Remove this Banner Ad

Certified Legendary Thread Patrick Cripps and Ah Chee

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Pklz said:
What difference does it make if it is or isn't a marking contest? If you're late to a marking contest, make high contact and it results in someone having concussion the outcome should be the same.

FWIW I think we'll struggle to fight it purely because of the concussion. What's frustrating is you see guys like Rioli earlier this season get off when his action was 5x worse than Cripps but was lucky that Rowell wasn't concussed or injured.
Click to expand...

Marking contest would make it a lot easier to claim it’s a football accident so to speak. Accidents happen. Not sure this is an accident rather a captain wanting to do something because the rest of your dud team couldn’t be stuffed
 
Just to further explain this is what Carlton will challenge and the verdict in regard to Willie Rioli:

“The tribunal will be astute to uphold any charge where a player was initially intending to contest the ball, changed that intention and in doing so breached his duty of care. That is not this case,” Gleeson said.

“Willie Rioli had eyes for the ball as he entered this contest. There is no doubt he braced for contact a split second before contact, but when doing so, did not cease to contest the ball. The way in which he did so was not unreasonable.”

See how everything there says contest. It does not matter one bit that it's not in a marking contest. Carlton will try and argue that Cripps falls under that second point. To be honest, he definitely doesn't but this is what Carlton will argue and there is a case there, not a great one, but may as well try.
 
Not sure what's funnier

1) Captain Cripps getting rubbed out in the run to finals
2) Harry McKay being all "yeah mate he just ran straight through him mate"
3) Cats fans still bringing up Milburn 400 years after the event when it should be Carlton fans triggered by it. Bizarre.
 
tigs2010 said:
Not sure what's funnier

1) Captain Cripps getting rubbed out in the run to finals
2) Harry McKay being all "yeah mate he just ran straight through him mate"
3) Cats fans still bringing up Milburn 400 years after the event when it should be Carlton fans triggered by it. Bizarre.
Click to expand...
Richmond supporters should know this scenario all to well.

Captain Cotchin has dodged his fair share of bullets in the lead up to finals.

Blokes like Teflon.

Probably lucky he doesnt have the physical stature of Cripps.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Pklz said:
What difference does it make if it is or isn't a marking contest? If you're late to a marking contest, make high contact and it results in someone having concussion the outcome should be the same.

FWIW I think we'll struggle to fight it purely because of the concussion. What's frustrating is you see guys like Rioli earlier this season get off when his action was 5x worse than Cripps but was lucky that Rowell wasn't concussed or injured.
Click to expand...

It's all about outcome these days, not intent. Which is a reasonably stupid way for any justice system to work, but here we are.

Don't see any way Cripps gets off
 
Pklz said:
What difference does it make if it is or isn't a marking contest? If you're late to a marking contest, make high contact and it results in someone having concussion the outcome should be the same.
Click to expand...
Good question. The difference is the alternative options the bumping player has in each instance.

Rioli, in a marking contest, had two options.
a) try to mark the ball
b) try to spoil the ball

I’m sure we can agree that he couldn’t tackle, and couldn’t stay low and bump because Rowell had leapt for the ball, it would have been tunnelling.

Rioli successfully argued that he chose to try to mark the ball, he had arms out, and at the last second he braced himself for contact. As the ball was dropping between two players running headlong at each other, I at least find it plausible that it would be difficult to judge the timing.

Cripps, as it was not a marking contest, had at least four options.
a) try to win the ball
b) try to punch the ball away
c) stay low and execute a fair and legal bump
d) slow down and tackle once the ball was controlled by Ah Chee

Like Rioli, the end result was a bump, but Cripps as seen in post #220 of this thread never extended his arms to contest the ball. That being the case, Cripps leaving his feet is interpreted as leaving his feet in order to bump. He had alternatives to bumping that Rioli didn’t have. Rioli, whether he was attempting to mark or spoil, HAD to leave his feet, Cripps didn’t. And in that scenario, leaving your feet to execute a bump, which collects a player on or very near the ground high, you have to bear responsibility for any resultant injury.

