Patrick Cripps FREE to play

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,767]

1 hour ago, cookieboc said:

DONT FORGET THEY WANT CARLTON IN THE FINALS, NOT ONLY WILL HE GET OFF WITH A FINE, HE WILL GET 4 FREE KICKS RIGHT IN FRONT OF GOAL ON SATURDAY NIGHT.

I think you mean Collingwood.

He'll get 2 weeks IMO but obviously will be challenged at the Tribunal.

Be interesting if Carlton take it to the appeals on Thursday should the tribunal uphold the suspension.

Edited August 8, 2022 by Bring-Back-Powell

[Mel Bourne 4,515]

11 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Of course Cripps should get weeks.

But Cotchin should have been suspended for his sling tackle on Saturday night. Got nothing.

Be prepared for the MRO to say it wasn't a reportable offence.

(PS: I don't like the way we generally, whether overtly or not, whether subconsciously or not, hope that our opponents' best players may miss due to injury/suspension. Whether or not Cripps plays this week, we need to assume Carlton bring their best, which is capable of beating us).

I feel subconsciously attacked. 😆

I think it’s pretty natural to be interested in outcomes such as these. And I’ll go a step further and say I hope Cripps doesn’t play because it’s merely to our advantage. I don’t see what’s wrong in hoping for any kind of advantage, however they may present themselves. 

[loges 6,767]

45 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

He'll get 2 weeks, perhaps reduced to 1, then may get off on appeal

But the more I look at the replay the more I think it is incidental contact. If Ah Chee isn't there, then Cripps grabs the ball on his chest in a chest mark motion. Had the ball been kicked, this would be a perfectly reasonable attack at the footy.

Will all come down to whether his attack on the ball is seen as reasonable.

But Ah Chee is there????

 

 

Edited August 8, 2022 by loges
Wrong

[Mel Bourne 4,515]

28 minutes ago, binman said:

Ah cheers might also have to miss our game.

Not sure how it works, but it is a mandatory 12 day break posy concussion.

Day 12 is tge Friday we play them.

 

If it’s 12 nights post concussion then he’s good to go. 
 

But not sure if it is. 

[chook fowler 19,444]

Of course he should be suspended - by the goolies.

[Jibroni 4,987]

Depends what mood the AFL is in and how badly they want Carlton to play finals.

[Waltham33 475]

Hope he gets off - im only interested in beating teams who have their best possible team in

[cookieboc 776]

2 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I think you mean Collingwood.

He'll get 2 weeks IMO but obviously will be challenged at the Tribunal.

Be interesting if Carlton take it to the appeals on Thursday should the tribunal uphold the suspension.

Collingwood are already in, Carlton could drop out.

 

Will be interesting to see what happens

[chook fowler 19,444]

3 hours ago, Waltham33 said:

Hope he gets off - im only interested in beating teams who have their best possible team in

Bugger that - I want the double chance.

[monoccular 17,413]

My MFCSS says 2 weeks, with the first week suspended, thus free to play Saturday 😱🤔🤮.

But Michael Christian, although touted to be independent, is certainly very idiosyncratic (to be kind) and inconsistent.  May even charge AH Che with head butting Cripps. 

[Gawndy the Great 9,011]

The concussion has sealed his fate.

The Blues main argumennt will be he had eyes only for the ball, which can be easily countered by, so why did you jump and raise your elbow? To which the Blues will respond, because the Ball told him to and we always play the ball. 

P.S. Couldn't be bothered with all the quotation marks and apostrophe's so feel free to goto school on my elite level of grammar on display here. 

[sue 9,096]

3 hours ago, Waltham33 said:

Hope he gets off - im only interested in beating teams who have their best possible team in

Don't agree.  The ball can bounce oddly, but I'm not hoping it will always bounce badly for us so that we can be really tested. 

[Demonstone 22,309]

9 minutes ago, CYB said:

P.S. Couldn't be bothered with all the quotation marks and apostrophe's so feel free to goto school on my elite level of grammar on display here. 

You set 'em up and I'll knock 'em down!  There's no apostrophe in "apostrophes".  

