Certified Legendary Thread Patrick Cripps and Ah Chee

[My_Username]

Can't say it was a strong argument that he had to bump. It was silly, needed to go with football action or whatever. Now it gets even harder, but I'm not a lawyer don't plan to be one.

He can 'have to' bump without 'having to' leave the ground in order to bump.

If he'd kept his feet on the ground, it'd be a very different story, and I think it would be tough to argue that he needed to jump.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I thought that the Carlton lawyer did well. The issue people here have is him trying to act like Cripps didn’t bump Ah Chee. But that’s exactly what he has to do, he’s trying to argue that it was not a careless action but instead just a football action. As soon as he mentions the word bump then the case is over. Everyone knows Cripps braced to bump which is why Carlton had no chance of winning the appeal despite how incompetent the AFL lawyer was.

The AFL had an each way bet where they set themselves up so they couldn't lose.

They said that he elected to bump and therefore wasn't contesting the ball. If the tribunal agrees with that, they win.
They also said that if he was contesting the ball, it wasn't in a reasonable manner. If the tribunal agrees, they win.
Basically, they had an out whether the tribunal agreed that he was contesting the ball, or wasn't contesting the ball.

Firstly, Carlton needs to argue what the definition of a bump is. Is it a hip and shoulder when you aren't contesting the ball? Is it when you are contesting the ball but brace for impact midway through the contest?
The second one is dangerous territory for the AFL. It will make a lot of genuine contests suspendable acts (but only if a player gets concussion, although we don't penalise the outcome, just the action and we look at the potential to cause injury... when it suits).

Secondly, they need to argue the definition of contesting in a reasonable manner. Is it safer for both players if Cripps doesn't brace and continues at the ball with outstretched arms? I would argue the potential for injury to AhChee is greater with arms out. His forearm and elbow become weapons in any incidental contact. Once they are both airborne, neither can slow or change direction, so he tried to spread the force of contact over a larger body area.

My argument would be that contesting a loose ball, then bracing for impact isn't the football definition of a bump and that bracing himself, while tucking in his elbow, was actually the safer option for AhChee.
Therefore, the legal definition of 'bump' that was applied, was wrong and the definition of 'contesting in a reasonable manner' was also incorrectly applied.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

He can 'have to' bump without 'having to' leave the ground in order to bump.

If he'd kept his feet on the ground, it'd be a very different story, and I think it would be tough to argue that he needed to jump.

How is that tough to argue? He's contesting a loose ball and believes he has a reasonable chance of taking possession. Just like in a marking contest, the quickest and easiest way to get to a flying ball, is to meet it in the air. If he believes that the opponent is going to do similar, then he needs to get there faster and jump higher.

If Cripps stays on the ground and tries to meet the fall of the ball, AhChee is the one who is airborne and making high contact with Cripps.

 

[HairyO]

How is that tough to argue? He's contesting a loose ball and believes he has a reasonable chance of taking possession. Just like in a marking contest, the quickest and easiest way to get to a flying ball, is to meet it in the air. If he believes that the opponent is going to do similar, then he needs to get there faster and jump higher.

If Cripps stays on the ground and tries to meet the fall of the ball, AhChee is the one who is airborne and making high contact with Cripps.

He contested a loose ball without reaching his hands out to get the ball. Instead he tucked his arm in and bumped.

He couldnt convince ex footballers. It will be tough to convince legal people.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Is it safer for both players if Cripps doesn't brace and continues at the ball with outstretched arms? I would argue the potential for injury to AhChee is greater with arms out. His forearm and elbow become weapons in any incidental contact. Once they are both airborne, neither can slow or change direction, so he tried to spread the force of contact over a larger body area.

They may well try to argue this but I don’t see how it has any basis in reality. People instinctively adopt the braced position precisely because it is the most solid, and can deliver the most force while being safest for the bumper.

Cripps’ forearm or elbow or hand/fingers could have the potential to cause injury if outstretched, but the elbow (and hip) caused injury anyway in the braced position, and at least with arms outstretched he could reasonably claim to be contesting the ball. All he has to hang his hat on currently is a partly open left (non-bumping) hand and his eye position on take-off.