Cripps’ team will argue that he was contesting the ball, and he only braced for contact at the last moment, but he didn’t extend his arms to contest the ball and he left his feet unnecessarily. The comparison to Rioli is highly flawed because he had alternatives Rioli did not have.
 
How about in the future no one can jump up or have their feet leave the ground in case someone gets injured.

That is even in marking contests.

All marks must be attempted whilst both feet are on the ground.

That is the way the game is heading. You might mock this, but you think about how those in charge expect no one to get injured in a physical contact sport and you realise it is coming. Give it 5 years and the right numnuts in control and they will start wheeling back marking contests.

If you accidentally injure someone in any aerial contest- marking, trying to get the ball, protecting your body, whatever - you are responsible. The game is being changed significantly.

Then you have the bump - you can't even bump to defend yourself anymore. If someone is charging at YOU with pace, you have to now accept the hit - witness the Lewis Young situation earlier in the year.
 
JyeDye said:
See how everything there says contest. It does not matter one bit that it's not in a marking contest. Carlton will try and argue that Cripps falls under that second point. To be honest, he definitely doesn't but this is what Carlton will argue and there is a case there, not a great one, but may as well try.
Click to expand...
Rioli had to contest. If your opponent is about to mark the ball you can only try to mark it yourself, or spoil the ball. Otherwise you’re getting a bake from the coach.

Cripps could have waited and tackled, or stayed down and bumped. He didn’t, and he ****ed it up.

That’s why the marking contest matters; the lack of alternatives to contesting. When asked “is it reasonable for Cripps to contest the ball in this way?” those alternatives, and the lack of outstretched arms for the option he will argue he chose, is why he will miss two weeks.
 
JyeDye said:
Just to further explain this is what Carlton will challenge and the verdict in regard to Willie Rioli:

“The tribunal will be astute to uphold any charge where a player was initially intending to contest the ball, changed that intention and in doing so breached his duty of care. That is not this case,” Gleeson said.

“Willie Rioli had eyes for the ball as he entered this contest. There is no doubt he braced for contact a split second before contact, but when doing so, did not cease to contest the ball. The way in which he did so was not unreasonable.”

See how everything there says contest. It does not matter one bit that it's not in a marking contest. Carlton will try and argue that Cripps falls under that second point. To be honest, he definitely doesn't but this is what Carlton will argue and there is a case there, not a great one, but may as well try.
Click to expand...
Of course it does.

you can send an opponent off on a stretcher taking a hanger and it's not even a free kick but do the same contesting a loose ball and you're missing some weeks.
Knee a bloke square in the back of the head taking a mark and it's a mark, not a free for high contact.... but do it on the ground and you're gone. Even do it in an unrealistic marking attempt and you're in trouble. The fact the Rioli incident was assessed as a realistic attempt at a mark is the only reason he got off.

Then add the fact that Rowell wasn't concussed and Ah Chee was....
 
The Royal Sampler said:
Rioli had to contest. If your opponent is about to mark the ball you can only try to mark it yourself, or spoil the ball. Otherwise you’re getting a bake from the coach.

Cripps could have waited and tackled, or stayed down and bumped. He didn’t, and he *ed it up.

That’s why the marking contest matters; the lack of alternatives to contesting. When asked “is it reasonable for Cripps to contest the ball in this way?” those alternatives, and the lack of outstretched arms for the option he will argue he chose, is why he will miss two weeks.
Click to expand...
tiger_tough said:
Of course it does.

you can send an opponent off on a stretcher taking a hanger and it's not even a free kick but do the same contesting a loose ball and you're missing some weeks.
Knee a bloke square in the back of the head taking a mark and it's a mark, not a free for high contact.... but do it on the ground and you're gone. Even do it in an unrealistic marking attempt and you're in trouble. The fact the Rioli incident was assessed as a realistic attempt at a mark is the only reason he got off.

