...and don't run second in the Brownlow this year..because you should be the winner ...

Hang on hang on,  guys and gals, I’m trying to play catch-ups… did he actually get off???!!! WTF???!!!

Ball was punched, so no way Cripps wants to chest mark, take a long time to land from so high up and immediately be gang tackled with so many Lions close by (directly in his sight - he knows they're coming.) 

Feet off the ground, late to the contest, hip to the head, which is meant to be sacred.

Lions 5 goals up - Blues only 2 points well into the 2nd quarter with their season on the line.

Run of play was a tsunami against them, so the Captain decides to make something happen - and it worked a treat - fight breaks out (Lions players close by sure it was illegal) stopping Lion's momentum and Blues score the next 3 goals to get right back into the game. 

Callum Ah Chee is seriously concussed and is out for 12 days. Some degree of brain damage - very likely.

Carlton's Greg William's can't remember his own wedding now and sometimes can't recall his children's names. Shaun Smith has ongoing issues related to concussion greatly affecting his life. Many other players have similar problems and who can say what will happen with Ah Chee in years to come.

It's a business - everyone's invested - one of the most photogenic and popular star players and likely top 5 for the Brownlow is very much needed to flesh out 3 hrs of boring awards TV.  If suspended, each time Cripps picks up votes, which will be often, its anti-climactic - he can't win. Fantastic player in an average team ... he could win it = total fizzer. How does the guy who came 2nd, wearing the medal, feel? Go make a big speech, son, but don't mention brain injury.

AFL want Blues and their large, expensive-finals-tickets buying supporter base, back filling seats after many years out of finals.

 

Edited August 11, 20223 yr by Demonic Power

It’s basically Judge Judy at the AFL tribunal now. 
 

Whatever keeps the audience happy. 
 

We are going to lamp Carlton, regardless. 
 

I can’t wait. 

Edited August 11, 20223 yr by Mel Bourne

This sets a precedent that if you concuss someone it is no longer basically an automatic suspension.

 

now I’m about to boil over 

this is absolutely a wrong decision, and smells of a biased decision 

this is the facts 

 

Tribunal chairman Jeff Gleeson said the incident fell into the "bumping of an opponent" category and it was not a reasonable way to contest the ball. 

"He entered the contest at speed and saw a player in his peripheral vision, left his feet and bumped Ah Chee at high speed," Gleeson said.

"He should have contested the ball differently. He could have taken the ball with his arms outstretched so there was no act of bumping at all."

 

Cripps had options. Fact. 

Cripps chose to bump. Fact. 
Cripps jumped off his feet. Fact. 
Cripps hit AH Chee in the head. Fact. 
Ah Chee was concussed.  Fact. 


 

Careless. Head high. High impact. 3 weeks minimum.  
 

This is the worst decision since … since … it’s probably the worst decision ever.  
 

Kellam said after he and jurors Richard Loveridge and Stephen Jurica viewed the footage, they believed Cripps did not bump and was merely contesting the ball.

"The video did not reveal a bump, it set out as a contest for the ball that resulted in a collision," Kellam said

The findings were unreasonable and did not comply with the requirements of procedural fairness."

Cripps' counsel, Christopher Townshend QC, argued there was "a denial of natural justice" because Tribunal chairperson Jeff Gleeson had not directed the jury before they retired to give a verdict.

He said the notion of a bump was a thesis thrown up by Gleeson, never explored, and never directed to his jury members.

The Appeals Board agreed.

"The findings the Tribunal came up with behind closed doors is they came up with two things at once (that it was a contest and that he chose to bump). It should have required some directions," Townshend said.

Wow. So I’d contest every tribunal decision on the basis of law and presumption and reasonable doubt and inference and habeas corpus and estoppel.  Whatever technical legal process to effect a technical ruling and infect the judgement.  

Given the decision I shudder to think about the umpiring we get this week. 

No problem, Viney will just steamroll over him for a "goodnight Irene", all completly legal of course coz he will be playing the ball. 

The Cripps incident was similar to this one. 

5 hours ago, Mel Bourne said:

It’s basically Judge Judy at the AFL tribunal now. 
 

Whatever keeps the audience happy. 
 

We are going to lamp Carlton, regardless. 
 

I can’t wait. 

I’ve never seen lamp as a verb - love it!

7 hours ago, Redlagged said:

I wish I knew what you meant.

It means it's the most Melbourne thing ever that a star player gets off against us through an appeal.

And it's the most Melbourne thing ever that Cripps will most likely have 30 plus disposal and kick 3 to win them the game after being down 10 points at 3 qtr time.

But in all seriousness, I'm still confident we win. It would even be sweet beating them with Cripps playing as Carlton fans are hanging onto every little hope to make finals.

And of course the same usual suspect laughing against any comment I make.. typical. 

8 hours ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Carlton was out to $4.00

What will they come in to?

$3.25 now. Cripps or no Cripps we should be winning this game at this stage of the season.

7 hours ago, Redleg said:

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.

Yep, and Gil will leave a legacy that continues well after he departs unfortunately.

Apologies to the conspiracy theorists. I'll be making my tin foil hat and joining your gang today

7 hours ago, Redleg said:

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.

Can't say I'm confident the next person after Gil will make that much of a difference unfortunately 'Red'.

So Chandler gets 2 weeks for a legal tackle, and cripps gets off for that. Ahhh I remember now, high profile versus low profile player, all makes sense to me now!

40 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

 

now I’m about to boil over 

this is absolutely a wrong decision, and smells of a biased decision 

this is the facts 

 

Tribunal chairman Jeff Gleeson said the incident fell into the "bumping of an opponent" category and it was not a reasonable way to contest the ball. 

"He entered the contest at speed and saw a player in his peripheral vision, left his feet and bumped Ah Chee at high speed," Gleeson said.

"He should have contested the ball differently. He could have taken the ball with his arms outstretched so there was no act of bumping at all."

 

Cripps had options. Fact. 

Cripps chose to bump. Fact. 
Cripps jumped off his feet. Fact. 
Cripps hit AH Chee in the head. Fact. 
Ah Chee was concussed.  Fact. 


 

Careless. Head high. High impact. 3 weeks minimum.  
 

This is the worst decision since … since … it’s probably the worst decision ever.  
 

46 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Wow. So I’d contest every tribunal decision on the basis of law and presumption and reasonable doubt and inference and habeas corpus and estoppel.  Whatever technical legal process to effect a technical ruling and infect the judgement.  

Don't forget Magna Carta. Why not? You'll eventually get in front of some [censored]en judge who has forgotten he's on a sporting tribunal who'll take the bait.

We should have appealed the Chandler decision. MFC play too nice

Schwarz on 3aw saying AFL can and should appeal, and that option is open to them

Anyone know for certain if that option is actually open to AFL, I thought not...

Cripps being in the side gives Carlton a bit of predictability for our coaches. If he was out we’d have no idea who they were going to have run through. I’d still much rather have him out but there is a bit of silver lining there.

This is such BS decision based on semantics, there's plenty of "football" contests in every game most result in a bump if some type. Thought the onus was on the player not to hit the head 

The big boys should step in because this is total bulldust. Where is the protection?