Oppo Camp Other Games Rolling Thread

[Jafo]

Take same incident (Cripps on Ah Chee) and put in beginning or mid season, do Carlton appeal the decision?

Aka if they don’t then the original ban would be correct (which I think it was).

 

[vinnievavoom]

This one was worse than the Maynard incident.
Maynard was clearly going for the ball — in fact, made contact with the ball before anything else. It was a glancing blow to the head and I think the concussion came from the landing.
Cripps’ action was a bump, despite the lies at the Appeal, and directly caused the concussion. It’s utterly obvious.
People scoff at claims of corruption in the AFL. What, then, do they put this decision down to?The decision is absurd.

I am certainly confused as to what is and isn’t a bump!


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Big picture. Its not about what constitutes a bump or whether he contested the ball. The tribunal was blindsided by the Blues legal team, and they got him off on technicalities.
Lets say the same incident goes to the tribunal next week, the tribunal (now the wiser) will choose their words more carefully, follow due process and he gets minimum 2 weeks. If done properly, clubs will feel they cant appeal because they feel they had a fair hearing.
I think that for the time being, this just means that the tribunal will take longer, follow the required process strictly and make a more considered response when arriving at their decision.

 

[Kirby]

In theory, yes - you can always try. Worked for D Kerrigan! But in practicality, no way. The current setup of the tribunal/appeal structure is in part designed to prevent matters being taken further. By turning the Appeals board into a de facto court of appeal.

The last thing the afl would ever do is try to say they can go past the appeal board. I would say Kirby could give a better explanation but his horrendous appeal prediction has me doubting him.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I don't think that it can go any further as the set-up of the process is inherently flawed in my view.

Cripps essentially got off on a technicality from my understanding (very limited as I've been too busy today to look at it properly), in that at the initial Tribunal hearing they never specifically questioned him as to whether he had his eyes on the ball and so the Tribunal didn't give him a fair opportunity to present his case (procedural fairness).

However, as opposed to the Court of Appeal in Victoria at least, it seems that the Appeals Tribunal does not have the power to decide for themselves regardless - or to remit it back to the initial Tribunal to have it re-heard. In other words, they could say "Whilst there was an error in his questioning which was unfair, we believe that this does not change the outcome in that even if he did have eyes for the ball we still consider it careless". Whereas at the Tribunal appeal they just say - well that's it, it's all over he wins!

I'm in a rush and have to leave for lunch so I won't be able to answer any questions or discuss further for a while...haha

 

[Vic Park]

Big picture. Its not about what constitutes a bump or whether he contested the ball. The tribunal was blindsided by the Blues legal team, and they got him off on technicalities.
Lets say the same incident goes to the tribunal next week, the tribunal (now the wiser) will choose their words more carefully, follow due process and he gets minimum 2 weeks. If done properly, clubs will feel they cant appeal because they feel they had a fair hearing.
I think that for the time being, this just means that the tribunal will take longer, follow the required process strictly and make a more considered response when arriving at their decision.

Pathetic response by the AFL. They ‘accept’ the decision and state ‘it’s far to early’ to review the tribunal process. What are they waiting for? Totalling irresponsible. This decision undermines the integrity of the game


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[mwhop]

I don't think that it can go any further as the set-up of the process is inherently flawed in my view.

Cripps essentially got off on a technicality from my understanding (very limited as I've been too busy today to look at it properly), in that at the initial Tribunal hearing they never specifically questioned him as to whether he had his eyes on the ball and so the Tribunal didn't give him a fair opportunity to present his case (procedural fairness).

However, as opposed to the Court of Appeal in Victoria at least, it seems that the Appeals Tribunal does not have the power to decide for themselves regardless - or to remit it back to the initial Tribunal to have it re-heard. In other words, they could say "Whilst there was an error in his questioning which was unfair, we believe that this does not change the outcome in that even if he did have eyes for the ball we still consider it careless". Whereas at the Tribunal appeal they just say - well that's it, it's all over he wins!

I'm in a rush and have to leave for lunch so I won't be able to answer any questions or discuss further for a while...haha

100% this
cant believe they fell for it

 

[MyManLynch]

Cannot wait until we have a new AFL CEO…one who is not a previous member of the boys club.
An outsider perhaps?
One that can clearly view the ‘fixes’ required & take assertive action.
The AFL is a reactionary organisation & seems to drift from crisis to crisis.
We need a Mr Fix it.

edit or Mrs or Miss

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Lets say the same incident goes to the tribunal next week, the tribunal (now the wiser) will choose their words more carefully, follow due process and he gets minimum 2 weeks. If done properly, clubs will feel they cant appeal because they feel they had a fair hearing.

The Blues appealing and re-appealing had nothing to do with having a fair hearing, and everything to do with having a shy at the stumps.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

In other words, they could say "Whilst there was an error in his questioning which was unfair, we believe that this does not change the outcome in that even if he did have eyes for the ball we still consider it careless".

There is so much talk about where his eyes were, if that can even be adequately deduced from the footage. I would like to know why it’s even relevant when a bump has clearly occurred. It’s not as if you can’t do things you intend, unless looking directly at them!

 

[swoop42]

There is so much talk about where his eyes were, if that can even be adequately deduced from the footage. I would like to know why it’s even relevant when a bump has clearly occurred. It’s not as if you can’t do things you intend, unless looking directly at them!

Some people clearly haven't heard of peripheral vision either.

 

[vinnievavoom]

There is so much talk about where his eyes were, if that can even be adequately deduced from the footage. I would like to know why it’s even relevant when a bump has clearly occurred. It’s not as if you can’t do things you intend, unless looking directly at them!

