8 hours ago, Megatron said:

Sling tackles back in play.

Unless you’re a no name player. 

The AFL are a complete and utter farce 

I really hope we [censored] these upstarts 

Edited August 11, 20223 yr by Sydee

They should have made retro round this week because the shirt-front lives!

So anytime you see a bloke with his back turned with eyes on the ball waiting for it to drop from a punch or handball, you can now clean them up with your elbow even if you don’t touch the ball and the bloke is concussed

good to know!! Ah Chee will be documenting all these tribunals findings when he decided to sue for his possible brain damage 

1 hour 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.  
 

...leaving the entertainment obsessed general public and footy fans across the board totally at odds on the integrity of the AFL, its poor selection of the first tribunal panel who now appear to have made the wrong decision (most unlikely) and confidence in the the whole process of rule scrutiny at its nadir. 

The whole process has been proven to be totally arbitrary and indicates that preferential treatments of rule violators will be tolerated in the interests of AFL gate receipts, where necessary. 

 

8 hours ago, DubDee said:

I agree that the outcome should not dictate the suspension but this is what the AFL do and have stated this. If you initiate the contact and the bloke is concussed you are gone. End of story. 

so the result is clearly incorrect per the AFLs own rules

I agree with most of this. I like the part about 'initiate contact '. It's a contact sport, contact is going to happen.

The Willie Rioli case correctly went against this though so their was already ambiguity.

Ultimately, it was a tad late and clumsy and did result in the other player being concussed. It probably should have got a week to keep it consistent with other results.

8 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Agree with you I didn't think it was suspension worthy either. He was contesting a loose ball (it wasn't a marking contest contrary to some previous posts in the thread) and was entitled to jump up for the footy. Ah Chee was concussed but that stuff will happen occasionally in a brutal contact sport like footy. It's not always malicious.

I don't want to see players concussed but I can't see a way of eliminating it from the game without changing it completely.

59 minutes ago, Spargonicus said:

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

I love lamp

1 hour ago, Spargonicus said:

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

Cold lampin'

The defence mentioned 'natural justice'

Well now its up to the Dees,  and also our enemies the Pies, to become partners in crime by beating the Blues tomorrow and next Sunday to eliminate Carlton and Cripps from finals this year.

That will be justice for the rest of us AFL supporters and for the good of the game.

We  beat the Blues tomorrow and next week will be the first time I shall be willing on the Pies for a win.

Gil's legacy just expanded last night, - Goodes, Umpiring, Betts, Cripps.......

So the trick is to keep appealing until you get the desired result?

Had this been one of ours we would have just accepted the verdict.

Different rules for star players at big clubs....Farcical.

There is no equality before the law in life or in football. A case in point. 

AFL law is less than transparent.

1 hour 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.  

You forgot “the vibe”.

If this was a Melbourne player we would be livid that he was suspended.

I don't care if he's playing Saturday we should still belt them. If not then we simply aren't up to it.

Sure we have order but at what price?

15 minutes ago, Demon17 said:

The defence mentioned 'natural justice'

Well now its up to the Dees,  and also our enemies the Pies, to become partners in crime by beating the Blues tomorrow and next Sunday to eliminate Carlton and Cripps from finals this year.

That will be justice for the rest of us AFL supporters and for the good of the game.

We  beat the Blues tomorrow and next week will be the first time I shall be willing on the Pies for a win.

Gil's legacy just expanded last night, - Goodes, Umpiring, Betts, Cripps.......

Nooo, we want the Blues to beat the Filth to ensure we have every chance of finishing 2nd.

I think I have woken up in an alternative universe.

What a joke.

54 minutes ago, BDA said:

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

We would have lost on a AFL technically, that being ‘is he high profile player?’

Time to move on, Dees fans/legends…

We want to be the best side beating the best sides. Let’s [censored] these downhill skiers. 

[censored] him. We'll beat them with him in the team. 

1 hour 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.  
 

No when Moloney got suspended and didn't even touch the opposition and the opposition player fell on his head and got concussed was the worst decision ever.

Barry Hall punching someone in the prelim and getting off so he could play in the GF was up there too.

 

11 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

If this was a Melbourne player we would be livid that he was suspended.

I don't care if he's playing Saturday we should still belt them. If not then we simply aren't up to it.

I have to admit, this is true ….. but every now and then it is good to be angry.  Can’t wait until tomorrow night

 

this is what I think of the AFL judiciary right now 

ffs

1 minute ago, Wrecker46 said:

No when Moloney got suspended and didn't even touch the opposition and the opposition player fell on his head and got concussed was the worst decision ever.

Barry Hall punching someone in the prelim and getting off so he could play in the GF was up there too.

 

But with Barry they said it was in play, as the ball was only 100 metres away.

In the Moloney hearing, it was decided that running towards a player and then avoiding him was dangerous, as the victim could think someone on a football field might contact him.

Just woke up to the thread title change... Holy Moly... *loooong exhale, shake of head*

Edited August 11, 20223 yr by Engorged Onion