Certified Legendary Thread Patrick Cripps and Ah Chee

[FourthTimeAround]

The ball was right there for the taking and the footage bears that out. Your contention that he wanted to knock the player over is stupid and the tribunal bears that out.

You should put some glasses on.

I look forward to every defender coming behind a forward by reaching out with their hands, getting there late, turning their body and knocking out forwards at will.
And getting suspended.

 

[TheWeapon]

he. was. late.
left. the. ground.
knocked. him. out.

Quit it please. We all know where you stand. We all know where supporters for the other 17 clubs stand.

A few of these carlton mods here are on 24 hour thread watch preaching to the crowd like its going to make any difference to the minds of non-carlton supporters
Kinda pathetic

 

[Gavin Excell]

You're allowed to make your argument. Go for it.

His feet went off ground
he hit him in head
he was concussed

most non Carlton supporters think it's a poor decision

If I was a Carlton fan I'd just take the result rather than embarrass yourself trying to justify it

 

[FourthTimeAround]

Brad Crouch

5

Brad Crouch

Age

30

Ht

186cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

26.1

5star

K

12.1

4star

HB

14.0

5star

M

2.7

3star

T

5.5

5star

CL

5.0

5star

D

20.3

5star

K

11.1

4star

HB

9.1

5star

M

1.5

2star

T

3.9

5star

CL

4.6

5star

D

21.6

5star

K

10.0

4star

HB

11.6

5star

M

3.4

4star

T

4.2

5star

CL

2.6

5star

calling Cripps from the bench right now.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I look forward to every defender coming behind a forward by reaching out with their hands, getting there late, turning their body and knocking out forwards at will.
And getting suspended.

Yeah this is “the ball being there for the taking”. If you knock a guy out in the process of taking this ball, through forceful contact to his head and not by contacting the ball, you’d think that would be due to a lack of care.

 

[_Mike_]

Yeah this is “the ball being there for the taking”. If you knock a guy out in the process of taking this ball, through forceful contact to his head and not by contacting the ball, you’d think that would be due to a lack of care.

the Maynard case was a bit stiff IMO and a knee jerk reaction from the one man MRP band. A free for high contact was sufficient IMO

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

His feet went off ground
he hit him in head
he was concussed

most non Carlton supporters think it's a poor decision

If I was a Carlton fan I'd just take the result rather than embarrass yourself trying to justify it

I'm not embarrassed. It's a contentious issue.

His feet went off the ground .... so? WTF does that have to do with anything? The ball was in the air, was it not?

He hit him in the head ... yeah, it was a collision with one player higher than another. Happens in marking contests too.

He was concussed ... yeah. So you think the outcome is the most important thing, not the action or intent?

This is fairly lightweight input GE. You doing your usual diminishing of the poster doesn't really cut it. But I get it, it's a populist argument and you have the masses behind you so you can take a bit of licence.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

he. was. late.
left. the. ground.
knocked. him. out.

Quit it please. We all know where you stand. We all know where supporters for the other 17 clubs stand.

I see. So you want to state your case without rebuttal? It's the supporters of the club that won the tribunal verdict that need to just let you chat amongst yourselves?

I mean, this is a two way thing isn't it? If you are sick of the discourse, then walk away.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

the Maynard case was a bit stiff IMO and a knee jerk reaction from the one man MRP band. A free for high contact was sufficient IMO

I think most Collingwood fans who can remember Jason Cloke, had little hope for Maynard getting off. He was contesting the ball, he made first contact with the ball, but also made forceful contact with the head, duty of care, yada yada yada.

We were disappointed, but mostly understood it’s necessary to make the game safer.

 

[Gavin Excell]

I'm not embarrassed. It's a contentious issue.

His feet went off the ground .... so? WTF does that have to do with anything? The ball was in the air, was it not?

He hit him in the head ... yeah, it was a collision with one player higher than another. Happens in marking contests too.

He was concussed ... yeah. So you think the outcome is the most important thing, not the action or intent?

This is fairly lightweight input GE. You doing your usual diminishing of the poster doesn't really cut it. But I get it, it's a populist argument and you have the masses behind you so you can take a bit of licence

I'm not embarrassed. It's a contentious issue.

His feet went off the ground .... so? WTF does that have to do with anything? The ball was in the air, was it not?

He hit him in the head ... yeah, it was a collision with one player higher than another. Happens in marking contests too.

