The farcical 11 August overturning of Patrick Cripps’s suspension for high contact on Gold Coast’s Callum Ah Chee in Round 21 did little more than confirm the AFL’s continued wishy-washy approach to the protection of the head.
Carlton had all rights to appeal the decision, particularly considering the challenge it would have faced over the final two weeks of the season should the team have been forced to compete without its star midfielder.
The Blues’ appeal of the original two-week suspension proved successful, leaving many scratching their heads, and the tragedy that subsequently played out for Carlton across the final fortnight of home-and-away play potentially served as some sort of poetic justice, as the Demons and Pies ended what had at one stage had looked like a promising season.
The ruling was just the latest in a series that effectively softens what should and was supposed to be a firm and consistent approach to contact with the head, especially in incidents where damage is done.
Players leaving the ground, turning into contact and removing the focus of the ball from their eye line were all intended to be measuring sticks when it came to cracking down on incidents the game had tolerated for too long. Cripps did all three, was second to the ball without making any physical adjustments and laid out a helpless opponent who did nothing but remain focussed on the ball.
Ah Chee was the victim, Cripps was the aggressor, and despite the Carlton midfielder’s reputation for playing the game in exactly the right manner – hard, tough and uncompromising – the AFL erred in not allocating responsibility to him for the act.
In short, accidents or unintentional behaviours are still subject to punishment by the tribunal. Cripps may well have had no intention to iron out Ah Chee in the manner he did, but he did, and thus he was irresponsible, reckless and required to serve time for an act that could have long-term repercussions for the victim.
(Photo by Michael Willson/AFL Photos via Getty Images)
While the governing body appears to have a long way to go when it comes to committing completely to protecting the heads of modern players and understanding the potential legal ramifications of not doing so, recent events in club land seem to suggest that the actual grey matter inside the skull itself is still of little importance to at least two AFL clubs.
As the once great Essendon Football Club spirals into utter disarray after a disastrous season, a backfiring succession play and a last-minute, desperate and embarrassing attempt to snare the signature of Alastair Clarkson meant sacked coach Ben Rutten had his life, emotions and reputation shredded by a thoughtless and cruel Essendon board.
The manner in which Rutten was treated during the week while he continued to fulfil his duties as coach – while the club openly courted another to replace him – was utterly appalling. A dignified departure the week earlier would have been a far more appropriate way to sever ties with a coach that has suffered immensely from a group of players whose inconsistency says perhaps more about them than him.
In terms of mental health, it was abusive and cruel, and seeing Rutten in tears in the rooms after the Round 23 loss reflected the inhumane situation in which he had been placed.
The Bombers board should simply be ashamed.
Similarly, the Brisbane Lions administration also showed utter disregard for the mental health of the young men involved in the game after captain and club legend Dayne Zorko levelled the most distasteful and despicable verbal attack on Melbourne’s Harrison Petty during the Demons’ 58-point win on Friday night in Brisbane.
At the time of writing, the club is yet to stand Zorko down from the captaincy or finals play after one of the most disgusting incidents in recent history. The AFL has also remained silent, with no sanction emanating from the body which holds ultimate jurisdiction over the game as a whole.
The Lions’ official statement, which referred to the Zorko incident as “not ideal” and expressed a desire to make sure Zorko was “okay from a mental health perspective”, is an utter insult to Petty, the Demons and the entire AFL community.
For all the great work done in the Indigenous space, the connections made with meaningful charities and the continued focus on inclusion and diversity, the game stands at risk of being seen as somewhat tokenistic should the desire to protect the head and the mental health and wellbeing of its players continue to appear as an afterthought.
Aransan
Roar Rookie
And why would they stop posting them? Don’t worry, it won’t take them long to catch up with someone as unpleasant as you. Until now it was only my assertion that you two were one and the same.
PeterCtheThird
Guest
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-25/landmark-brain-study-winds-up-due-to-lack-of-afl-support/101370356 Stuart, this piece from the ABC tells you all you need to know about the AFL’s attitude and level of concern. All they are interested in is covering the corporate backside and protecting the corporate image. If a few former players are thrown on the scrap-heap, so what - “Wasn’t that a ripper speccy, even if he did land on his head!”
Aransan
Roar Rookie
You are brave aren’t you? Long comments under different guest names. You can run but you can’t hide.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Yes at least they're serious about cleaning house. Getting the right people into the right roles will be the trick
Aransan
Roar Rookie
Flancrest enterprises?
