Certified Legendary Thread Patrick Cripps and Ah Chee

[Lavender Bushranger]

I wonder at what stage that the environment from outside the AFL begins to have a say.

I mean, you're allowed to set your own rules as a competition and run it as you see fit, but you do have a duty to standards set externally.

Even global companies like Google and Amazon get brought to heel occasionally (slap on the wrist stuff really, if that). But companies (even monopolies like the AFL) are not countries.

They're more like a church though.

They will have a massive customer base no matter what they do, or say.

 

[JyeDye]

It does set a precedent because clubs will now do the same thing. Why would clubs be willing to accept bans? Just appeal the whole ban and the player is free to play.

Yes, possibly the AFL should raise the price of disputing or having your sentence possibly increased if you appeal the suspension. But bottom line is if the AFL’s tribunal properly adjudicates the case to the letter of the law there is nothing to appeal afterwards.

 

[Abers]

Quite how people can think there is some AFL conspiracy to let him off when the AFL twice found against Cripps is beyond me. Footy does really melt people’s brains.

 

[bzparkes]

Let's be clear here. Carlton supporters do not think for one moment that we will trouble melbourne or Collingwood next 2 weeks. Season is more than likely cooked.
It's a result meaning that the game continues to remain an impact sport and with that comes collision , and yes , some players will get injured playing this great game of ours. The result should be celebrated by all . If you don't like collisions in our game , then perhaps go and follow something else

Yes, let's celebrate smashing a bloke in the head and taking him out of the game due to concussion.

This just proves that the AFL isn't serious about concussion issues at all.

 

[Dadda Dave]

What an absolute farce.

Launch yourself off the ground.
Hit your opponent in the head.
Opponent gets concussed.
Free to play next week.

This game really is losing me.

You can blame the AFL, MRO and officials for that , the inconsistency is the problem..Christian is a joke..

 

[Get_The_Gaff]

Just imagine if Cripps was Cotchin.
Big footy would have absolutely imploded when he got off.

Cotchin did get off though this week . Dangerous tackle same as tim Kelly. One was graded a fine one was a week .

Cotchins was only a fine after VIC loading was applied

 

[Dadda Dave]

leave your petty schoolyard team hates out of this

This is about a thug-act by Cripps. 'Flying the flag' by wiping out an opposition player has been consigned to the history books for decades now.

Look at the dominant side of the current era, Richmond, and teams that have taken on their ethos recently like Collingwood. You lift your team by actually enjoying playing the game with each other.

It's not about treating your opponent as so low and hated that you are prepared to give them brain damage in order to win.

Again ..That's a hilarious comment coming from Ritchmond supporter..

 

[Grin]

Cotchin did get off though this week . Dangerous tackle same as tim Kelly. One was graded a fine one was a week .

Cotchins was only a fine after VIC loading was applied

I thought Cotchin got let off and not fined because that tackle in no way fits in with a definition of a dangerous tackle. Take off your "I'm a poor victim and Victorians aren't doing enough to win my club the unearned success I feel it is entitled to" goggles and look at it again.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

Let's be clear here. Carlton supporters do not think for one moment that we will trouble melbourne or Collingwood next 2 weeks. Season is more than likely cooked.

Think Melbourne have lost about 6 of the last 10 and my Pies are winning but not exactly dominating even against the worst sides, you're more than capable of troubling both. And could lose both but still fall in to the finals. Season not even close to cooked.

 

[Obeanie1]

Wow.

Well just another example how the AFL system is a joke.

Looks like jumping off the ground and running through players and hitting / bumping them high is all good as long as you make it look like you were kind of going for the ball......at the last milli second.

Another loop hole the players will take advantage of. So much for the importance of long term brain injuries.

 

[The Fantom]

A number of ex- players said it was incidental.

A number of commentators said it was a 50/50 decision to suspend him at the start of the week.

If there is any doubt, he gets off every time. It was an aerial contest, he didn’t bump him.

Great result.

And now all Collingwood supporters are pooping their pants lol .

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Wasn't it proven conclusively that Ah Chee's concussion was of a result of him hitting his head hard on the Gabba turf ??

It is literally impossible to prove that; even if it were true, and even if under the rules of the game it wasn’t still considered Cripps’ responsibility, as a result of Ah Chee being unable to protect himself.

You cannot tell from that video when Ah Chee was concussed. It could have been the bump, the contact with the ground, or Cripps landing on Ah Chee while on the ground.

 

[gordo2016]

A number of ex- players said it was incidental.

A number of commentators said it was a 50/50 decision to suspend him at the start of the week.

If there is any doubt, he gets off every time. It was an aerial contest, he didn’t bump him.

Great result.

And now all Collingwood supporters are pooping their pants lol .

They have won 11 in a row mate. I don't think they are the ones pooping their pants. With or without Cripps, at this stage you would say the Bluebaggers would struggle to beat Bacchus Marsh, let alone Collingwood.

 

[evo]

Quite how people can think there is some AFL conspiracy to let him off when the AFL twice found against Cripps is beyond me. Footy does really melt people’s brains.

Besides, if Carlton are engineered to make the finals it will probably come at the expense of Bulldogs or Richmond, who other theorists allege have been favored by AFL house in the past.

