Cripps wins appeal - no suspension

[88MPH]

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?

[What'sinaname]

but....but...but...

good bloke.....Brownlow.....finals.......

0 weeks

[Pebbles Rocks]

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.

[orie]

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..

[What'sinaname]

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]

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.

[scoobydoo]

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]

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

[neil]

"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

[neds elbow]

Ah Chee will probably get a week for tunneling Cripps.

[David]

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.

[Big T]

I didn't think there was much in it, will come down to rule interpretation.

[Skids]

Tribunal, 3 weeks, has to be.

[KenH]

He got 2 weeks!

[Jezza]

^ BOOM!