He was concussed ... yeah. So you think the outcome is the most important thing, not the action or intent?

This is fairly lightweight input GE. You doing your usual diminishing of the poster doesn't really cut it. But I get it, it's a populist argument and you have the masses behind you so you can take a bit of licence.

Lightweight?

I guess my thinking is until yesterdays verdict was that previous decisions have focussed on opting to hit the head where the player is hurt result in suspension

The Cripps verdict is the outlier

 

[_Mike_]

I think most Collingwood fans who can remember Jason Cloke, had little hope for Maynard getting off. He was contesting the ball, he made first contact with the ball, but also made forceful contact with the head, duty of care, yada yada yada.

We were disappointed, but mostly understood it’s necessary to make the game safer.

I don’t have a problem with the intentions however there is an inherent risk that comes with playing contact sports. The fine line between making the game as safe as possible vs over officiating is getting blurrier by the day. In the exception of rare examples players haven’t been able to successfully sue the AFL for injuries sustained as a result of player contact/collision AFAIK, yet...

The Zantuck case seeks action against the Richmond Football club and its doctors for their treatment and monitoring of ongoing concussion occurrences.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

No point continuing, you can’t see past the Navy Blue glasses.

And it doesn’t matter what I think, as I don’t make AFL decisions.

But my opinion is based on this angle of vision (20 secs in) that shows me what Cripps intent is, in my opinion only. The premier ball winner that Cripps is, knows where Ah Chee is. And his actions are not simply securing possession, but ironing out a player to make a statement because of those little numbers in the bottom left of the screen.

Good luck to the Blues this week.

I can't see past the facts of the matter as the appeal tribunal saw them.

You can't see past your own perception. As you said, your opinion. For some reason, me arguing with your opinion is me having navy blue glasses on.

I'll tell you something for nothing. When I first saw it in fast motion as it happened, I called weeks. I did not see the eyes on the ball or the arms outstretched. The camera angle and speed of the play made it impossible.

I changed my mind with further vision and an understanding of how the game is played as far as securing possession and agree with the assertion at the time of Nathan Buckley, and the further observations of Michael Voss and Jonathan Brown.

The scribes saying different are saying he could have taken the ball without hitting the player (Garry Lyon), or he chose to turn in mid air to bump Ah Chee while simultaneously keeping his eyes on the ball and his arms outstretched to take the ball. These are not natural biomechanics and these are the scribes who want to protect the head no matter what. If we have to fundamentally change the game to make it a partial non-contact sport, we might as well wear head gear and preserve the integrity.

If we are worried about legal action from head knocks so trying to suspend players willy nilly for playing the game tough and fair, then we may as well wind it all up. It is no longer a product we grew up with, complete with inherent risks.

Did cricket start suspending fast bowlers for balls that struck batsmen after the Phillip Hughes tragedy? The NRL has tough rules on high contact and tackling actions. They don't have anything on leaping into the air to contest a bomb.

Our game is unique and it is uniquely dangerous.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Lightweight?

I guess my thinking is until yesterdays verdict was that previous decisions have focussed on opting to hit the head where the player is hurt result in suspension

The Cripps verdict is the outlier

He didn't opt to hit the head though. It was an unfortunate result of contesting the ball.

 

[DT_35]

You just know crouch will get 2+ now

 

[Gavin Excell]

He didn't opt to hit the head though. It was an unfortunate result of contesting the ball.

Do you acknowledge the outcome is different compared to similar cases?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I don’t have a problem with the intentions however there is an inherent risk that comes with playing contact sports. The fine line between making the game as safe as possible vs over officiating is getting blurrier by the day. In the exception of rare examples players haven’t been able to successfully sue the AFL for injuries sustained as a result of player contact/collision AFAIK, yet...

The Zantuck case seeks action against the Richmond Football club and its doctors for their treatment and monitoring of ongoing concussion occurrences.

This is how I view it. I don't see how they can remove the risk associated with our game. If they are going to go off outcome, then it needs to be consistent. If they are going to go off action, then the outcome shouldn't matter. They have a foot in both camps and they are causing the confusion.

They can micro-manage the game to the point of players being too afraid to contest the ball if they like. Might as well be like rugby where someone can call for a fair catch and the opposition have to hang back.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Do you acknowledge the outcome is different compared to similar cases?

The only similar case I can think of is Willie Rioli and the outcome is the same. People talking about the Maynard spoil, which I don't recall btw, seem to be talking about a different set of circumstances.

