Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

Gobsmacked.

It's going to make it even sweeter finishing their season in 9 days though.

Harrysz wrote:All the conspiracy theorists are ridiculous. "If Cripps were a Collingwood player he would've got 3 weeks. The AFL wanted Cripps to play...."Blah blah blah.
Cripps got off on technicalities. The Tribunal stuffed it. Blame them! Cripps was plainly guilty, but the Tribunal still had to follow proper procedures. According to the appeals board it didn't. End of story.

That is being totally naive. I don’t buy that for a second mate, that is utter bloody rubbish. Firstly where’s the evidence for this? The tribunal has been around long enough to know how to follow proper procedures ffs. This was a desperate ‘out’ they had been looking for. This is not a conspiracy, it’s blatant unashamed corruption. Surely you have seen this type of stuff happening in other sports? My particular sport cricket has been full of it over years. It has now finally reached the AFL in a public sense although corruption per say has been going on behind the scenes for years. For example my late FIL was involved with the construction of the first screen scoreboard at VFL park Waverley and the corruption that was taking place floored him at the time. This is the inevitable continuation of that practice in another form.

I think if it was Pendles we would have done the same thing and got the same result. If it was Maynard, they would have given him another 2 weeks.

It's player based, not club based, which is wrong.

I can't wait to read the melts when Cripps wins the Brownlow.

Imagine if it had have been Patty Macartin he knocked out...

I wonder if the jurors are Carlton supporters.

It's irrelevant whether its Cripps or not.

It confirms that the AFL is:-
- NOT serious about head high tackles
- NOT serious about concussion
- NOT serious about player welfare
- NOT serious to ensure duty of care

Arrogance at it's peak.

Big T wrote:Imagine if it had have been Patty Macartin he knocked out...

I don't think it matters. Cripps was contesting the ball

AND to add to that - what message is the AFL sending to the other Leagues and/or Kids playing the game.

i.e. You can't demonstrate, you have to stand, no swearing etc etc, yet you can put someone into outer space.

Just tells me it's all BULLSHITE because the very one thing you should protect ' the head' they just don't care.

reading the article about how he got off...is a little perplexing.
"because nobody asked Cripps if he bumped, he cant be found guilty of bumping"

ummm EVIDENCE.... unless the author of the AFL.com article got it wrong ...theres no legal reason to ask a defendant such a question.

is there an AFL supreme court? This is a prime candidate for it.

BEAMER09 wrote:It's irrelevant whether its Cripps or not.

It confirms that the AFL is:-
- NOT serious about head high tackles
- NOT serious about concussion
- NOT serious about player welfare
- NOT serious to ensure duty of care

Arrogance at it's peak.

Way to overreact.

It says the AFL acknowledges that in a contact sport, there will be the inevitable head clash, and that in a genuine contest, a player can't / shouldn't be held accountable for such contact.

The way some of you are behaving, you'd want a player suspended if they kneed an opponent in the head, concussing them, whilst taking mark of the year.

I think the main thing is consistency, or lack thereof.
Look at what Krueger got a week for, Maynard 2, Ryder 2 etc since the reclassification of the ruling came in this year.

I don't know how you're viewing it, but if Cripps gets off for what happened in that incident, then at the very least, the others should have too. Maynard and Krueger were in "genuine contests" for the ball, were they not?

At least Krueger wasn't given an extra week for concussing himself I guess.

https://wwos.nine.com.au/afl/2022-brayd ... 5ddfd0c7cd

I knew this would be the outcome, just like it would have been if his name was Chris Judd or Trent Cotchin, both players were allowed to get away with acts that would get other players suspended. Even if these protected species are cited, they are excused by this farcical appearance of law that the afl calls the tribunal. Look at Cotchin hit on GWS player in preliminary final in 2017. The afl tribunal looks at the player, what is at stake if they are suspended and finally what club they represent rather than any legitimate rule of law when deciding this crap.

Leggie wrote:What it does do is set a precedent. You can now take someone out.

No you cant and no it doesn't. The precedent will remain "if you elect to bump and concuss you will be sanctioned". What it means is if the AFL screw up their prosecution, you can get off on incorrect legal process.

I personally still don't understand why our tribunal system has to be so "legal", but its akin to catching a murderer, but failing to read them their rights properly, or losing the key piece of evidence, or coercing a confession out of them etc. Everyone knows they did it, but the legal process wasn't correctly applied and therefore there is a risk they walk.

I don’t care one way or another whether Cripps plays or doesn’t play. The only thing that gets me is the complete and total hypocrisy of the AFL when it comes to rule interpretation. Ginnivan gets legitimate free kicks for head high tackles so what does the AFL do? The AFL tells the umpires not to award Ginnivan free kicks. The AFL has made it clear to all clubs since last year that the head is sacrosanct. If a player is concussed on the field the other player is suspended. Doesn’t matter if the incident is an accident with the player going for the ball, he gets suspended anyway. Maynard had a third of his season wiped away when he copped 2 matches in the preseason. Like Cripps he was going for the ball too. He attempted to fist the ball away and instead his opponent’s head got in the way. That was a accident like the Cripps one. Maynard struggled to going when he resumed playing. What is the difference between Maynard and Cripps or for that matter Cripps and all the other players who have been suspended when their opponents were accidentally concussed?