3 minute read
The AFL has accepted the contentious appeals board decision to overturn Patrick Cripps' two-game ban but will "closely review" the call.
The AFL has not ruled out making changes to the tribunal process after Carlton were able to overturn a two-game ban for Patrick Cripps on appeal.
In one of the AFL's most controversial tribunal cases, Cripps was freed to play in the Blues' crucial last two home-and-away matches after a marathon appeals hearing on Thursday night.
The AFL has accepted the call but will "closely review" the reasons why the appeals board overturned the match review officer's rough conduct charge for Cripps.
The AFL's executive football manager Andrew Dillon said the league would not "shy away" from making changes to tribunal procedures, if necessary.
"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.
The star Blues midfielder collided with Brisbane's Callum Ah Chee during last Sunday's game at the Gabba, leaving the Lions utility with concussion.
The incident was graded as careless, high impact and high contact, with the tribunal panel on Tuesday upholding that verdict.
But Carlton rolled the dice by going to the appeals board and won their case after four-and-a-half hours on Thursday night.
"(It) probably played out as we'd hoped," Blues coach Michael Voss said on Friday.
"(That was) our read on it at the start, we maintained that and thankfully the appeals board saw it that way as well."
Voss hopes the decision will give "more clarity" about what players can do on the field.
"The interpretation of that we felt like it was going to come out that way, we were obviously left a little bit disappointed with the outcome of the tribunal and we followed through the appeals process," Voss said.
"I think the game still lends to evenly contesting the ball and that's not changed.
"The rules state it that way and that's the way we read the rules and interpret the situation and we followed through on that.
"Maybe that gives greater clarity for everyone but the fact is we felt like we had a really great case."