Diehard Saint
Brownlow Medallist
Ben “potential to do harm” Long should be suing this corrupt competition.
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 10
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
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.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.
Nah they didn't need to change the charge or anything.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.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.
Ironic that the article is also behind a paywall.
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".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?
Love tap to the stomach.Don't remember Hall king hitting goose
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.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.
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...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 ).
If he leaves North he goes home. Sure take a look but pointless endeavor id say.Horne-Francis dropped do we take a look?
Fair enough. I guess the money it would take to lure him would be a wasteIf he leaves North he goes home. Sure take a look but pointless endeavor id say.
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.Fair enough. I guess the money it would take to lure him would be a waste
Correct, that was Staker.
Goose got a whack right to the gut that winded him because the man needed the space to chest mark.
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.Grrr i had 6 free views remaining, and i wasted one by clicking on that.
Needed the space to chest mark? They were about 80m from any other player and the ball was nowhere near iirc
How is it corrupt when Carlton put up an actual defense and put effort into defending their player. We don’t do the same.
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.