Patrick Cripps: Reaction from the football industry as bump rule thrown into chaos

Footy’s bump rule is in turmoil after the suspension of Patrick Cripps was overturned. A concussion expert and football greats have weighed in.

Footy’s bump rule has been thrown into chaos as an Appeals Board decision to overturn Patrick Cripps’ suspension was described as an alarming precedent for the game.

Cripps had his two-match ban scrapped for the high bump that concussed Brisbane’s Cal Ah Chee, allowing him to take on Melbourne on Saturday night.

But amid uproar in the football community as premiership defender David King describing the league as “lost”, the league refused to clarify what the decision meant for the bump rule for the rest of the season.

The league forecast potential changes to its match review guidelines but declined to appeal the Cripps decision to a court of law.

Watch every blockbuster AFL match this weekend Live & Ad-Break Free In-Play on Kayo. New to Kayo? Start your free trial now >

LIONS MEMBER

So Cripps can take on Melbourne and Collingwood as the Blues seek a victory that would seal their finals spot, with the Carlton captain again eligible for the Brownlow Medal.

The AFL said it was too early to decide if it would harden its rules around collisions that caused head contact at the end of the year, but would not rule it out.

It came as former AFL concussion researcher Alan Pearce said the league’s statements were rhetoric when players who concussed rivals with high bumps continued to get off on “technicalities”.

Executive general manager of football Andrew Dillon said health and safety of players was of “paramount” importance and would continue to inform the AFL’s ongoing work.

“The health and safety of our players is of paramount importance to the AFL and we will continue to evaluate and, where necessary, act to prioritise that objective in relation to the occurrence of concussion and other injuries in the playing of our game.” Dillon said.

Neither Dillon or football boss Brad Scott were available to clarify how players should approach contests after the appeals court ruled Cripps was not bumping Ah Chee despite jumping off the ground and turning to brace.

Collingwood premiership star Tony Shaw said of the decision on Friday: “Good luck to Patty Cripps but this has set a worrying precedent. You can now bump someone in the head to contest the ball without an action to mark, grab or spoil the ball.”

Good luck to Patty Cripps but this has set a worrying precedent. You can now bump someone in the head to contest the ball without an action to mark, grab or spoil the ball

— Tony Shaw (@TonyShaw22) August 11, 2022

King told SEN Scott was missing in action on the game’s big issues.

“I think the game has never been more lost than what it is now. No one knows what dissent is, what holding the ball is, what protecting the head is, no one knows what’s a fair contest and what isn’t,” he said.

Concussion researcher Pearce, now with Neurosports Labs, said the Cripps action would be echoed through the lower leagues as soon as this weekend.

“The AFL says in its statement health and wellbeing is the top priority but it’s hard to believe the rhetoric when you see Cripps and other players getting off on a technicality,” he said.

“For me the bigger picture is what does it say about suburban leagues and junior leagues with kids emulating their heroes. My concern is the knock-on effect. Kids are saying I can see my hero doing that and it is legal so I will do what he does.”

Concussion campaigner Peter Jess said the league had totally ignored the significant damage to Ah Chee that would now need to be monitored after his initial concussion.

“I think the missing piece in this is the victim statement. Normally when you have a violent collision the first thing you ask about is the victim? Tell me why Ah Chee is going to miss one or two games? So the rules have got to change? They have to be clear-cut. If someone is concussed and missed games, how can there be a successful appeal?”

But Carlton coach Michael Voss said the decision upheld the capacity of players to contest the ball.

“I hope it actually gives more clarity in some ways. We always felt like, as a player, you have an ability to be able to contest the ball. That was the initial feel we had and we maintain that.

“We were obviously left a little bit disappointed with the outcome of the tribunal and we followed through the appeals process. I think the game still lends to evenly contesting the ball and that’s not changed.”

Ralph: AFL must explain high-hit rules after Cripps-gate

Nothing will ever beat 2013.