What if he shuts his eyes before contact?

Some people clearly haven't heard of peripheral vision either.

Or the lookaway elbow to the head...

 

[Jafo]

Pathetic response by the AFL. They ‘accept’ the decision and state ‘it’s far to early’ to review the tribunal process. What are they waiting for? Totalling irresponsible. This decision undermines the integrity of the game


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Sorry. Only tackling rules can be changed during the season. Nothing else.

 

[swoop42]

Honestly, when did the AFL process to decide the guilt or innocence of a football player suddenly become a court of law instead of just an internal mechanism setup to review an incident out on the field of play?

Anyone with any feel for the game knows full well that Cripps, with his side trailing 38 to 2, took an opportunity to assert himself physically on an opponent in an effort to energize his teammates. Unfortunately for him and Ah Chee he elected to bump, yes it was a bump Mr Kellam, that bump went high and Ah Chee was concussed.

The match review officer did his job in laying the initial charge and the original tribunal panel were smart enough to see through all the BS from the defence.

Yet here we are, Cripps gets off and we have people talking of procedural fairness, a denial of natural justice and a "jury" not being directed correctly.

I tell you what is a denial of natural justice.

That Cripps is free to play this week when his victim Ah Chee isn't (and wouldn't be allowed to even if he felt fine!) while the inclusion of Cripps aids Carlton with any victory for them costing another team the opportunity to play finals or in our case possibly a top 4 finish.

I'm sorry but this decision potentially impacts the integrity of the whole competition.

 

[Robroy22]

Honestly, when did the AFL process to decide the guilt or innocence of a football player suddenly become a court of law instead of just an internal mechanism setup to review an incident out on the field of play?

Anyone with any feel for the game knows full well that Cripps, with his side trailing 38 to 2, took an opportunity to assert himself physically on an opponent in an effort to energize his teammates. Unfortunately for him and Ah Chee he elected to bump, yes it was a bump Mr Kellam, that bump went high and Ah Chee was concussed.

The match review officer did his job in laying the initial charge and the original tribunal panel were smart enough to see through all the BS from the defence.

Yet here we are, Cripps gets off and we have people talking of procedural fairness, a denial of natural justice and a "jury" not being directed correctly.

I tell you what is a denial of natural justice.

That Cripps is free to play this week when his victim Ah Chee isn't (and wouldn't be allowed to even if he felt fine!) while the inclusion of Cripps aids Carlton with any victory for them costing another team the opportunity to play finals or in our case possibly a top 4 finish.

I'm sorry but this decision potentially impacts the integrity of the whole competition.

Totally agree Swoop. How anyone can say that Cripps wasn't trying to bump is beyond me. If he was "going for the ball" then his arms would have been raised as the (much) taller player he would have had the advantage there with the ball above both his and Ah Chee's heads. No, his failure to raise his arms to grab the ball and his pre-meditated tucking in of the front arm meant that his intention was to make contact with Ah Chee. Then to make matters worse he leaves the ground so that all his horizontal force is concentrated into the upper portions of Ah Chee's body (his head, chest and shoulders).
Ah Chee was going for the ball, Cripps was late, intent on hurting his opponent and trying to set the tone for his team to play a more physical brand. He was lucky to get 2 weeks in the first place (should have been 3-4) and to then get off is a travesty. Brisbane or the rest of the AFL clubs should be able to object to this weak decision.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

^ Carlton fans in the tribunal board are absolutely adamant not only that Cripps was contesting the ball, but that his arms were extended.

The latter is demonstrably false, the former is possible but pure conjecture and in no way supported by video evidence.

 

[76woodenspooners]

In theory, yes - you can always try. Worked for D Kerrigan! But in practicality, no way. The current setup of the tribunal/appeal structure is in part designed to prevent matters being taken further. By turning the Appeals board into a de facto court of appeal.

The last thing the afl would ever do is try to say they can go past the appeal board. I would say Kirby could give a better explanation but his horrendous appeal prediction has me doubting him.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

So if I think back to the Toby Greene case last year, the AFL did actually appeal (and appeal was upheld), but that was an appeal to the original tribunal ruling / punishment, rather than an appeal to an appeal as was suggested in the post you replied to. Is that correct?

 

[sideswipe]

So if I think back to the Toby Greene case last year, the AFL did actually appeal (and appeal was upheld), but that was an appeal to the original tribunal ruling / punishment, rather than an appeal to an appeal as was suggested in the post you replied to. Is that correct?

Yep. They appealed the tribunal decision


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[JoinDate]

Bunch of dog campaigners tbh imvho.

Cheating is in their DNA.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Go saints. I’m not holding my breath but a Brisbane loss tonight makes our top four journey slightly easier. It also drops Richmond to ninth.

 

[stormskye]

only positives for saints winning. Come on saints!

 

[Dead Eye Didak]

Find myself invested in Brisbane games, because of McStay. Interesting watch tonight....

 

[Ulahoopski]

If Brisbane wanna consider themselves a serious premiership threat then they need to win this comfortably. Go Aints.

 

[#40]

Find myself invested in Brisbane games, because of McStay. Interesting watch tonight....

Me too. Although I hope the Saints win.

 

[Dead Eye Didak]

Me too. Although I hope the Saints win.

We do want the Saints to get up. I picked them tonight so

 

[JoinDate]

Something, something McStay

 

[Jen2310]

Find myself invested in Brisbane games, because of McStay. Interesting watch tonight....

Nice mark. Didn’t get the goal but nice mark nonetheless


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com