Certified Legendary Thread Patrick Cripps and Ah Chee

[raffrox]

has that been burning since 3pm yesterday??

FlowersByIrene was super petty and thought they were cool with the Newness cheapshot but I was still happy to keep on walking.

But when an opportunity like this presents itself, well...

 

[HairyO]

No they conceded that Cripps was going for the ball and did not bump

No, they conceded that the AFL never even bothered discussing whether it was a bump.

Almost like they wanted to lose.

Didnt help in the end. On paper a good game but 98m gained at the 20 possession stage with 14 of them being poor throws.

Finoshed a bit better and laid a lot of tackles but was probably their worst mid.

 

[Cotchins Hair Piece]

Precedence has been set. Players can jump into another and claim going for the ball.
Always the hyped players getting preferential treatment.

Absolutely. The decision by the board of appeal is case law now.

 

[HairyO]

Absolutely. The decision by the board of appeal is case law now.

And the AFL have been silent on it. They care more about Brownlows than player safety.

In a few years there will be massive lawsuits and this hit will be one of the ones used as an example of the AFL not having a duty of care to protect players.

 

[BringOn2017]

So whenever a player goes back with the flight, everyone else needs to go "hey stand back everyone, he's vulnerable, let's just let him take the mark uncontested."

Why isn't the argument here that Ah Chee should've seen a bigger stronger opponent coming toward him, so he should've stayed down, let Cripps take the ball, then tackle Cripps?

No, but if you jump in the air, brace, don’t make contact with the ball but make contact with someone’s head and concuss them… the onus is on you.

If it’s two players generally going for the footy, accidents can happen and it’s no one’s fault, regardless of the medical outcome.

That is not what happened here.

If you are attempting to defend Cripps here, explain the difference between this incident and Jeremy Cameron/Andrews incident a few years ago.

(Also, this has nothing to do with Cripp’s character or anything, it is a split second decision. As a player, you have to be prepared to cross the line, otherwise those split second decisions will mean you hesitate. Just like McKay last night running back with the ball. Would have marked it if he didn’t hesitate)

 

[Alesana]

No, but if you jump in the air, brace, don’t make contact with the ball but make contact with someone’s head and concuss them… the onus is on you.

If it’s two players generally going for the footy, accidents can happen and it’s no one’s fault, regardless of the medical outcome.

That is not what happened here.

If you are attempting to defend Cripps here, explain the difference between this incident and Jeremy Cameron/Andrews incident a few years ago.

(Also, this has nothing to do with Cripp’s character or anything, it is a split second decision. As a player, you have to be prepared to cross the line, otherwise those split second decisions will mean you hesitate. Just like McKay last night running back with the ball. Would have marked it if he didn’t hesitate)

Cripps couldn't have known who was going to get hands on the ball first before he left the ground. The ball could've gone over Ah Chee, through his hands etc. It was still in contention.

The difference with Cameron's is Cameron didn't go for the ball whatsoever. Had eyes on Andrews, arms not in a catching position (not going for the ball), and elbow raised instead of in a bracing position. Andrews should've been expecting to get destroyed in that contest also, not necessarily an elbow to the face, but knees to the ribs or a severe winding at the least. Cripps had eyes on the ball, arms and hands in a catching position (going for the ball).

 

[FourthTimeAround]

Cripps couldn't have known who was going to get hands on the ball first before he left the ground. The ball could've gone over Ah Chee, through his hands etc. It was still in contention.

Remind me to suggest that next time someone charges into a loose ball contest and takes someone’s head off

 

[Pugnacious1874]

Cripps had eyes on the ball, arms and hands in a catching position (going for the ball).

Still looking for footage of players contesting in the air like a chest mark when it is not a marking contest.

I'd suggest they don't do that because it severely limits their options if they do win the ball.

For me the "catching" pose here is a consequence of preparing for contact - "the bump" - than a realistic "contest" to win the ball.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Mate give it up.

You were harping on about legal terms the other day and in the process of doing so, made a fool of yourself to anyone with half a clue… trying to ‘educate’ everyone on what was and wasn’t evidence… and evidently, you had no clue.

Remember, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I am a physiotherapist, but thanks for your pointless contribution.

And I wasn’t “harping on about legal terms”, I was arguing that your theory about what Cripps was trying to do when entering the contest was just a theory, and doesn’t constitute “evidence”. The benchmark for something to be considered “evidence”, is higher than some fluff you just made up to suit your argument.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Ginnivan deserved it for being a flog

Well, that’s me convinced…

 

[The Royal Sampler]

No, they conceded that the AFL never even bothered discussing whether it was a bump.

