bondiblue wrote:
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.
spot on fella.
if it was motlop into ah choo, both would have bounced of each other and played on ... nothing to see here ..
rioli got off becuase he got rowell, and rowell who is a nugget played on ...
this whole "outcome" penalty for the same action is beyond absurd ...
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