Then add the fact that Rowell wasn't concussed and Ah Chee was....
Click to expand...
So if Rioli's ball happened to be touched he should be copping weeks? Is that what I'm reading here? You are no longer allowed to jump for a loose ball unless it came off a boot and it has travelled 15 metres. So those balls that just go high in the air but 5m that everyone jumps for, if they happen to clip a player with their hip that's a free kick.

He could have stayed down. He could have also ran away 10 metres the other way. He could have laid down on the ground. He could have taken his pants off. He also could jump to try and grab the loose ball. He is allowed to do that. What Carlton will argue is that he collected Ah Chee in a reasonable manner as a football action trying to contest a loose ball where the act was not careless. They are going to argue that he didn't bump him, but clipped him simply reaching for the ball.

I don't believe that he will get off at all. I don't think that argument holds up and he clearly turned and braced to bump him. I'm just stating what Carlton will argue. It's not my actual belief of the events.
 
JyeDye said:
So those balls that just go high in the air but 5m that everyone jumps for, if they happen to clip a player with their hip that's a free kick.
Click to expand...
Do they jump up for them without reaching up for the ball, like Cripps did? Arms tucked in bracing for a bump?

What Carlton will argue is that he collected Ah Chee in a reasonable manner as a football action trying to contest a loose ball where the act was not careless. They are going to argue that he didn't bump him, but clipped him simply reaching for the ball.
Click to expand...
But he didn’t reach for the ball. See post #220.

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.
 
The Royal Sampler said:
Do they jump up for them without reaching up for the ball, like Cripps did? Arms tucked in bracing for a bump?


But he didn’t reach for the ball. See post #220.

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.
Click to expand...
I'm with you man. I agree, he won't get off. Just stating Carlton's argument and that the whole not in a marking contest is not valid based on their argument.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

00Stinger said:
The way the rules are applied these days I can't see how Carlton could think he should get off for this

Left the ground, hit the guy in the head and had him leave the ground with concussion

It wasn't a marking contest so not sure how they can defend him leaping.

It's a 3 weeker for mine
Click to expand...

High price to pay for a few shitty goals. Would have been interesting to see how long we could have kept the goalless
 
The Royal Sampler said:
Do they jump up for them without reaching up for the ball, like Cripps did? Arms tucked in bracing for a bump?


But he didn’t reach for the ball. See post #220.

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.
Click to expand...
C07D1DCE-BD0E-4C08-9D87-DE3CDE13130B.jpeg
 
JyeDye said:
I'm with you man. I agree, he won't get off. Just stating Carlton's argument and that the whole not in a marking contest is not valid based on their argument.
Click to expand...

You elect to bump and get someone high and they get concussed is outside the rules.

Is that too hard to understand?

Once you elect to bump you lose as soon as it hits someone high. That is what happened.

Very simple concept to understand and police.
 
harmesy 37 said:
How about in the future no one can jump up or have their feet leave the ground in case someone gets injured.

That is even in marking contests.

All marks must be attempted whilst both feet are on the ground.

That is the way the game is heading.
Click to expand...
It’s not though. As an erudite poster suggested above; players don’t get suspended for injuries resultant from taking a speccy. It just doesn’t happen.
 
As an elite footballer Cripps has very good spatial awareness. He knew what he was doing. HIs case hasn't been helped by media heads saying "He decided to do something to ignite his team" Those type of statements fly in the face of Cripps' defense about just going for the mark.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

JyeDye said:
So if Rioli's ball happened to be touched he should be copping weeks? Is that what I'm reading here? You are no longer allowed to jump for a loose ball unless it came off a boot and it has travelled 15 metres. So those balls that just go high in the air but 5m that everyone jumps for, if they happen to clip a player with their hip that's a free kick.

He could have stayed down. He could have also ran away 10 metres the other way. He could have laid down on the ground. He could have taken his pants off. He also could jump to try and grab the loose ball. He is allowed to do that. What Carlton will argue is that he collected Ah Chee in a reasonable manner as a football action trying to contest a loose ball where the act was not careless. They are going to argue that he didn't bump him, but clipped him simply reaching for the ball.