That was what allowed Carlton to appeal.

Then they found that Cripps’ action was in keeping with contesting the ball and not bumping.

I don’t agree with it, but he didn’t get off solely on the technicality. If the appeals board thought he had a duty of care, he would still have been suspended despite the error in law.

I don’t agree with it, but that’s how it is.

 

[smit_is]

I am a physiotherapist, but thanks for your pointless contribution.

And I wasn’t “harping on about legal terms”, I was arguing that your theory about what Cripps was trying to do when entering the contest was just a theory, and doesn’t constitute “evidence”. The benchmark for something to be considered “evidence”, is higher than some fluff you just made up to suit your argument.

You would have noted that Cripps gave his version of events on Tuesday night. Was it fact? Certainly not. But, was it evidence? 100%

Have a spell

 

[The Royal Sampler]

You would have noted that Cripps gave his version of events on Tuesday night. Was it fact? Certainly not. But, was it evidence? 100%

Have a spell

Yes, if Cripps says it, it’s evidence. Albeit evidence to be taken with a grain of salt.

If you say it, it’s speculation.

Have one yourself, or better still take the “L” and move on.

 

[smit_is]

Yes, if Cripps says it, it’s evidence. Albeit evidence to be taken with a grain of salt.

If you say it, it’s speculation.

Have one yourself, or better still take the “L” and move on.

Haha what ‘L’? Cripps got off?

And I appreciate it must be hard to keep on track when one posts at such a high volume, and mostly utter garbage, so I’ll remind you…

What occurred was unquestionably a bump, he will argue he was contesting the ball and the bump was an unintentional, split-second outcome, but there is no video evidence to support any claim he was contesting the ball. He didn’t reach for it. At all.

That’s not evidence. That’s narrative. An open hand could mean absolutely anything and you have to craft it to suit your agenda.

The other points are evidence, as they are indisputable facts. Cripps DID choose to jump in the air, Cripps DID collect him with a hip/elbow bump, Cripps DID hit him in the head, Ah Chee WAS concussed, Ah Chee DIDN’T take any further part in the game (and won’t next week).

Thanks mate. Working tirelessly to educate the masses.

I never once made claims to what they would submit as evidence.

I was responding to comments like these, trying to explain that what ever submissions Cripps and his legal representation make, would be considered evidence.

You then took it upon yourself to ‘educate’ me and others on what was and wasn’t evidence… something you still clearly have no understanding of, and accordingly, not in a position to be advising others on the subject.

As a side note (and I can’t be bothered quoting as there are just too many comments and contradictions from you), but it is noted that you’ve gone from, he wasn’t contesting the ball, to he wasn’t lining him up, to he was contesting the ball but didn’t show a duty of care (and I have no doubt a few other variations would have been in there as well)….seemingly softening on your stance after the findings. You’re all over the place, it’s hard to keep up!

Anyway, it seems you still can’t grasp the concept, and as it’s become very clear that you’re a dogmatic, know-it-all who must have the last say, I will do as you have suggested and move on.

Cheers

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Haha what ‘L’? Cripps got off?

On the argument, mate, the argument… try to keep up.

…it is noted that you’ve gone from, he wasn’t contesting the ball, to he wasn’t lining him up, to he was contesting the ball but didn’t show a duty of care (and I have no doubt a few other variations would have been in there as well)….seemingly softening on your stance after the findings.

Yep, I’m coming to appreciate that nuance and detail aren’t your strong points, but what I’ve repeatedly said is that I don’t believe (but can’t be sure based on a lack of evidence) Cripps entered the contest intending to bump Ah Chee, but a bump was the outcome regardless.

As Cripps was not in a marking contest and had alternatives, he has a duty of care to avoid making forceful contact with his opponent’s head.

Some Carlton fans deny even that a bump occurred, possibly aligning the word “bump” more with intent than outcome, so for those special individuals I go more with the “forceful contact” phrase… but it’s tantamount to the same thing.

 

[smit_is]

On the argument, mate, the argument… try to keep up.


Yep, I’m coming to appreciate that nuance and detail aren’t your strong points, but what I’ve repeatedly said is that I don’t believe (but can’t be sure based on a lack of evidence) Cripps entered the contest intending to bump Ah Chee, but a bump was the outcome regardless.

As Cripps was not in a marking contest and had alternatives, he has a duty of care to avoid making forceful contact with his opponent’s head.

Some Carlton fans deny even that a bump occurred, possibly aligning the word “bump” more with intent than outcome, so for those special individuals I go more with the “forceful contact” phrase… but it’s tantamount to the same thing.

