Patrick Cripps FREE to play

[Devil In Disguise 2,278]

Gerard Whately will be going off his nut at 9am tomorrow morning.

[Pennant St Dee 13,406]

1 minute ago, wizardinoz said:

Gerard Whately will be going off his nut at 9am tomorrow morning.

He’s not on Fridays, Kane Cornes does that time slot 

[layzie 34,340]

I just cant believe the AFL would put honest citizens like us through a week's worth of that crap.

Edited August 11, 2022 by layzie

[The heart beats true 18,183]

I’m going to boo him Saturday night. I’m not proud of it, but it’s happening.

Im not even booing him, I’m booing a system where the rules don’t apply to some. If Paddy Dow had done that he’d have gotten 4 weeks.

[loges 6,767]

So now all AFL rules are open to interpretation which means everything can be manipulated to suit an outcome. Corrupt much? Any chance of hard and fast rules being applied?

[Bring-Back-Powell 15,274]

4 minutes ago, Pennant St Dee said:

He’s not on Fridays, Kane Cornes does that time slot 

Cornes and King do the early Friday slot through to 9am on SEN.

[Redleg 41,962]

14 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

You can see how this script is going to be written for Saturday night..

And it's not going to be good.

That's how our year has gone Daz. We should be on top having beaten Swans, Dogs and Pies and not giving a rat's about Cripps and the Blues. Our kicking for goals has been a disgrace and that is why we are where we are.

I have one question, why did the Tribunal Chairman Jeff Gleeson, an extremely experienced and competent Sports advocate, say that Cripps was contesting not bumping? As I said in an earlier post, this stinks to high heaven, as it has led to the successful appeal. Why did he say that?   If he said it was a bump, it was all over.

I said I smelt a rat. 

The AFL can now say we tried to protect the head, we suspended him, the Tribunal agreed, but the Appeals Board saw it differently.

The star plays, the crowds come, the media salivates and the Brownlow has another live runner.

IMO Gil can't leave quick enough.

[Macca 17,114]

32 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

No it hasn't. No decision made by the tribunal in this Gillon era sets any precedent, no matter how ludicrous. The next similar case goes the other way.

There is no such thing as precedent in the AFL tribunal system. It's a roll of the dice, every time, dressed up in judicial legalese claptrap.

True, but the Cripps incident is still going to brought up by those representing a player who has contacted an opponents head (in incidents where the ball is in the 'vicinity')

Probably every time.  They'll try their luck and why wouldn't they

Outcomes?  Who knows?  Will depend on all sorts of reasons but you're right, we'll never get consistent rulings

That's not how the AFL rolls

I viewed the incident as a shirt-front.  Cripps played the man and not the ball

Ah Chee has to sit it out this weekend.  He'd feel cheated.  Illegally taken out of a game and the perpetrator walks

A complete joke but again, that's the AFL for you.  They are like a mini version of FIFA

[Dr. Gonzo 24,451]

3 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I have one question, why did the Tribunal Chairman Jeff Gleeson, an extremely experienced and competent Sports advocate, say that Cripps was contesting not bumping?

The reason he said it is because that is what happened.

[Stiff Arm 4,419]

The AFL want Carlton to play finals, big club on the big stage. Cripps is the brightest star at the club. It makes perfect sense that he would get off for no real reason. Meanwhile Ah Chee misses a week

The AFL have no way of validating this decision, nor do they really care

So want the blues to lose the next 2 and miss finals

[layzie 34,340]

 

[Redleg 41,962]

And here is where the rat walked into the room.

"There's no basis in the open hearing for the Tribunal's determination that Cripps' conduct was a bump, especially in light of the Tribunal's declaration this was a genuine contest.

[Redleg 41,962]

13 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The reason he said it is because that is what happened.

Then they had to find him innocent.

So should Paddy Ryder have got two weeks, for standing still while someone ran into him?

Should Chandler have got two weeks for a legal tackle, where a player was unfortunately concussed? 

Anyway have a good night everyone, I am off to dream about our flag.

Edited August 11, 2022 by Redleg

[layzie 34,340]

Everyone involved with this MRO and tribunal needs to be reviewed. This is beyond crap.

[Wodjathefirst 2,667]

45 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Hope Cripps gets the Blues over the line over the Pies.

Thats the silver lining in this.

After we smash them this Saturday 

[layzie 34,340]

Egregious, preposterous, outrageous.

[At Least I Saw a Flag 5,315]

48 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Hope Cripps gets the Blues over the line over the Pies.

Thats the silver lining in this.

It won't happen.

[Supreme_Demon 3,931]

An outrageous outcome.

Protecting a player should overrule rough play.

But oh well...this is up to the AFL to deal with these ridiculous inconsistencies at the tribunal.

As for our beloved Melbourne Demons we can only beat who is in front of us.

If Cripps is now playing then so be it.

You need to beat the best to be the best.

[Stiff Arm 4,419]

Essentially they determined in the appeal that Cripps was contesting the ball and not bumping. Apparently his turning the body was in a chest marking action, not a bumping action Wasn't it a handball?

No where in the appeal did they refer to Cripps' duty of care towards his opponent when he collided with Ah Chee at high speed causing him to be concussed. 

So why the [censored] does the AFL go on about the head being sacrosanct and the approaching player being responsible for the medical outcome?

Kangaroo court, for sure

[mauriesy 7,418]

Another dangerous tribunal decision that totally flies in the face of the stated aim of reducing concussion.

[layzie 34,340]

Goodnight Montreal.

[Macca 17,114]

Contesting and bumping can happen at the same time ... Jeff Gleeson has got it wrong by saying that it's one and not the other (especially in this instance) 

And because it's both and whilst contesting (and bumping) Cripps also has eyes for the player only and then takes that player out, he's liable

The ball being in the vicinity is just a convenient excuse

Except he's not liable because for some obtuse reason, he walks free

Cripps should have got 4-6 weeks if the AFL are serious about head trauma

 

Edited August 11, 2022 by Macca

[Willmoy1947 4,204]

If he wins the BL he'll remember the booing,  that's provided of course that anyone attends, stands up and walks out

[Little Goffy 14,758]

For shame.

I have family who support Carlton and now I don't have any sympathy with their worry that they'll slide out of finals. Carlton just 'lawyer-attritioned' their captain and most important player out of an obvious, unambiguous penalty for an obvious, unambiguous breach.

Late, deliberate, head high, bump, caused injury.

[dl4e 5,851]

I said last sunday he would get off and I am right. The AFL has been throwing red herrings at us in some make believe that they wanted Cripps rubbed out and drew it out accordingly so the gullible would believe it.

Never mind lets just prattle those pretentious Carlton bustards into the earth on Saturday and refuse to relieve ourselves into their ears when their brains catch fire.