Exactly nine years ago today, Essendon was booted from the finals for its role in the supplements scandal with James Hird banned from the game for 12 months.

The lucky recipient, of course, was Carlton.

That extraordinary drama as the Blues were parachuted into the finals and knocked off Richmond on a perfect spring day in front of 94,960 fans was perfect football theatre.

On Thursday night Patrick Cripps won the AFL appeals decision that could set up another potentially deep finals run with its own lashing of drama.

After four hours of dense legal argument his advocate Christopher Townsend was able to convince Richard Loverage and Stephen Jurica that Cripps had genuinely contested the ball in the collision that concussed Cal Ah Chee.

So Carlton’s star midfielder returns to take on Melbourne, then Collingwood as the Blues scrape and claw for the final victory to qualify for finals after six losses in the past 10 games.

Talk about Box Office Appeal.

Brilliant for Cripps, who across his career has made the ball his objective. But I assume we either get an AFL appeal today or Brad Scott fronting the cameras to explain the rules from now on in. Under current rules that collision was a clear suspension https://t.co/jZRXpJ0Lvf

— Jon Ralph (@RalphyHeraldSun) August 11, 2022

For all the Carlton fans screaming conspiracy on social media that dark forces were attempting to ban their captain, the reality is Carlton’s march into September ticks every box for maximum appeal.

The only problem with that narrative is that confusion now reigns supreme.

Because regardless of the result of the appeals board, the Cripps bump was under the AFL’s own rules exactly the kind of incident it wants out of the game.

The Blues won their appeal on both counts, with the appeals board stating there was an error of law and that the decision was so unreasonable it required reversing.

They argued the tribunal decided Cripps cripped bumped Ah Chee when tribunal chairman Jeff Gleeson had not asked Cripps or his counsel about the use of a ‘bump’.

And the appeals board also decided Cripps had contested the ball, stating: “The video did not reveal a bump, it set out as a contest for the ball that resulted in a collision”.

The AFL has an independent process for exactly this reason - to weigh evidence and come to conclusions set apart from AFL House.

But the Cripps decision as a precedent is a disaster for the league.

It is exactly the kind of bump the AFL would attempt to penalise if it happened across the coming weekend.

With the clock ticking on the bounce for the start of round 22, the AFL needs clarity across the competition.

Are players now allowed to bump to concuss as Cripps did? Picture: Getty Images

Are players now allowed to bump to concuss as long as they have their eyes on the ball, even if they turn side-on to brace as Cripps did?

What the hell does Michael Christian do when he gets a similar incident, given under AFL guidelines he had no choice but to suspend Cripps for two weeks?

How should coaches who have told their players to tackle instead of bump instruct them to enter contests?

What are the ex-players fighting so desperately for funding and compensation for the fall-out from concussion to believe of the AFL’s stance on reducing head knocks in the game.

Not to mention the likes of Greg Griffin, assembling a concussion law suit against the AFL as we speak?

It is why we need an explanation from football boss Brad Scott today about whether players are allowed to jump off the ground, turn sideways and hit an opponent high in a manner that concusses them _ even if their eyes remain on the ball.

Even Carlton fans would concede the head needs to be protected in a week where Blues legend Kenny Hunter spoke about establishing a foundation to help men with mental health.

Hunter believes the severe depression he suffered in his career were the result of the 20-odd concussions he received playing the game.

We have been strongly forging down a path where suspensions from incidents like the Cripps hit disincentive players from attempting similar actions.

It was tough on players like Cripps, attempting to change the course of the Lions game with legal physicality and only a split-second late in the contest.

But it made the game safer for current players so we reduced the fallout players like Hunter suffered.

Now we are clear as mud again, and only the AFL can provide clarity.

Legal experts said on Friday the only grounds the AFL had to appeal the Appeals Court ruling would be to a higher court, which is extremely unlikely.It makes an explanation from Brad Scott all the more necessary.

Originally published as Patrick Cripps: Reaction from the football industry as bump rule thrown into chaos