And I quote…

there is no video evidence to support any claim he was contesting the ball.

Hahahahhaha!!! No, you clearly said here there was no evidence.

You were confusing evidence and fact and thinking they are one and the same.

Cripps got off and the jurors have agreed that there was evidence to support a claim he was contesting the ball.

What part was I wrong in? Where did I lose?
It’s plain and simple…. you were wrong!! That can’t be any clearer.

And as for the rest, you’ve quite literally supported everything I’ve said…. Again, dogmatic, know-it-all who must have the last say.

The lesson to be learnt here… never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Still looking for footage of players contesting in the air like a chest mark when it is not a marking contest.

No you're not. You haven't done one bit of research into it and you know that nobody else will either, because it proves nothing. Then, when no evidence turns up (because nobody's looking), you can claim that you won that argument, even though it would prove nothing either way.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Some Carlton fans deny even that a bump occurred, possibly aligning the word “bump” more with intent than outcome, so for those special individuals I go more with the “forceful contact” phrase… but it’s tantamount to the same thing.

I haven't read every single post, but I don't recall seeing any Carlton fans denying that a bump occurred. I'm assuming you can point to some of these posts?

 

[Purple Suit]

Cripps couldn't have known who was going to get hands on the ball first before he left the ground. The ball could've gone over Ah Chee, through his hands etc. It was still in contention.

The difference with Cameron's is Cameron didn't go for the ball whatsoever. Had eyes on Andrews, arms not in a catching position (not going for the ball), and elbow raised instead of in a bracing position. Andrews should've been expecting to get destroyed in that contest also, not necessarily an elbow to the face, but knees to the ribs or a severe winding at the least. Cripps had eyes on the ball, arms and hands in a catching position (going for the ball).

Cripps doesn’t have “arms and hands in a catching position”. He has 1 arm and hand, the other is tucked in and in a fist, ready to collect Ah Chee.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I haven't read every single post, but I don't recall seeing any Carlton fans denying that a bump occurred. I'm assuming you can point to some of these posts?

I honestly can’t be ****ed. Feel free to have a look, they’re there. You’re probably just as good with the search function as me, and I’m not going to derive any satisfaction or pleasure from it.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Hahahahhaha!!! No, you clearly said here there was no evidence.

You were confusing evidence and fact and thinking they are one and the same.

As I’ve previously posted;

“Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence”.

The lack of video evidence that Cripps was contesting the ball, doesn’t mean he wasn’t contesting the ball. It means the video isn’t proof that he was.

You’re out of your depth in this conversation. I’m going to direct my energies to more fruitful discussion. Cheers.

 

[smit_is]

As I’ve previously posted;

“Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence”.

The lack of video evidence that Cripps was contesting the ball, doesn’t mean he wasn’t contesting the ball. It means the video isn’t proof that he was.

You’re out of your depth in this conversation. I’m going to direct my energies to more fruitful discussion. Cheers.

I’m a lawyer. I’m by no means out of my depth in this particular conversation. I like to think I’ve got a fair idea what evidence is, something you have time and time again proven you do not.

You’re now introducing the word proof. You still don’t get it and that’s ok.

I’ll leave it to you to clarify anatomical positions, but when it comes to legal process / terms, perhaps leave that to the big kids.

Enjoy your fruitful conversations.

 

[Chief]

OK bit of a burn, but let's get back to being nice to each other.

Thank you all.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I honestly can’t be *ed. Feel free to have a look, they’re there. You’re probably just as good with the search function as me, and I’m not going to derive any satisfaction or pleasure from it.

You claimed it, and now you either can't or refuse to back it up, so I'll just mark it down as a lie, or at the very least, you misinterpreting other posts.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

You claimed it, and now you either can't or refuse to back it up, so I'll just mark it down as a lie, or at the very least, you misinterpreting other posts.

Oh sweet Jesus, [mention]Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods [/mention] get off your high horse, I’m not your bloody secretary. Having said that, I just spent half an hour looking for you, so you can mark that last sentence down as a lie and you’d actually be pretty much right.

Posts in this thread which state or imply he didn’t “bump”, or that a “bump” didn’t happen, or call someone stating that he bumped “wrong” etc. using only a search for the specific word “bump”. (Also note that I have excluded any posts which deny “choosing to bump”, “opting to bump” or “intention to bump”, as that, you will appreciate and others who will remain nameless will not, is a different thing.);

#1750
#1614
#1536
#1063
#859
#582
#210
#157

Putting aside the argument about extension of arms, I think we’ve been able to argue this pretty reasonably to date, so maybe mull these over a bit.