There is a growing tendency in today's society, to begrudge things to others if they weren't available to them. So one unfair decision should mean consistent unfair decisions from now on. One person getting debt relief or help is not fair because I had to pay my own debts.

People don't look at these things in isolation very often. They look at it from a point of view of, I didn't get it, why should he? Governing bodies in sport or politics often rely on this mentality to maintain the shitty status quo. Infighting amongst the plebs is the goal, rather than look at the persons creating the problems.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

It was a 2 week act /period

Even OJS would be amused

It was a zero week act and that's official.

 

[Gman]

You just know crouch will get 2+ now

Not sure...

Is he not allowed to bump and contest at the same time?

The AFL counsel Nicholas Payne last night said "the player could contest the ball but still maintain the action of bumping an opponent"

So Crouch was in the action of contesting... It's either he tackles or bumps...

And don't worry about the head hit, it's been made clear last night that is no longer an issue

All saints have to do is borrow Carlton's legal team

 

[Dadda Dave]

I'll have what you're on!

Sharing is caring..

 

[_RT_]

His feet went off ground
he hit him in head
he was concussed

most non Carlton supporters think it's a poor decision

If I was a Carlton fan I'd just take the result rather than embarrass yourself trying to justify it

Tom Stewart must be wondering what the deal is. At least he didn't leave his feet when he knocked Prestia out, outside that not much difference really.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

You just know crouch will get 2+ now

Are we comparing the two? Was Couch contesting for the ball? Did he deliberately aim to bump? The player got up. I'd be happy with 1 week but again, it shouldn't be based on outcome, just the act.

 

[FourthTimeAround]

I can't see past the facts of the matter as the appeal tribunal saw them.

You can't see past your own perception. As you said, your opinion. For some reason, me arguing with your opinion is me having navy blue glasses on.

I'll tell you something for nothing. When I first saw it in fast motion as it happened, I called weeks. I did not see the eyes on the ball or the arms outstretched. The camera angle and speed of the play made it impossible.

I changed my mind with further vision and an understanding of how the game is played as far as securing possession and agree with the assertion at the time of Nathan Buckley, and the further observations of Michael Voss and Jonathan Brown.

The scribes saying different are saying he could have taken the ball without hitting the player (Garry Lyon), or he chose to turn in mid air to bump Ah Chee while simultaneously keeping his eyes on the ball and his arms outstretched to take the ball. These are not natural biomechanics and these are the scribes who want to protect the head no matter what. If we have to fundamentally change the game to make it a partial non-contact sport, we might as well wear head gear and preserve the integrity.

If we are worried about legal action from head knocks so trying to suspend players willy nilly for playing the game tough and fair, then we may as well wind it all up. It is no longer a product we grew up with, complete with inherent risks.

Did cricket start suspending fast bowlers for balls that struck batsmen after the Phillip Hughes tragedy? The NRL has tough rules on high contact and tackling actions. They don't have anything on leaping into the air to contest a bomb.

Our game is unique and it is uniquely dangerous.

I just trust my eyes, my experience of playing good (nowhere near elite) football, and my experience of both how to apply physicality in a marking contest as well as being the victim of it.

Brown ? Great footballers that also would firmly admit that they would hurt the opponent if and when they could.
Voss? Same. But also has some skin in the game maybe.
Buckley? Same again. Much fairer than the other two. But has form in that there’s a fair bit of the victim-blame in him for things like this.

it is entirely possible to play the game hard and fair. Not avoiding accidental injury, but not ignoring the potential impact of actions on your opponent. Cripps does that almost always. But not in this case.

 

[Dadda Dave]

The AFL have said for years if you hit someone in the head you are liable regardless.
Cripps showed no duty of care, he was pretending to mark a ball that wasn't there.
He got off so the AFL wouldn't be embarrassed on Brownlow night.

Pretending to mark the ball
I stopped reading after that ..

 

[Fadge]

Where is the outrage over Matty Kennedy missing the last 2 matches with a broken jaw?
How did this occur? Was it friendly fire, or a collision with an opposition player?
Oh the head is sacrosanct…when it suits an agenda.

So where is the vision? What was the incident?

I searched for it yesterday but couldn't find it.

Can anyone share it or are Carlton posters just going to continue to tell us that Kennedy broke his jaw without sharing the vision that caused it?