Certified Legendary Thread Patrick Cripps and Ah Chee

[harmesy 37]

1. Nostradamus predicted the future, he didn't read minds.
2. You don't need to read someone's mind to judge the intent behind their actions. This is how many rules in AFL already work, such as the deliberate out of bounds rule.

1. It's a figure of speech. If I had said, "Thanks Richard Osterlind" or something similar it wouldn't have sounded as good.
2. You are saying you KNOW his intent. His intent was to knock out the bloke and get suspended. Got it. Thanks. You can read minds. Well done.

The fact is they have to change the rules after Cripps is suspended. No more leaping in the air ever unless in a mark. The people in charge want to change the game...they have to change the rules to keep up with the new game they want to create.

 

[Skull Face]

Let me get this straight.

Brisbane subbed Callum Ah Chee out with concussion, thereby ruling him out of the next 1-2 weeks right on the eve of finals, to bring in Robinson, whose form this season would suggest this is a clear downgrade, in less than a half of football, when Ah Chee is having a reasonable game in a dominant side to that point?

That's your theory?

Can you sub someone out for general soreness?

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Players choose to jump in the air all the time -whether they mark the ball or not. If you stop footballers jumping in the air. Good luck. "If you choose to jump in the air, you are responsible (unless you are trying to mark the ball and then do whatever you want)"
Players get elbows (Accidental), contact in the head etc all the time. What happens if that occurs in a marking contest? No one is willing to answer this. Surely eventually the rules will be changed for that

Make it black and white in the rules in future then.

Why are you on this straw man crusade to legislate against incidental contact in marking contests? Do you recall anyone getting rubbed out for genuinely attempting a mark and injuring someone in the process, other than perhaps Toby Greene who is talented enough to do both? So why keep banging on about a complete non-issue which is also unrelated to Cripps situation and charge?

How do you know he CHOSE to bump?

Were you inside his mind?

There is just as much likelihood that he CHOSE to contest for the ball in the air.

Well he bumped, and no-one forced him to. So the natural assumption is that it was his choice to do so. It’s now on Carlton to somehow prove it wasn’t. And no, it isn’t just as likely that he chose to contest the ball in the air, as we can be 100% certain that a bump occurred, and there is no visual evidence whatsoever that he tried to contest the ball. His momentum was going toward the player, and his arms remained close to his body at all times. Look at Ah Chee reaching out with both hands for the ball… that’s what contesting the ball looks like, and the rules are there to protect the ball player.

He might have thought the Brisbane player would have leapt for the high ball as well, so Cripps chose to leap in response to that.

He might have, but how does he prove it? Because we know for certain that he jumped into the air, bumped Ah Chee’s head and rendered him concussed. The burden of proof is now on Cripps and Carlton to show that his approach was reasonable.

 

[kreuze_missile]

~90mins until Cripps freedom and Pies/Dees supporter meltdown

 

[SSwans2011]

Can you sub someone out for general soreness?

You tell me.

 

[Kanye West]

Can you sub someone out for general soreness?

Mate, you can sub someone out because his glasses fog up!

 

[iBeng]

Mate, you can sub someone out because his glasses fog up!

Poor Cox.

 

[irish]

Don’t let the dirty weasel off !! Add another week. Don’t get payed off to give the blues a chance

 

[Skull Face]

You tell me.

i asked you

 

[gordo2016]

1. It's a figure of speech. If I had said, "Thanks Richard Osterlind" or something similar it wouldn't have sounded as good.
2. You are saying you KNOW his intent. His intent was to knock out the bloke and get suspended. Got it. Thanks. You can read minds. Well done.

The fact is they have to change the rules after Cripps is suspended. No more leaping in the air ever unless in a mark. The people in charge want to change the game...they have to change the rules to keep up with the new game they want to create.

There is a way you can leap in the air without striking someone in the head. No rule change needed.

 

[kreuze_missile]

AFL counsel arguments are junk.

First argument they made is that Cripps could have tackled. Last time I checked it's a free kick to tackle someone without possesison of the football. Dumb suggested alternate action.

Then they said Cripps could have tapped the ball. Where to? Rich was right there - another dumb suggested alternate action.

Then went on to say the Rioli bump should be ignored as precedent as Cripps braced "much earlier" than Rioli. We are talking fractions of a second here.. I don't think you can find one guilty and the other innocent because one braced 0.2 seconds earlier than the other.

If this is a fair process and determined based solely on the submissions then Cripps is playing this weekend. AFL need new laywers.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

If this is a fair process and determined based solely on the submissions then Cripps is playing this weekend. AFL need new laywers.

Maybe their lawyers are doing exactly what they want.

 

[iBeng]

Contest the ball by hitting your opponent in the head!

 

[Corn Cobbers]

Maybe their lawyers are doing exactly what they want.

Yep what we're witnessing here is yet another stitch-up

 

[DamoESP]

AFL counsel arguments are junk.

First argument they made is that Cripps could have tackled. Last time I checked it's a free kick to tackle someone without possesison of the football. Dumb suggested alternate action.

Then they said Cripps could have tapped the ball. Where to? Rich was right there - another dumb suggested alternate action.

Then went on to say the Rioli bump should be ignored as precedent as Cripps braced "much earlier" than Rioli. We are talking fractions of a second here.. I don't think you can find one guilty and the other innocent because one braced 0.2 seconds earlier than the other.

If this is a fair process and determined based solely on the submissions then Cripps is playing this weekend. AFL need new laywers.

Where are you seeing this? Can only see whats on the AFL website/live blog.

 

[kreuze_missile]

Maybe their lawyers are doing exactly what they want.

Surely easier for Gil to twist Michael Christian's arm than let it get to this..

 

[rye]

Where are you seeing this? Can only see whats on the AFL website/live blog.

hes mr.cripps lawyer

 

[kozi]

13 minutes ago

"THERE WAS NO BUMP"​

Cripps' lawyer, Peter O'Farrell, says they're arguing that this was not rough conduct, because it was not a bump.


Now that’s how you double down. There was no bump, there wasn’t even a game whole thing was an illusion

 

[HairyO]

Maybe their lawyers are doing exactly what they want.

Except the AFL open themselves up to massive lawsuits when they say that players can sometimes bump high and concuss other players, while they pretend that the head is sacrosanct.

So they would have to appeal it and have a case presented before legal people, not former players.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

Surely easier for Gil to twist Michael Christian's arm than let it get to this..

That would be too obvious

The real fixes happen at the tribunal

 

[Chism]

Where are you seeing this? Can only see whats on the AFL website/live blog.

 

[DamoESP]

Cheers mate

 

[iBeng]

13 minutes ago

"THERE WAS NO BUMP"​

Cripps' lawyer, Peter O'Farrell, says they're arguing that this was not rough conduct, because it was not a bump.


Now that’s how you double down. There was no bump, there wasn’t even a game whole thing was an illusion

"My client isnt even an AFL player, you cant ban that which doesnt exist!"

 

[kreuze_missile]

Even the AFL counsel has accepted Cripps defense.

Own goal. Game over.

 

[Chism]

Cheers mate

Twitter is the best source for up to the minute updates.

AFL case seems week from what I seeing but who knows what happens. He will most likely be cleared and then the AFL will appeal it in a move they only do once every 3 years.