5 minutes ago, Redleg said:

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. 

 

Will this now become the standard defence in all such matters?

The system has failed. 

15 minutes ago, Redleg said:

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. 

 

Thanks Red.

So he got off on a technicality. what a farce

Good luck to Carlton. they worked the system

The tribunal stuffed up so that's on them. Gleeson needs to smarten up his ideas or give the job to someone who is competent

So Daisy P says: “I still watch that contest and think it’s still a footy contest with an unfortunate outcome.”

Did she say the same thing about Chandler?  I hope so.    If not I will have lost all respect for her as she would have joined the integrity-free zone that is the AFL and it's media hangers-on.

13 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

Will this now become the standard defence in all such matters?

Well there is not many others.

In legal contest, injury is accident.

Therefore it has be a contest for the ball and not an election to bump. 

If any honker out there in the media even brings Cripps' safety into the picture they need to ask themselves why he went into the contest with arms flailing around and not tucked into his side for bracing of contact. 

In the long run is beating a Patrick Cripps less Carlton going do us any favours in September?

Basically all the marquee players will be there in September from all opposition, so you need to get used to competing against the best.

In addition, I'm so over Collingwood so more than happy for Cripps to play and potentially put his club on his back and beat the Pies. 

2 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

 

In addition, I'm so over Collingwood so more than happy for Cripps to play and potentially put his club on his back and beat the Pies. 

He damn well better after all this. 

Borderline case - only relevant because it affects us. Happy for Cripps to play as it wasn't a shocker though would have been ambivalent the other way.

I reckon there is every chance we smash Carlton 

31 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

Will this now become the standard defence in all such matters?

Well the precedent is now set it seems.

My gripe is purely with the act and the MRO>Trubunal>Appeal process and the result that is baffling considering what we are trying to do in protecting the head.

I couldn't give a stuff if Cripps plays against us or not and it has nothing to do with my views on this. 

Maybe we get Lingers on record to give us his thoughts on the AFL and the monumental [censored] this has become. Im pretty sure he wont hold back.

That's a really big oversight on the part of the AFL and the skeptic in me does wonder if small technicalities like this are left open in case a big name player needs a break glass in case of emergency out like this. 

 

Surely the AFL will appeal the appeal.

4 minutes ago, CYB said:

Maybe we get Lingers on record to give us his thoughts on the AFL and the monumental [censored] this has become. Im pretty sure he wont hold back.

They should get Howe to talk about it he loves a sound bite lately. He can say how the tribunal don't like speed on the ball and being run at. 

For the legal minds on demonland, is it fair to say that the technicality they seemingly have found would be a difficult one to counter on appeal? 

essentially in order for an appeal to succeed they'd have to prove the original hearing was fair, which could be interesting to say the least 

So are Melbourne supporters going to boo Cripps tomorrow night? or are we a bit more civilised compared to the mob last week...

 

 

Edited August 11, 20223 yr by dazzledavey36

Just now, dazzledavey36 said:

So are Melbourne supporters going to boo Cripps tomorrow night? or are we a bit more civilised compared to the mob last week...

 

 

Will absolutely get booed I’m tipping.

Wow that is some major corruption and hypocrisy by the AFL. The description of Cripp's action in the charge was "careless", not "intentional". Cripps did jump in the air at a non-marking contest and carelessly bump Ah Chee in the head causing concussion.

29 minutes ago, sue said:

So Daisy P says: “I still watch that contest and think it’s still a footy contest with an unfortunate outcome.”

Did she say the same thing about Chandler?  I hope so.    If not I will have lost all respect for her as she would have joined the integrity-free zone that is the AFL and it's media hangers-on.

Losing all respect over a potentially missing comment? 

Harsh. 

Just want our boys on the field to turn up and not just beat them but deestroy them.

Just want our supporters to turn up in droves and give them hell

Edited August 11, 20223 yr by Wodjathefirst

I will not be booing but I reckon there will be some, human nature.

2 minutes ago, old55 said:

Wow that is some major corruption and hypocrisy by the AFL. The description of Cripp's action in the charge was "careless", not "intentional". Cripps did jump in the air at a non-marking contest and carelessly bump Ah Chee in the head causing concussion.

I cant help but look back at the Patrick Ryder one where he did everything he could the minimise his impact(  he was almost stationary) but still got suspended......

4 minutes ago, old55 said:

Wow that is some major corruption and hypocrisy by the AFL. The description of Cripp's action in the charge was "careless", not "intentional". Cripps did jump in the air at a non-marking contest and carelessly bump Ah Chee in the head causing concussion.

To be fair, it's impossible to know what he was intending, my opinion of Cripps is that he's a tough but fair player who walks very close to the line, a lot like Jack Viney. 

It may well have genuinely been careless, but i think if you make the decision to contest the ball, turn your body and brace, you're probably responsible for the outcome i'd say

6 minutes ago, Dwight Schrute said:

To be fair, it's impossible to know what he was intending, my opinion of Cripps is that he's a tough but fair player who walks very close to the line, a lot like Jack Viney. 

It may well have genuinely been careless, but i think if you make the decision to contest the ball, turn your body and brace, you're probably responsible for the outcome i'd say

The whole point of my post is that Cripps' "intention" is not the issue.  That wasn't in the charge.

FWIW, for similar reasons Hawkins should have been suspended for "carelessly" breaking May's jaw.

But there's one rule for stars and another for ANB and Chandler.

Edited August 11, 20223 yr by old55