I don’t see any way out of this for Cripps. If you made a brilliant case that he was contesting the ball, and had to make a split second adjustment to protect himself at the last minute, he’s still responsible and he can’t get lower than careless and high contact. Is there some way to argue the impact was medium to get one week? I just don’t see how…

 

[Rich01]

I thought that the Carlton lawyer did well. The issue people here have is him trying to act like Cripps didn’t bump Ah Chee. But that’s exactly what he has to do, he’s trying to argue that it was not a careless action but instead just a football action. As soon as he mentions the word bump then the case is over. Everyone knows Cripps braced to bump which is why Carlton had no chance of winning the appeal despite how incompetent the AFL lawyer was.

Agree. Not sure what new angle they are going to try to take that they didn’t put forward at the tribunal.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

He contested a loose ball without reaching his hands out to get the ball. Instead he tucked his arm in and bumped.

He couldnt convince ex footballers. It will be tough to convince legal people.

This and it has to be an error in law for it to be upheld at this stage. Not sure how it can be. Literally was charged at the lowest point. It was careless, it was high, and it was high impact, once a bloke is subbed out it' high impact has been all season.

 

[Chief]

I don’t see any way out of this for Cripps. If you made a brilliant case that he was contesting the ball, and had to make a split second adjustment to protect himself at the last minute, he’s still responsible and he can’t get lower than careless and high contact. Is there some way to argue the impact was medium to get one week? I just don’t see how…

a) Case doesn't have to be brilliant. It's obvious.

b) if he did everything to the best of his ability but Ah Chee didn't match his jump or was a bit off where he was reasonably expected to be, it's not careless. It's all reasonable care taken.

Sometimes things go wrong though you took all reasonable care. The opposition also has a responsibility to protect themselves in a contest.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

He contested a loose ball without reaching his hands out to get the ball. Instead he tucked his arm in and bumped.

He couldnt convince ex footballers. It will be tough to convince legal people.

If you ignore his arms that are out, sure.
He tucks one in (the closest one to AhChee) at the last second. I reckon legal people are a bit smarter than ex-footballers. I also didn't realise that all ex-footballers had reached a consensus.

 

[HairyO]

If you ignore his arms that are out, sure.
He tucks one in (the closest one to AhChee) at the last second. I reckon legal people are a bit smarter than ex-footballers. I also didn't realise that all ex-footballers had reached a consensus.

The ones on the Tribunal did.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

They may well try to argue this but I don’t see how it has any basis in reality. People instinctively adopt the braced position precisely because it is the most solid, and can deliver the most force while being safest for the bumper.

Cripps’ forearm or elbow or hand/fingers could have the potential to cause injury if outstretched, but the elbow (and hip) caused injury anyway in the braced position, and at least with arms outstretched he could reasonably claim to be contesting the ball. All he has to hang his hat on currently is a partly open left (non-bumping) hand and his eye position on take-off.

I don’t see any way out of this for Cripps. If you made a brilliant case that he was contesting the ball, and had to make a split second adjustment to protect himself at the last minute, he’s still responsible and he can’t get lower than careless and high contact. Is there some way to argue the impact was medium to get one week? I just don’t see how…

If you were standing in front of a person running at you with their elbow out vs a person running at you in the tucked/braced position, which would you rather be hit by?

It's not about whether it caused injury anyway. It's about whether or not it was a reasonable action under the circumstances and, despite the injury, whether it could be deemed as the better option for protecting AhChee.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

The ones on the Tribunal did.

So when you said 'couldn't convince ex-footballers' you just meant 'couldn't convince the tribunal'? And you were excluding the opinion of every other ex-footballer who had stated the opposite?
Well, the Blues believe their conclusion was erroneous and have the right of appeal, so we'll see what a new panel thinks of the steps and application of law that got them to that conclusion.

 

[Stax on the mill]

Pretty lucky to only get 2 weeks. Looks remarkably similar to Wellingham's hit on Kade Simpson

6

Kade Simpson

Age

39

Ht

183cm

Wt

75kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

21.3

5star

K

14.0

5star

HB

7.3

5star

M

5.7

5star

T

2.6

4star

MG

409.0

5star

D

16.3

4star

K

11.9

5star

HB

4.4

3star

M

3.9

4star

T

0.8

1star

MG

258.6

4star

D

2.0

1star

K

1.2

1star

HB

0.8

1star

M

0.8

1star

T

1.6

4star

a few years back. Think he initially got 5 weeks, reduced to 3. Cripps should count his blessings he'll be available to play after 2 more matches, that being Carlton's first game in 2023.

