Oppo Camp Non Geelong football (AFL) discussion 2022, part II

[BotsMaster]

Cripps is at the Appeals board

 

[rocker_oz33]

Cripps is at the Appeals board

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Gotta love Tom Browne tweets

View attachment 1470588

To be fair on Tom I think previous joint injuries can create imbalances that can compromise other parts of the same leg.

Note: I'm not a doctor

 

[Footy_Fan2007]

How is this Cripps s**t still going? Just wear the penalty ffs.

He concussed a bloke. He was suspended.
The end.

 

[cats_09]

 

[Mr Meow]

Overturned.

 

[STPer18]

I knew Stewart's bump was fair all along.

 

[Sticksman]

Cripp's verdict overturned. What a ******* joke.

 

[Spearman]

TBH the vision from behing Cripps showed his arms shaping to take the ball in his midsection. But his shoulder hit the head, and there was a concussion. So who knows.

Edit, Wait a minute, it wasn't a marking contest because it was punched out of a contest.

 

[cats_09]

Short version:
Key to the Appeals Board’s decision was “the failure to afford procedural fairness” by the Tribunal, which amounted to an “error of law”.


Full version:

 

[catsfootyfan89]

I actually agree with the finding. It's not often that procedural precendece is changed. This is one of those situations.

 

[you pick one]

What does that all mean Fred?shades of Greg Williams there next step injunction and the courts if not overturned.Typical Carlton.

 

[Strange Cat]

How is this Cripps s**t still going? Just wear the penalty ffs.

He concussed a bloke. He was suspended.
The end.

What’s the difference between this s**t and Stewart’s? What a joke that he got off

 

[FredLeDeux]

What does that all mean Fred?shades of Greg Williams there next step injunction and the courts if not overturned.Typical Carlton.

It means, basically, that on his first appeal, the Tribunal didn't give Cripps the fair go ("procedural fairness") to which he is entitled by law.

In practical terms, they have just made the Tribunal's job in future cases quite a bit harder; they now have to dot all the "i's" and cross all the "t's" in both their proceedings and in the wording of their decisions to make sure that it's crystal clear that they have followed the law and given the bloke charged "natural justice".

They should have been doing this anyway, but it would be an interesting exercise for some budding footy lawyer to check through past decisions.

 

[you pick one]

It means, basically, that on his first appeal, the Tribunal didn't give Cripps the fair go ("procedural fairness") to which he is entitled by law.

In practical terms, they have just made the Tribunal's job in future cases quite a bit harder; they now have to dot all the "i's" and cross all the "t's" in both their proceedings and in the wording of their decisions to make sure that it's crystal clear that they have followed the law and given the bloke charged "natural justice".

They should have been doing this anyway, but it would be an interesting exercise for some budding footy lawyer to check through past decisions.

Thank for putting it in simple terms Fred the AFL won't be happy with the way this has worked out their control or ability to manipulate the game has slipped just that little bit.

 

[lionbear]

The AFL has to remember while Cripps is running around this weekend Nathan Cleary one of the biggest names in the NRL is serving a 5 week ban for a dangerous tackle on which the player continued to play. So anything they say about doing the most to protect the head they are currently getting circles ran around them by the NRL.

What's even more dumbfounding is Stewart got suspended for going past the ball, correctly, what's the difference between going past the ball to execute the bump and executing the bump before the ball even arrived, as much as you want to argue he had eyes on the ball, unless he is inspector gadget he was never getting to that ball.

This ruling last night has set the league back 10 years for protecting the head.

 

[cats_09]

What’s the difference between this s**t and Stewart’s? What a joke that he got off

A few things:

• the Cripps/Ah Chee clash was deemed in play
• the Stewart/Prestia was deemed behind play or off the ball

But the main thing that was contested on appeal last night wasn't the Cripps/Ah Chee incident, but procedural fairness during the tribunal sitting on Tuesday night and that an "error of law" was applied in the findings

Cripps was cleared on a technicality, based on errors made Tuesday night when the findings were the handed down:
- Cripps was found guilty but the wording of the findings didn't match what had been argued during the tribunal hearing & thus Cripps was unable to defend himself on the aspects of which he was found guilty

 

[cats_09]

The AFL has to remember while Cripps is running around this weekend Nathan Cleary one of the biggest names in the NRL is serving a 5 week ban for a dangerous tackle on which the player continued to play. So anything they say about doing the most to protect the head they are currently getting circles ran around them by the NRL.

What's even more dumbfounding is Stewart got suspended for going past the ball, correctly, what's the difference between going past the ball to execute the bump and executing the bump before the ball even arrived, as much as you want to argue he had eyes on the ball, unless he is inspector gadget he was never getting to that ball.

This ruling last night has set the league back 10 years for protecting the head.

The difference is that the tribunal didn't * up in the Stewart hearing, but they ****ed up in the Cripps hearing - that's lead to Cripps getting off on a technicality

 

[you pick one]

A few things:

• the Cripps/Ah Chee clash was deemed in play
• the Stewart/Prestia was deemed behind play or off the ball

But the main thing that was contested on appeal last night wasn't the Cripps/Ah Chee incident, but procedural fairness during the tribunal sitting on Tuesday night and that an "error of law" was applied in the findings

Cripps was cleared on a technicality, based on errors made Tuesday night when the findings were the handed down:
- Cripps was found guilty but the wording of the findings didn't match what had been argued during the tribunal hearing & thus Cripps was unable to defend himself on the aspects of which he was found guilty

I think this decision has the ability to shake the whole process up and not before time it's been Rafferty's rules since day one.

 

[you pick one]

The difference is that the tribunal didn't * up in the Stewart hearing, but they *ed up in the Cripps hearing - that's lead to Cripps getting off on a technicality

Stewart pleaded guilt anyway as I recall.

 

[cats_09]

Another retirement

 

[Strange Cat]

Another retirement

Been terrible at Ess imo

 

[you pick one]

Another retirement

Who.

 

[Kitcat]

Been terrible at Ess imo

Weren't we linked to Smith at the time? Good thing it didn't happen

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Another retirement

I remember being devastated we didn't get him