Tribunal panel would’ve said “what a surprise to see you here Trent, are you lost” and ordered a limo to take him home.

_________________
31-3-2015 - R.I.P AFL, corrupted lying pricks
12-5-2015 - Go WADA
18-8-2015 - Suffer Hird* u lying flower
12-1-2016 - CAS goes bang, happy new year.. Drugcheats forever..

Just the tip…?


kindest regards tommi

_________________
that'siti'mnotchangingthistagain......!

As I said in unpopular opinions I think the tribunal got it right. Apparently the only one on TC who thinks so.

Cripps had no hope of taking the mark but still jumped into the guy.

I know I am naive in playing it fair when other players get the benefit of the doubt when there is no doubt such as the aforementioned Cotchin.

_________________
"Get ready, Teddy - you're on": Ron Barassi half time 1970 Grand Final

This is on Gil.

How the @#$%&! this stupid spiv is still running the league is beyond me.

Michael Christian?

Decisions now have no relationship to each other.

FMD.

_________________
“When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become a king. The palace turns into a circus.”
Turkish Proverb

I don't have a problem with the term careless being used. Struggling to reconcile that you can have eyes on the ball and contesting and it be considered a bump

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

I agree with you Teddy. What gets me though is the inconsistency. Rioli should not have got off but 2 wrongs don't make a right I guess. The other thing given his prior clean record and no idea if that is considered, he should've been offered 1 week.
Wonder what peoples thoughts would be if someone did that to Sam Walsh?

Prior records used to be considered. Not sure if they still are these days?

I didn't think there was grounds for challenge/appeal. I don't think they got it right because the outcome based assessment is basically a raffle.

But this is in line with the world we live in where the intent of what you say is irrelevant if someone chooses to take offence.

As soon as it happened it was always going to be 2 weeks, and as I said in the match day thread if it were Dayne Zorko knocking out Motlop we'd have wanted weeks.

All that said, if I were implementing the rules that gets clearly filed under 'football accident in a collision sport'

_________________
Congratulations CK95

QFT

I'm not a fan of this "outcome based" thing either.
Does that mean if 2 players go for the ball under any circumstances and one ends up concussed as a result, it is automatically 2 weeks?
If good bloke Hodgey fractured Murph's cheekbone in the exact same incident he did a few years back, (putting aside the fact that he is a good bloke) would he now automatically get weeks because of the outcome?

You may be right and it is no longer a consideration.

If Ah Chee gets up and plays on it becomes "a good hard contest between two committed players".

_________________
"One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people's minds." - Frank Zappa

The AFL is pissing its pants about potential future litigation arising from CTE, so pretty much yes, like Plowman on O'Meara.




Good Bloke discount still applies to certain players.
See Cotchin, Trent.

_________________
"One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people's minds." - Frank Zappa

Have to appeal.

No understanding of football by the Match review Peanut or Tribunal
Glesson said that while Cripps was looking at the ball only and was contesting the ball, in his peripheral vision he should been aware of Ah Chee and the decision to rotate the body was unreasonable.
That is a completey ridiculous statement with no basis of reality.
If we are now expecting players to process what is in their peripheral vision and adjust according to that, it's not a human sport anymore. We need to develop droids ASAP.

_________________
T E A M

Yes, that's what I'm trying to say with my bad writing ability Woj

_________________
Congratulations CK95

Bullshit result.

Do we have another avenue of appeal or is that it??

Yes we can - AFL has extended deadline for us to decide to 5:30 PM according to SEN.

On what grounds can we appeal and is it realistic?

Ah chee was equally responsible for the collision.

He came in from the side, whilst Cripps was going for the ball.

No way would I want Cripps to avoid the contest and just let Ah Chee have the ball without a challenge.

What a ridiculous decision.

In light of the Rioli collision, it doesnt matter what you call it, mark or catch. The same thing was happening in this case, where both players were trying to catch the ball.

In fact, you can see Cripps had more purchase and got the the BALL before Ah Chee.

The point is, Au Chee equally was the cause of the collision. Precedence, not just Rioli case, says so.

I am appalled at the inconsistencies of the MRP, the inconsistencies of the AFL and what they are doing to destroy the fabric of the game.

To those few who think the decision was correct, because they thought Rioli case was adjudicated wrong, tell me, honestly, in your expert opinion, what you expected Cripps to do?

Of course there was going to be a collision, we know that, there's collisions going on every minute.

I also believe the decision on the Appeal was already made before the case was heard, because the resoning of the decision makes no sense, nor is it relevant, because it can't be proved. Doesn't innocense have a place in governance in the AFL. What about his previous record proving he doesnt play with mallice? Corrupt AFL is all I put it too.

The Anti Carlton mob running the AFL have had their way again....20 years of this and I'm sick of it.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

There's no proof. Just opinions.

Innocent until proven guilty. He doesnt have a record of violence. He's a ball winner and ball extractor.

Ah Chee was equally responsible for the collision.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue