Discussion 2022 General AFL Discussion

[Diehard Saint]

Ben “potential to do harm” Long should be suing this corrupt competition.

 

[Murraj1966]

This just feels like the biggest slap in the face when we consider Ryder and Long.

If you're wearing the jumper of a special club you just live under a different set of rules. How Carlton are still so s**t with all the legs up they get I'll never understand

 

[phantom13]

The argument was that the Tribunal must have already formed a view of Cripps intent (ie - he elected to bump) because accepted the AFL evidence and it did not pursue whether he had other options.

Thats the "procedural unfair" bit.

But in reality its like letting a bloke off for murder because the Judge didn't ask if he intended to murder the person, even though the video and witness evidence shows you shooting someone 27 times, then running them over and then tossing the body off a cliff.

Okay, that makes sense but is also completely absurd. If thats the precedent thats set (which obviously we know there is no such thing as precedent in the MRO or tribunal) then technically shouldnt anyone get off if you can say that said player could have had a different intent? Paddy was actually thinking about making a cup of tea so you have to overturn the decision on his ban.

Also from a procedural POV of course they formed a view, the MRO adjudicates on intent... so... are we removing that part of the process?

 

[pebblesofsand]

He's right, it's because you can't change the charge half way through, technically he may have not have "elected to bump" but hit him high in another action. Whoever wrote up the charge may have got it wrong.

You can't have someone charged with armed robbery but it turned out to be embezzlement and once you realise that you have charged them wrong change it during trial. The AFL should re-charge him if they believe he did the wrong thing.

Nah they didn't need to change the charge or anything.

Its purely that the tribunal accepted the AFL's view that Cripps "elected to bump" without asking or Cripps or his legal reps whether he might have doing something else.

However based on the evidence, WTF else he might have been doing is anybodys guess.

Square dancing perhaps?

 

[L_W_P]

Let's be real guys, the appeal was a farce from the start.

Just like Barry Hall playing in the GF after king hitting Goose Maguire, or Trent Cotchin

9

Trent Cotchin

Age

34

Ht

185cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

23.4

5star

K

13.8

5star

HB

9.5

5star

M

3.4

3star

T

3.9

5star

CL

5.2

5star

D

19.0

4star

K

9.5

4star

HB

9.5

5star

M

2.7

3star

T

4.3

5star

CL

3.5

4star

D

16.6

4star

K

8.0

3star

HB

8.6

5star

M

4.6

5star

T

1.0

3star

nearly putting someone in a wheel chair, it was in the AFL's interest to get Cripps on the park.

The interest in Carlton making finals is higher if they have their better players out there so this needed to happen.

If the Blues were bottom 4 then he'd be missing two weeks.

 

[phantom13]

He's right, it's because you can't change the charge half way through, technically he may have not have "elected to bump" but hit him high in another action. Whoever wrote up the charge may have got it wrong.

You can't have someone charged with armed robbery but it turned out to be embezzlement and once you realise that you have charged them wrong change it during trial. The AFL should re-charge him if they believe he did the wrong thing.

Ultimately there is absolutely no clarity on what "intent to bump" means.

They actually need to clarify that, simple starting point would be if a player has possession of the ball and you make contact and the player in possession is injured you will be suspended. If thats the case Cripps goes (ironically so would have McKay, that one will never make sense)

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Ironic that the article is also behind a paywall.

Grrr i had 6 free views remaining, and i wasted one by clicking on that.

 

[phantom13]

Nah they didn't need to change the charge or anything.

Its purely that the tribunal accepted the AFL's view that Cripps "elected to bump" without asking or Cripps or his legal reps whether he might have doing something else.

However based on the evidence, WTF else he might have been doing is anybodys guess.

Square dancing perhaps?

I mean this is the bit. Might be right from a procedural POV exactly right. What difference does it make if that was the assumption and why is it not upheld if the appeals board says (which they should) "sure they did assume, we have looked at all options but you absolutely did bump so sure, error in procedure but outcome is correct".

Ultimately it absolutely reeks of the AFL wanting Carlton to have him available and looking for whatever excuse works.

 

[PoppedCorn]

Don't remember Hall king hitting goose

 

[Hubnester]

A joke of a decision but can't really be surprised - this is how the AFL chooses to operate their business.

If they were serious they'd have a very good look at what acts need to be removed from the game. Maybe it should be based on how reasonable or reckless the action was. If you can do the mental gymnastics to say that Cripps was actually trying to get the ball, you'd need to look at how reasonable that action actually was.

Exact point with that prick breaking Hunter Clark

11

Hunter Clark

Age

25

Ht

186cm

Wt

83kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.5

4star

K

9.5

4star

HB

8.0

5star

M

3.6

4star

T

2.9

4star

CL

1.3

3star

D

16.0

4star

K

9.6

4star

HB

6.4

4star

M

3.1

3star

T

2.9

4star

CL

1.9

4star

D

13.2

4star

K

6.6

3star

HB

6.6

4star

M

2.2

3star

T

2.0

4star

CL

0.0

1star

's jaw last year. Oh that's ok, he was going for the ball! He just did so by cannonballing himself into a player and causing a serious injury. Play on.

