isn't as good as you think it is. I suggest you cast your eye over the highlights clip that has been posted in here!

I mean I know for a fact he came back on and was hit in the head a second time before going off for good, I don't need to watch hand picked highlights to tell me that.

 

[Kanye West]

I mean I know for a fact he came back on and was hit in the head a second time before going off for good, I don't need to watch hand picked highlights to tell me that.

Oh, but that's not all you originally posted.

#StayCommitted

 

[WilloTree]

There’s nothing in the classification that could be argued as manifestly excessive. Obviously couldn’t be classed as less than careless. It didn’t go directly to the tribunal, and it wasn’t graded as severe impact to get the 3+. The sanction is in keeping with the classification, so...

Are the Blues arguing an error in law?

This was my take as well. Will be interesting to see where the AFL has stuffed up.

 

[My_Username]

This was my take as well. Will be interesting to see where the AFL has stuffed up.

As I said previously, I think Carlton is clutching at straws, because the cost (a few $$$) is nothing compared to the potential benefit (noticeably increased chance of making finals).

I doubt there is a club in the AFL that would do differently were they in the same position.

 

[windyhill]

No, not the same.

Carlton have ‘won’ all 16 in grand finals. Essendon only 14 and were gifted 2 for finishing on top of the ladder in years when there was not a finals series - including one cup where your team lost its last game of the year.

Furthermore, Essendon are the only team to have won a cup in a salary cap cheating year.

So at best, 13.

Carlton won flags during war years where Essendon did not participate and were more concerned with fighting Germans instead of playing football.
1993 , we did cheat the cap, however it was ca*lton, so that counts that out. And silvagni did touch it, he insists he did, I believe him. This makes that goal an even better thing of beauty.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

This was my take as well. Will be interesting to see where the AFL has stuffed up.

The AFL lawyer was horrible so maybe he did. It was only Carlton had him on toast and still went with the vibe from The Castle

 

[JyeDye]

The AFL lawyer was horrible so maybe he did. It was only Carlton had him on toast and still went with the vibe from The Castle

I thought that the Carlton lawyer did well. The issue people here have is him trying to act like Cripps didn’t bump Ah Chee. But that’s exactly what he has to do, he’s trying to argue that it was not a careless action but instead just a football action. As soon as he mentions the word bump then the case is over. Everyone knows Cripps braced to bump which is why Carlton had no chance of winning the appeal despite how incompetent the AFL lawyer was.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I thought that the Carlton lawyer did well. The issue people here have is him trying to act like Cripps didn’t bump Ah Chee. But that’s exactly what he has to do, he’s trying to argue that it was not a careless action but instead just a football action. As soon as he mentions the word bump then the case is over. Everyone knows Cripps braced to bump which is why Carlton had no chance of winning the appeal despite how incompetent the AFL lawyer was.

Can't say it was a strong argument that he had to bump. It was silly, needed to go with football action or whatever. Now it gets even harder, but I'm not a lawyer don't plan to be one.