What I want to know is who AFL truly want to win so I can get a sizeable bet on.

 

[Obeanie1]

I thought Cotchin got let off and not fined because that tackle in no way fits in with a definition of a dangerous tackle. Take off your "I'm a poor victim and Victorians aren't doing enough to win my club the unearned success I feel it is entitled to" goggles and look at it again.

I took one look at Cotchin's tackle and thought it was fine. The bloke who he tackled was a big boy, on the move so no way Cotchin could have averted the motion as physics was against him. Mass x acceleration = force. And who would try and stop someone that big going to ground in a tackle?

 

[chunkylover53]

A bunch of real "oh won't somebody please think of the children!" type operators in here.

 

[kreuze_missile]

There appears to be a common misunderstanding in here as to why Cripps got off.

The only reason Cripps is playing is because the AFL tribunal botched the process that led to the original finding.

Had the AFL followed proper process at the tribunal the original finding (that Cripps bumped) would stand and there would have been no grounds to appeal.

The AFL chair led the decision makers to their finding, a finding that was never actually disussed or debated within the hearing itself.

Carlton only needed to prove that the process was flawed, which it did successfully. Own goal by the AFL. Amateur hour.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

What is now unclear to me is how this contest was different to the Plowman on O'Meara contest from a couple years ago:



In contest - both had eyes for the ball (and this was a marking contest), but Plowman was rubbed out (and lost on appeal). Not sure how Cripps gets off when we have that as a clear comparison and precedent

Yes that is ridiculous, should never have been cited. Both going hell for leather at the ball and neither even has the chance to brace or turn themselves sideways. Sickening collision is all that is.

 

[Outback Footy]

Agreed. Carlton fans thinking that anyone who thinks its a wrong decision must hate Carlton.

If this happens again twice this week, guaranteed there will be suspensions.

Suspensions .....unless its Cripps, Dusty, Joel, Tom, Danger, Lachie, Christian or Bont.

Stars dont do that sort of thing, must be a mistake.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Well obviously.

I guess any time you jump for a ball from now on, it is considered a reckless action according to you, and if you happen to make contact with an opponent who hits his head on the ground, that you 'took out' that opponent.

Very convenient for you to make the utterly unscientific statement that the concussion only occurred because Ah Chee hit his head on the ground, merely because it suits you.

The injury sustained by Ah Chee, in terms of a concussion, could have occurred from the bump, the ground, or Cripps landing on him afterwards. We will never know which, we only know that until this week, all three were considered part of Cripps’ liability.

 

[Dadda Dave]

What an absolute farce.

Once again a select few are protected.

What else can you even say. Borderline corruption

How can the Cripps incident be responsible for the border line corruption ? Christian is a part of the problem..

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Let's be clear here. Carlton supporters do not think for one moment that we will trouble melbourne or Collingwood next 2 weeks.

Do a quick call around did you?

 

[Corn Cobbers]

There appears to be a common misunderstanding in here as to why Cripps got off.

The only reason Cripps is playing is because the AFL tribunal botched the process that led to the original finding.

Had the AFL followed proper process at the tribunal the original finding (that Cripps bumped) would stand and there would have been no grounds to appeal.

The AFL chair led the decision makers to their finding, a finding that was never actually disussed or debated within the hearing itself.

Carlton only needed to prove that the process was flawed, which it did successfully. Own goal by the AFL. Amateur hour.

That's only half right. They also said "The video did not reveal a bump, it set out as a contest for the ball that resulted in a collision". So even without the incompetence and frolics etc, he still would have gotten off at the Appeal level. I don't agree with their view it wasn't a bump, but certainly agree that once they decided he was contesting the ball he had to get off, that part is a good result IMO.

 

[The Fantom]

They have won 11 in a row mate. I don't think they are the ones pooping their pants. With or without Cripps, at this stage you would say the Bluebaggers would struggle to beat Bacchus Marsh, let alone Collingwood.

Luckiest run of all time, average winning margin of half a point… let’s see how they stand up in September.

 

[Gman]

There appears to be a common misunderstanding in here as to why Cripps got off.

The only reason Cripps is playing is because the AFL tribunal botched the process that led to the original finding.

Had the AFL followed proper process at the tribunal the original finding (that Cripps bumped) would stand and there would have been no grounds to appeal.

The AFL chair led the decision makers to their finding, a finding that was never actually disussed or debated within the hearing itself.

Carlton only needed to prove that the process was flawed, which it did successfully. Own goal by the AFL. Amateur hour.

Basically this is how I read in to it

The prosecuting team didn't use the word "bump" when questioning Cripps, yet in their findings and in the guilty statement, they used the word "bump" and that is what was argued by Carlton as a technicality (1 of 3 arguments I believe)

Now that is fair game I guess, every team would be doing the same, especially their best player running into 2 of the hottest and favourite teams. And they were successful, no hatred there, kudos to them

Where my gripe is , what is the standard for "Reckless Act" and more importantly "PROTECTING THE HEAD"??

The AFL is in charge of the game, the judiciary procedure (It is their rule interpretation that the judiciary teams debate on) is what is at fault here

Brad Scott, we are waiting. Fix this mess