But Paddy standing still was worse than both of these instances apparently.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I find it ludicrous that they use QC's to argue these cases out.

We aren't talking points of law here. Its footy rules.
Do they teach footy rules in Lawyer school these days? These guys are just experts and playing word games.

Just another idiotic way to lose money from the system.
Anyway, more proof they aren't protecting the head, concussion cases gonna sue sue sue. ( And QC's will be required for that one ).

 

[Yawkey way]

Don't remember Hall king hitting goose

Love tap to the stomach.

 

[StFly]

Don't remember Hall king hitting goose

Correct, that was Staker.

Goose got a whack right to the gut that winded him because the man needed the space to chest mark.

 

[phantom13]

A joke of a decision but can't really be surprised - this is how the AFL chooses to operate their business.

If they were serious they'd have a very good look at what acts need to be removed from the game. Maybe it should be based on how reasonable or reckless the action was. If you can do the mental gymnastics to say that Cripps was actually trying to get the ball, you'd need to look at how reasonable that action actually was.

Exact point with that prick breaking Hunter Clark's jaw last year. Oh that's ok, he was going for the ball! He just did so by cannonballing himself into a player and causing a serious injury. Play on.

But Paddy standing still was worse than both of these instances apparently.

Theyve flip flopped on the action vs outcome for a while and it seemed settled that outcome (or in Ben Longs baffling case potential outcome) but every so often stuff like this comes along and they blink.

Honestly between this and the constant tweaking of rule interpretations footy is far less enjoyable lately than it was before and i ******* hate saying that cause i always defend modern footy from the whole "the 90s was peak footy" crowd.

 

[Ephemeral Hope]

Horne-Francis dropped do we take a look?

 

[phantom13]

I find it ludicrous that they use QC's to argue these cases out.

We aren't talking points of law here. Its footy rules.
Do they teach footy rules in Lawyer school these days? These guys are just experts and playing word games.

Just another idiotic way to lose money from the system.
Anyway, more proof they aren't protecting the head, concussion cases gonna sue sue sue. ( And QC's will be required for that one ).

I also defended the AFL on concussion for years (alot of we didnt know and when we did players made a choice to do a contact sport) but now...

* em, hope the whole corrupt system gets bankrupted in civil suits.

 

[phantom13]

Horne-Francis dropped do we take a look?

If he leaves North he goes home. Sure take a look but pointless endeavor id say.

 

[Ephemeral Hope]

If he leaves North he goes home. Sure take a look but pointless endeavor id say.

Fair enough. I guess the money it would take to lure him would be a waste

 

[Tyrian Lonestar]

Cripps getting cleared shows what an absolute sh1tshow the MRP & Appeals process is.

Feet off the ground head high hit with high force, knocks the bloke out then lands on him for good measure.
Head sacrosanct but wait,,,,,, AFL rubber rules = good player gets off.
GAGF!

 

[phantom13]

Fair enough. I guess the money it would take to lure him would be a waste

From what ive seen im not convinced hes gonna be that good TBH but ive been wrong enough times to know not to make that call.

Just cant see him leaving a vic club for anywhere but home. I remembered thinking that watching the amazon doco where he was told hed be number 1, he didnt look at all excited about it.

 

[bergholt]

Correct, that was Staker.

Goose got a whack right to the gut that winded him because the man needed the space to chest mark.

Needed the space to chest mark? They were about 80m from any other player and the ball was nowhere near iirc

 

[BrutThough]

Grrr i had 6 free views remaining, and i wasted one by clicking on that.

If you want to get past The Age paywall, put the link in using incognito mode. Doesn't count towards your articles viewed that way.

 

[Plugger35]

Needed the space to chest mark? They were about 80m from any other player and the ball was nowhere near iirc

I didn't complain about the Hall decision as I wanted him to play in the 2005 GF as I wanted Sydney to beat West Coast but it was a joke he got off.

The AFL just bend the rules or invent new ones to get the result they want.

 

[Saint Shags]

How is it corrupt when Carlton put up an actual defense and put effort into defending their player. We don’t do the same.

So we didn't take the Ryder case to the tribunal? You know the bloke who didn't charge at a bloke but copped 2 weeks?

How about Kelly of West Coast who went to the tribunal and still got done for a tackle with the potential to cause injury?

Cripps left the ground in a non marking contest. Collected the Ah Chee high and concusses him.

The AFL for the last decade have told us that the head is sancrosanct and that if you elect to bump - which mind you is being in the contest - and get them high you should be prepared for the consequences.

But its all good because Cripps is such a great bloke.

He knew his team was up against it. Decided to make a statement - no wasn't aiming to knock anyone out - it resulted in someone getting knocked out and giving a bit of momentum to the Blues. And yet he gets to play this week, whilst Ah Chee has to not play for 2 weeks.

 

[Hubnester]

Honestly between this and the constant tweaking of rule interpretations footy is far less enjoyable lately than it was before and i ******* hate saying that cause i always defend modern footy from the whole "the 90s was peak footy" crowd.

I'm feeling this big time. I used to pretty much put every game on if I was home. Now I either switch off out of frustration or just don't bother. Quality and integrity of the sport is down, so is my enjoyment and care factor.