| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
88MPH
Joined: 14 Oct 2010
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
The test will be whether or not he was contesting the ball.
He is entitled to leave the ground and make incidental contact if he is contesting the ball and it was reasonable for him to contest the ball in that manner.
BUT the fact is, he did not contest the ball. Nobody contests the ball with their arm tucked in. And if he was contesting the ball he would have made SOME contact with it but he didn't. The ball went past him without touch.
There is no way, based on the formula the MRO is compelled to examine that he can be suspended for any fewer than 2 weeks. If it is assessed as careless rather than intentional it's at least 2. If it's assessed as intentional then he can be referred directly to the Tribunal for an even greater sanction.
But the idea that he can walk for this is just laughable, irrespective of whether he is called a "ball player" or not.
Over to you AFL. Do you protect players from unreasonable head-high contact, or not?
_________________
3KZ is football |
|
|
|
 |
What'sinaname 
Joined: 29 May 2010
Location: Living rent free
|
| Post subject: | |
|
but....but...but...
good bloke.....Brownlow.....finals.......
0 weeks
_________________
Fighting against the objectification of woman. |
|
|
|
|
Pebbles Rocks
Joined: 28 Sep 2008
Location: Collingwood
|
| Post subject: | |
|
A very good assessment 88MPH.
It wasn't a marking contest so the way he went for the ball cannot be considered reasonable.
It is automatically high impact as the player has concussion.
_________________
"You must be a parking ticket, cuz you got fine written all over you" Glen Quagmire |
|
|
|
|
orie 
A MADPIE FOR LIFE
Joined: 11 Apr 2000
Location: Heart and Soul.
|
| Post subject: Cripps | |
|
Doesn't matter what we say or think!
The AFL will look after him because they want him to play v the pies.
They look after their PETS
Just ask Maynard...Bruzzy copped it even though he actually made contact with ball..  
_________________
'MADE IT LEGENDARY' |
|
|
|
|
What'sinaname
Joined: 29 May 2010
Location: Living rent free
|
| Post subject: Re: Cripps out for Pies clash? | |
|
| Piesnchess wrote: | | BEAMER09 wrote: | | Marvelos wrote: | | Has to be 2 weeks surely, thoughts? |
Atleast 2 weeks unless you are the most arrogant sports organization in Australia... |
They are, but he is their golden boy, weak as piss the MRP, if it was a Pies player, two weeks an nothing less, bug eyed McLauglan will issue orders, let the chosen one off, just a fine.   |
It's just an MRO. There is no panel. |
|
|
|
|
LaurieHolden 
Floreat Gymnorhina tyrannica
Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Location: Victoria Park
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Doesn't look good whichever way you view it.
Won't be at all surpised if he's given 3 weeks, reduced to 2 weeks on an early guilty plea.
_________________
"The Club's not Jock, Ted and Gerry" (& Eddie)
2023 AFL Premiers |
|
|
|
|
scoobydoo
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Marvelos wrote: | | He chose to bump, has to be 2. |
Not only did he choose to bump but he jumped into the opposing player. Don’t think the umpire paid a free kick? |
|
|
|
|
derkd
Joined: 29 May 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 88MPH wrote: | The test will be whether or not he was contesting the ball.
He is entitled to leave the ground and make incidental contact if he is contesting the ball and it was reasonable for him to contest the ball in that manner.
BUT the fact is, he did not contest the ball. Nobody contests the ball with their arm tucked in. And if he was contesting the ball he would have made SOME contact with it but he didn't. The ball went past him without touch.
There is no way, based on the formula the MRO is compelled to examine that he can be suspended for any fewer than 2 weeks. If it is assessed as careless rather than intentional it's at least 2. If it's assessed as intentional then he can be referred directly to the Tribunal for an even greater sanction.
But the idea that he can walk for this is just laughable, irrespective of whether he is called a "ball player" or not.
Over to you AFL. Do you protect players from unreasonable head-high contact, or not? |
I agree whole heartedly, Cripps had not malice in his attack on the ball.
The fact is and I would point to the suspension of Kruger here too...if you make head high contact intentional or not and the other player is injured (which Ah Chee was) he will get suspended.
Given Cripps also left the ground in the process. I would be shocked if he was offered less then 2 weeks...they might be able to try and negotiate down to 1...(not sure how).
But it is a 2 week ban on points
_________________
"To know nothing of events before your birth, is to forever remain a child" - Cicero (Roman Lawyer/Senator) 46 BCE. |
|
|
|
|
neil 
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Location: Queensland
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Skids wrote: | "Previously under the AFL & AFLW Regulations, “strong consideration” was required to be given to the potential to cause injury in certain circumstances. Regulations have therefore been amended as follows," an AFL statement said.
The potential to cause injury must be factored into the determination of Impact; and
Notwithstanding any other provision of the AFL / AFLW Regulations, any Careless or Intentional Forceful Front-On Conduct or Rough Conduct (High Bumps) where High Contact has been made and that has the potential to cause injury will usually be classified as either Medium, High or Severe Impact (i.e. not Low Impact) even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low (e.g. the victim player has suffered no apparent injury). This reflects the approach that currently applies to the Impact determination for strikes.
|
You left out the other provision
Notwithstanding any other provision of the AFL / AFLW Regulations, any Careless or Intentional Forceful Front-On Conduct or Rough Conduct (High Bumps) where High Contact has been made and that has the potential to cause injury will usually be classified as either Medium, High or Severe Impact (i.e. not Low Impact)except if done by a Collingwood player then severe even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low (e.g. the victim player has suffered no apparent injury). All suspentions to exclude Carlton players.This reflects the approach that currently applies to the Impact determination for strikes.With all impact being low when approaching finals excluding Collingwood players
_________________
Carlscum 120 years being cheating scum |
|
|
|
|
neds elbow
Joined: 29 Sep 2002
Location: melbourne, victoria
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Ah Chee will probably get a week for tunneling Cripps. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I presume his good record will count for something (to my knowledge, he's never previously been fined or suspended). Usually that's good for getting a week less. If not and he does get 2, I'm assuming the Blues will appeal, so he might get to play against us either way.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Big T
Joined: 18 Oct 2003
Location: Torino, Italy
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I didn't think there was much in it, will come down to rule interpretation.
_________________
Buon Giorno |
|
|
|
|
Skids
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Tribunal, 3 weeks, has to be.
_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
KenH 
Joined: 24 Jan 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
He got 2 weeks!
_________________
Cheers big ears |
|
|
|
|
Jezza 
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ BOOM!
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