 

[My Tilly]

I don't see how he could possibly get off. Had Ah Chee played on, he has a case.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

He contested a loose ball without reaching his hands out to get the ball. Instead he tucked his arm in and bumped.

He couldnt convince ex footballers. It will be tough to convince legal people.

Not really surprised by the likes you've received here.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I don't see how he could possibly get off. Had Ah Chee played on, he has a case.

That speaks of a larger problem with the system and mixed up priorities.
Incidental contact during a football act gets a suspension based on the outcome, but would be completely fine if the player gets up and plays out the game.

Vs a deliberate, malicious non-football act that doesn't even cop a mention or a fine. But let's protect the head. We'll protect it from accidents that no amount of rules will get rid of. Not against acts that are actually against said rules.

 

[Fadge]

That speaks of a larger problem with the system and mixed up priorities.
Incidental contact during a football act gets a suspension based on the outcome, but would be completely fine if the player gets up and plays out the game.
View attachment 1472849
Vs a deliberate, malicious non-football act that doesn't even cop a mention or a fine. But let's protect the head. We'll protect it from accidents that no amount of rules will get rid of. Not against acts that are actually against said rules.
View attachment 1472848

Maynard just warming himself up for round 23.

 

[My Tilly]

That speaks of a larger problem with the system and mixed up priorities.
Incidental contact during a football act gets a suspension based on the outcome, but would be completely fine if the player gets up and plays out the game.
View attachment 1472849
Vs a deliberate, malicious non-football act that doesn't even cop a mention or a fine. But let's protect the head. We'll protect it from accidents that no amount of rules will get rid of. Not against acts that are actually against said rules.
View attachment 1472848

I reckon 20 years ago, majority of players would have seen Cripps approaching and half-heartedly made an attempt. Because the scrutiny is so intense in today's game, cameras watching in all directions, players simply have to go. This is leading to more concussions.

Ah Chee just needed to do what Ben Brown does, put your arms up in the air, begin moving to one side of the contest and make it look as though you have a pair of testicles.

 

[jooce8891]

I don't think there's any doubt he was contesting the ball, but imo he approached the contest recklessly in order to make a physical statement and fire his team up. The AFL can't afford to have these incidents if they want to exist in the long term and not be brought down by CTE lawsuits.

and theres the problem, if afl truly want to help prevent concussion they have to suspend the action and not the outcome.

 

[docks]

There’s nothing in the classification that could be argued as manifestly excessive. Obviously couldn’t be classed as less than careless. It didn’t go directly to the tribunal, and it wasn’t graded as severe impact to get the 3+. The sanction is in keeping with the classification, so...

Are the Blues arguing an error in law?

Carlton has to prove there was an error of law or that the tribunal acted in an unreasonable manner.

 

[Maddo11]

I don't understand people using that photo for evidence to why Cripps is contesting the ball

Cripps hands in red, ah chees in blue

If you're "trying to win the ball", maybe try grabbing it before your opponent instead of just running through them

 

[rye]

and theres the problem, if afl truly want to help prevent concussion they have to suspend the action and not the outcome.

the current system takes into account intent, action and outcome.....?

 

[jooce8891]

the current system takes into account intent, action and outcome.....?

do you honestly reckon if ah chee wasnt concussed cripps gets suspended? or if rowell doesnt get up and play out the game he still gets let off?

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I don't understand people using that photo for evidence to why Cripps is contesting the ball

Cripps hands in red, ah chees in blue
View attachment 1472901
If you're "trying to win the ball", maybe try grabbing it before your opponent instead of just running through them

Yeah, why would people use a shot where Cripps has eyes only on the footy and has his arms out to try and take the ball safely on his chest?

While I know it's not actually a marking contest, this is just one guy trying to grab the ball out in front with arms outstretched vs the other trying to take it on his chest. You don't have to have your arms above your head to be contesting the ball. The mental gymnastics people are going to to try and say "Cripps' only intent was to bump" is insane.

 

[rye]

do you honestly reckon if ah chee wasnt concussed cripps gets suspended? or if rowell doesnt get up and play out the game he still gets let off?

might have been 1 week under the grading system as medium rather than high impact

i dont see the relevance of the question given that Ah Chee was concussed. it was found cripps was careless and as such has to face the consequences flowing from that careless act

if the afl is serious about protecting players from cte and other chronic long term conditions that occur post football then the outcome of these incidents must absolutely remain a factor in determining how to punish them