Aransan
Roar Rookie
His other grandfather in David Shaw of Essendon was pretty good too. A future Bomber?
Bludger
Guest
Got knocked out cold in my last match. Knew it was time to do something else then. If you were the one who did the gutless act to me, I would play on just to bury your worthless ass and then quit. As my old man taught me, "an eye for an eye!"
Ross the Boss
Guest
Said by someone too crap and timid to be good at AFL...
Bludger
Guest
This issue is completely overblown. If you are unfortunate enough to cop head knocks and are concerned, then it is time to hang up the boots and head to the golf course. It is already against the law, always has been against the laws of the sport to tackle or touch an opponent higher than the shoulders. If a player is ducking, ala Joel Selwooding, then too bad, too sad. See you down at Bedlam.
Chanon
Roar Rookie
Ah meant WCE won by 100 wrong team same ground
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Not sure what you're getting at there.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
What pot shots?
Shinboner 1971
Roar Rookie
I find it interesting that so many people have been interested in the Cripps/Ah Chee incident yet no one even raised an eyebrow when Ben McKay was kicked in the head against Gold Coast earlier in the season. The umpires didn't care (or at least that is how it appeared as none of them checked to see how he was doing) and allowed Gold Coast to play on and kick a goal. The MRO called it a accident and no penalty was issued. Either the head is sacrosanct and every incident is treated as serious or we go back to bad old days. At the moment it is all too confusing.
Chanon
Roar Rookie
Oh well onwards & upwards for bombers lots of change afoot.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Absolutely. You can't offer a senior coach's job to someone else while the position isn't even vacant. And it's not as if any of those who voted to sack Rutten on Sunday would have decided differently six days earlier. It was just so backwards.
Ross the Boss
Guest
It could be worse though...there was a poster last week who reckons Rutten has grounds to sue! :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: There are some absolute bell ends on this website.
Ross the Boss
Guest
Great post Daddy. I'm going to skip the Cripps bit as it's been done to death. Spot on about Essendon and Rutten. That's the nature of the industry. It is never personal. It's also why coaches are well compensated and sign contracts ensuring they get every last dollar owed to them in the event of early termination. Rutten will bounce back. I'd rather be an AFL coach than being a European football manager. Half the managers were sacked last season. Most were not just sacked, but had the indignity of walking onto the pitch the week before with a packed stadium chanting for you to be sacked. I doubt Stuart would show the same sympathy to the conga line of politicians who are summarily dismissed either by their party or by the electorate. Some industries are just more brutal than others. There can't be justice everywhere.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
A poor article for a number of reasons: 1. The AFL did the right thing by sending the Cripps case to the Independent Tribunal. They found Cripps guilty, but it was overturned on a technicality. 2. You're linking head injury and mental health issues erroneously or by subterfuge. I suspect it's the latter in an attempt to denigrate the AFL. The only people I respect on this site are the ones who a) give their opinion and b) provide a solution rather than just whining. The Cripps case was overturned simply because the AFL could not prosecute it effectively due to the rules not being clear. I outlined how Line of Sight must be written into the laws to clarify onus and Duty of Care. I have emailed these ideas to the AFL. The Essendon debacle is one of opinion. However, I will point out that other competitions are just as ruthless, if not more. Clarkson was asked his opinion and referenced elite competitions worldwide that he's been involved in, outlining how this is often the norm. Rutten knew exactly what he was getting into when he signed a senior coaching contract with the Essendon Football Club. He's a grown man and will get over it. As for Zorko — the public has condemned his actions. It was an inappropriate comment, but unless you plan on legislating sledging, I suggest you don't go there, Stuart. What he said, to some, is water off a duck's back; for others, highly insulting. They'd want a good legal reason if the AFL or Players Association were involved. The apology was good enough for Melbourne; it's good enough for me. We're all adults...move on. The AFL needs to work better with the clubs on head-high contact. This will involve extensive liasing over the years because you need to break the problem down to solve it. The Cripps case is about the attack on the ball vs Duty of Care. If the consequences of a lack of Duty of Care do not outweigh the benefits of pressure on the ball, teams will continue to choose the latter to gain a competitive edge.
Chanon
Roar Rookie
Don fond memories of R12. Home away from Home :stoked:
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Way too light for our AA defence. He'll play back.