His counsel Peter O’Farrell mentioned there was a variety of cheap responses to the state of affairs each gamers discovered themselves in when a spoil from the Lions’ Daniel Wealthy bounced above eye stage and it was crucial in figuring out the extent of Cripps’ legal responsibility to simply accept that neither participant had possession of the ball once they each entered the competition.
Though not disputing that the Blues’ midfielder had his eyes on the ball, AFL counsel Nicholas Pane QC argued that Cripps had different choices and will have entered the competition with arms outstretched or tapped the ball on.
Pane mentioned it was not cheap for Cripps to contest the ball in the way in which he did given he would have been conscious he was prone to collide with Ah Chee.
He mentioned the case rested on whether or not contact was “half and parcel of contesting the ball” and in his view it was not. Pane mentioned contact with Ah Chee was late and Cripps ought to have recognised that his opponent was weak and subsequently entered the competition otherwise.
Footage confirmed that Cripps entered the competition earlier than Ah Chee had taken possession of the ball with each gamers leaping concurrently to win the ball.
O’Farrell mentioned the collision occurred with each gamers appearing fairly and subsequently there was no have to argue whether or not it was careless. O’Farrell mentioned Cripps had taken a straight line to the ball as Ah-Chee drifted again throughout him to additionally contest the possession.
He mentioned it was not a bump subsequently Cripps couldn’t be discovered responsible of tough conduct.
“It was a collision in an aerial contest and the cost can’t be sustained,” O’Farrell mentioned.
“There was no bump. Cripps was contesting the ball always.”
In an earlier attraction West Coast midfielder Tim Kelly had his cost of tough conduct for a harmful deal with on Adelaide’s Jarrod Berry upheld which means he’ll miss Sunday’s derby in opposition to Fremantle.