I don't believe that he will get off at all. I don't think that argument holds up and he clearly turned and braced to bump him. I'm just stating what Carlton will argue. It's not my actual belief of the events.
Click to expand...
What part of marking contest don't you understand? Cripps' was not one of them, Rioli's was. Rowell was not concussed, Ah Chee was.

There's no point arguing semantics because the above is what it boils down to.
 
The Royal Sampler said:
The outstretched arms you can see are Ah Chee’s. Cripps’ elbows are flexed beyond 90 degrees, his upper arms are by his side. It’s the literal opposite of outstretching them.
Click to expand...
You can actually see Cripps bracing to bump in that pic. It probably hurts his case if anything. :tearsofjoy:
 
JyeDye said:
I'm with you man. I agree, he won't get off. Just stating Carlton's argument and that the whole not in a marking contest is not valid based on their argument.
Click to expand...

You may not consider it valid, but the tribunal will be asking whether Cripps’ actions were reasonable under the circumstances.

Part of that decision will be considering what reasonable alternatives Cripps had to the course of action he chose to take.

As Cripps was not in a marking contest, he had more reasonable alternatives than Rioli did.

That’s where the “marking contest” element starts and ends really, except to say that the AFL likes marking contests and hates players jumping in the air to bump people in the head.
 
Pistol Night said:
You can actually see Cripps bracing to bump in that pic. It probably hurts his case if anything. :tearsofjoy:
Click to expand...

Also Carlton supporters in this thread;

“They took down the Sun and drove off with it!”

images
 
harmesy 37 said:
How about in the future no one can jump up or have their feet leave the ground in case someone gets injured.

That is even in marking contests.

All marks must be attempted whilst both feet are on the ground.

That is the way the game is heading. You might mock this, but you think about how those in charge expect no one to get injured in a physical contact sport and you realise it is coming. Give it 5 years and the right numnuts in control and they will start wheeling back marking contests.

If you accidentally injure someone in any aerial contest- marking, trying to get the ball, protecting your body, whatever - you are responsible. The game is being changed significantly.

Then you have the bump - you can't even bump to defend yourself anymore. If someone is charging at YOU with pace, you have to now accept the hit - witness the Lewis Young situation earlier in the year.
Click to expand...

Nice melt.

How about players simply don't come in late to a marking contest, with no intent to impact the actual ball, leading with their shoulder?

It was a dumb action by Cripps. He had multiple options that he could have chosen that wouldn't have resulted in knocking out Ah Chee. He chose none of them.
 
The Royal Sampler said:
The outstretched arms you can see are Ah Chee’s. Cripps’ elbows are flexed, his upper arms are by his side.
Click to expand...

If Cripps’ left arm is in a position you’d associate with bracing for a bump, I’d suggest either we have a different understanding of football, or you shoulda gone to spec savers.

The Royal Sampler said:
but there is no video evidence to support any claim he was contesting the ball. He didn’t reach for it. At all.
Click to expand...

I think his open hand, and daylight between the elbow and side, is evidence to suggest there was intent to win the ball.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Certified Legendary Thread Patrick Cripps and Ah Chee

Similar threads

Chadwiko
MRP / Trib. Patrick Dangerfield elbow to the head of Ryan Burns
2 3
Replies
54
Views
3K
Sttew
Sttew
Chadwiko
Patrick Dangerfield 'dangerous tackle' - gone or safe?
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
295
Views
12K
myblueroan
myblueroan
G
Cameron, broken arm and negligence
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
SC_Power
S
LOLchie Schultz
Tom Stewart bump on Noah Anderson
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
143
Views
5K
HairyO
HairyO
Stumpy Pete
Contact between Bulldogs trainer and Ginnivan
Replies
1
Views
564
HairyO
HairyO
Chief
MRP / Trib. Cerra straight to Tribunal - Match Review and Tribunal - Round 18
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
Tjblues
T
P
Technology and Umpiring can it work?
Replies
1
Views
282
LSRU
LSRU

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top