[Mel Bourne 4,515]

1 minute ago, Demonstone said:

You set 'em up and I'll knock 'em down!  There's no apostrophe in "apostrophes".  

@Demonstone Your response-time to a grammar infringement is quicker than the actual police. 

[layzie 33,750]

3 hours ago, Waltham33 said:

Hope he gets off - im only interested in beating teams who have their best possible team in

I was like this, now I don't care either way.

[Stiff Arm 4,419]

2 weeks ✅

[picket fence 17,038]

Har har har suffer in ya jocks son

JUSTICE SERVED🤩

Edited August 8, 2022 by picket fence

[praha 11,234]

2 weeks. Will definitely miss Melbourne game.

If we lose then regardless of Round 23 result out season is as good as done.

[Demonstone 22,309]

14 minutes ago, Mel Bourne said:

@Demonstone Your response-time to a grammar infringement is quicker than the actual police. 

I'm wearing my favourite t-shirt at this very moment!

[chookrat 4,247]

5 hours ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Surely the MRO determination should result in a suspension. 
 

Chose to bump not tackle 

Leapt off the ground

Contact with the head 

Medium to high impact 

Player subbed out 

 

I think he gets 4 weeks, reduced to 3 weeks with a guilty plea. 

It really comes down to whether he was contesting the ball or electing to bump. Years ago in the game that T-Mac kicked the sealer v West Coast there was an incident where Viney collected Hurn high with his hip during a marking contest but didn't have a case to answer because he was contesting the ball. I have only seen the one angle of the Cripps incident and it isn't clear whether he is competing for the ball or bumping, I'm sure the MRO will have better vision to work off. I can see one of three outcomes;

1. Not graded, based on Viney example above - 0 weeks

2. Rough conduct / high contact / high impact - 2 weeks

3. Rough Conduct / high contact / severe impact - goes to the Tribunal and minimum 3 week sanction which would probably land in the 3 week region.

I don't see it being 1 week because that would require a medium impact grading which isn't really consistent with player being subbed off with concussion. Most likely 2 to 3 weeks depending on severity, with a possibility of p weeks if it could be demonstrated that Cripps actions were reasonable given the circumstances, e.g. that he had eyes only for the ball.

[TheWiz 765]

2 minutes ago, chookrat said:

It really comes down to whether he was contesting the ball or electing to bump. Years ago in the game that T-Mac kicked the sealer v West Coast there was an incident where Viney collected Hurn high with his hip during a marking contest but didn't have a case to answer because he was contesting the ball. I have only seen the one angle of the Cripps incident and it isn't clear whether he is competing for the ball or bumping, I'm sure the MRO will have better vision to work off. I can see one of three outcomes;

1. Not graded, based on Viney example above - 0 weeks

2. Rough conduct / high contact / high impact - 2 weeks

3. Rough Conduct / high contact / severe impact - goes to the Tribunal and minimum 3 week sanction which would probably land in the 3 week region.

I don't see it being 1 week because that would require a medium impact grading which isn't really consistent with player being subbed off with concussion. Most likely 2 to 3 weeks depending on severity, with a possibility of p weeks if it could be demonstrated that Cripps actions were reasonable given the circumstances, e.g. that he had eyes only for the ball.

Will be interesting to hear more as it comes out, but one difference may be that this wasn’t a marking contest from a kick? There is only one way to contest a mark, but many ways he could have contested this situation as it was play on - and therefore this was rough conduct?

[sue 9,096]

Some seem not to have seen this:

https://www.afl.com.au/news/814108/blues-skipper-banned-for-ah-chee-bump

[DeeZone 9,650]

Deserves a minimum of 2 weeks and that is what he received, if Ah Chee had jumped up and played on then he gets off but the reason for this rule is to protect the head from this type of unnecessary (undisciplined attack) action.!!!

Edited August 8, 2022 by DeeZone
Added undisciplined.

[spirit of norm smith 16,272]

Wow. Only two weeks. 
Careless. 
Head high contact. 
High impact. 

Off the ground 

Chose to bump not tackle.  He was definitely not trying to punch the footy. 

I’d thought 4 weeks but the MRO is a lottery really. 

[John Crow Batty 8,861]

let’s see if Carlton appeal.