If you pay enough for a silver tongued mouthpiece to deliver specious rhetoric you will get off anything. And yes, I am bitter and twisted!

6 minutes 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.

 

 

Rd 3 2005? Remember it well.

9 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

I agree with this. I've been p*ssed off with the game of AFL for years and have several times stated that the only reason I continue to follow is because of my irrational attachment to the MFC.

I don't even like watching a lot of game, sometimes even when we're in them, because of ll the throwing, umpires choosing which subset of rules they'll apply each week, etc etc.

Of course our magnificent flag has rejuvenated my enthusiasm.

But let's face it, overall, the game is [censored]ed.

Spot on.

Let's face, this isn't sport anymore this is entertainment.

Look after the big clubs.

Look after the big stars.

Create the blockbusters.

Create the drama.

Create an over the top ridiculous match day experience.

Flexible rules at the tribunal so they can always get the result they want.

Flexible rules and interpretations on the field.

I truly believe umps are consciously or unconsciously evening games up to keep them close and viewers tuned in.

It's not so much the free kick count but where they are paid. We saw it last week and we see it all the time where a big team that's behind gets a couple of softies in front of goal when it looks like they games slipping away from them.

The AFL is corrupt. Nice legacy Gil. 

it's not about the fans or the welfare of the players. It's not about looking after the integrity of the most wonderful sport in the world in my opinion.

It's about $ and TV.

If it wasn't for my addiction to this club, I'd be just watching the occasional game of local footy.

That's entertainment.

Go Dees, deeestroy them.

 

If his eyes were solely on the ball how did he manage to turn his body just in time. We only have to look at some of Nick Riewoldt’s to understand what eyes on the ball really means.

IT WAS A BUMP. IT WAS NOT A CONTEST. 

I SAW IT LIVE AND IF WAS A BUMP. I WATCHED IT ABOUT THIRTY TIMES ON REPLAY  IT WAS ALWAYS A BUMP. 

PROTECT THE PLAYER GOING FOR THE BALL 

PROTECT THE HEAD

A DUTY OF CARE 

YES THESE ARE THE STATEMENTS USED TO CONVICT OTHERS 

FFS 

I FIND THE BELOW UNBELIEVABLE AND ERODES ANY CONFIDENCE IN THE DECISION OF THE JUDICIARY OR IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE GAME 

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

 

3 minutes ago, Redleg said:

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.

You’re the legal eagles around here Red. Does this ruling stack up in any way from a strict legal perspective. Or is it a case of picking an interpretation that suits in the circumstances. 

The tribunal won't deter those prepared to cause head injury. Players will have to take matters into their own arms.

Ah Chee and all future and past head cases, should now prepare a civil case against Carlton (all clubs) and the AFL for sanctioning actions that damage the brain. 

We all know the associated trauma from head hits, and they are saying there are circumstances where it is ok.

Going to cost them big bucks in the future.

All those in positions of influence in the AFL who also say this is in the contest could be liable for inciting/encouraging harm to others.

The Pandora's box remains ajar.

 

3 minutes ago, layzie said:

Rd 3 2005? Remember it well.

Has anyone got the footage?

24 minutes ago, Redleg said:

You forgot “the vibe”.

and the Constitution.

There is no Justice League

perhaps they would view this also as a contest and incidental contact  … ffs 

https://www.3aw.com.au/cripps-ban-overturned-what-ox-schwarz-says-the-afl-is-duty-bound-to-do-today/ 

 

 

The OX has his say on 3AW.

11 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

 

this is what I think of the AFL judiciary right now 

ffs

And they're in Russ Hinze's illegal casino upstairs in fortitude valley.

They should clear the locker room on this one and get everyone out to the ring. 

And what was all that bollocks about denial of natural justice. Does Cripps think he’s Julian Assange?

4 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

perhaps they would view this also as a contest and incidental contact  … ffs 

I've always wondered how Hawthorn players felt after seeing yet another Matthews king hit.

So many uses of big words and smaller difficult words. 

1 hour ago, BDA said:

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

I said this at the time. It was not about needing Chandler to play, it was about the MFC protecting their player from injustice.

We don't have the balls of CFC and that is why we will never be a big club like them. 

8 minutes ago, Jontee said:

There is no Justice League

If there is a Justice League they either aren't here today or aren't being paid enough. 

Or Superman didn't have any fresh undies handy.

3 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

I said this at the time. It was not about needing Chandler to play, it was about the MFC protecting their player from injustice.

We don't have the balls of CFC and that is why we will never be a big club like them. 

Chandler was in the wrong. Understand it was a chase down tackle with momentum, but it was careless, with high impact and high conduct. It was the right decision not to appeal.

I am [censored] off with those few here still posting that he should have got off.  Can't they see that even if that was true, the whole process is clearly a sham and that's what drives most of us to despair about OUR game.  It's not a time to dilute the outrage about the AFL's lack of integrity by making excuses for the scumbags.

Edited August 11, 20223 yr by sue

6 minutes ago, BDA said:

You’re the legal eagles around here Red. Does this ruling stack up in any way from a strict legal perspective. Or is it a case of picking an interpretation that suits in the circumstances. 

I am not the only lawyer on DL and would be interested to read others views.

To me it appears to be a highly technical ruling by the Appeals Board, based upon  words used by the Tribunal Chairman.

As I wrote before the decision, the fact that Gleeson said he was found guilty of contesting in an unsafe manner, when he would absolutely know, the word bump was the basis of the suspension and the rule, is mind boggling from such an experienced AFL advocate and Tribunal Chairman.

If it was just a contest then he gets off. But he jumped off the ground, didn’t try and grab the ball and bumped the player in the head ,causing concussion.

The Appeals Board has criticised his word use and said it was a denial of natural justice and procedural fairness.

It now puts other penalties into question.

Just argue every bump is a contest because the ball is nearby and you braced at last second. 

 

I'd be furious if I was the MRO or the tribunal. The correct decision was made on both occasions and should have stood.

This was opinion shopping by Carlton, nothing more. It was a disgrace that the AFL allowed them to appeal, and even more disgraceful that the appeals board spent more than four hours hearing and then making an incorrect decision. The system is broken if clubs can keep on appealing at no cost.

At least we know now that anything goes in a marking contest these days. I'll be disappointed if May or Hibberd don't plough through Cripps at the first opportunity on Saturday night. So long as they wave their arms in the general direction of the ball, they can do whatever want.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

I said this at the time. It was not about needing Chandler to play, it was about the MFC protecting their player from injustice.

We don't have the balls of CFC and that is why we will never be a big club like them. 

I said the same at the time, even if we lost. 

Cripps' counsel, Christopher Townshend QC, argued there was "a denial of natural justice"

Ah Chee didn't get too much natural justice