Jack Crisp’s involvement in an ugly video that went viral late Wednesday is both more consequential and less predictable for Collingwood and the AFL than the pre-season snafu that resulted in his teammate Jack Ginnivan receiving a two-match ban.
Whereas Ginnivan was captured on video in possession of an illicit substance, a matter of days after the event, Crisp’s situation is less clear-cut and will be heavily influenced by what he tells the AFL – and how the league reacts and whether there is any corroborating evidence – when the dual best and fairest sits down with the integrity unit next week.
Collingwood’s Jack Crisp will speak to the AFL next week.Credit: The Age, Getty Images
Crisp’s video is said to be historical – which means it was recorded years, rather than days or even months ago. As Collingwood football boss Graham Wright noted, this is a contrast to the Ginnivan video, which was recorded shortly after a pre-season training camp this year. Ginnivan was not in a position to dispute the essential facts of his case.
The AFL will have to determine whether the captions that are underneath the images – which include lewd and inappropriate comments about women – are the work of Crisp, or someone else.
Crisp warms up for Collingwood prior to the clash with the Brisbane Lions.Credit: AFL Photos
They will rely on Crisp’s testimony and his willingness to be truthful in detailing what he did or did not contribute to the captions. There will also be a question of whether those bags of powder were in his possession or not.
The easiest decision for Collingwood and the AFL was that of permitting Crisp to line up against his old team, the Lions, on Good Friday eve, since they had not enough time to interview him or to ascertain enough of the facts to make a call on whether he should be suspended for conduct unbecoming.
If the captions are indeed found to be authored by Crisp, then one would imagine that the AFL will take punitive action, particularly in the view of the captions that describe women.
One photo shows two bags of something, but Crisp is not in that image. What’s in the bags? The AFL obviously will ask the Collingwood gun whether those bags were in his possession and, if so, about their contents.
For Collingwood, the stakes are reasonably high given that the Magpies could hardly have started the season better; up until Crisp’s video, the only fly in the ointment for Craig McRae has been the loss of the club’s recognised ruckmen, an issue that forced them to recast their side against the Lions and improvise.
In examining Shane Mumford, Bailey Smith last year, and Ginnivan, the AFL standard penalty for a viral video that shows a player in the act of participating in drug use is two matches. But if the player isn’t in the same frame as the bag, it becomes harder to hang him on that count. Then there is also the matter of whether the comments about women warrant punishment, but that can only be considered if Crisp is the author of the captions.
Western Bulldogs star Bailey Smith.Credit: Getty Images
Another question for the AFL to ponder is whether the player put this video up into the social media sewers, or if it was a private message that was leaked out by another party. Snapchat – considered a platform for people much younger than this columnist – is an outlet that is meant to be for only fleeting, disposable messages.
But as Jake Carlisle discovered in 2015 when he took a Snapchat selfie of himself inhaling a line of power – and which ended up on national television just as the Saints had completed the paperwork for a trade with Essendon – these brief moments can easily be filmed and or photographed and then circulated widely.
A footballer who posts offensive material on platforms that aren’t private is begging for trouble, yet such missteps are not uncommon in the football fraternity. It is more forgivable if the communication was private and then leaked, albeit something really shocking and distasteful will still cause trouble for the player. In Crisp’s case, the most difficult part of this video is the impact on his family.
The Pies would miss Crisp sorely if he was rubbed out, even for just a week. He’s much more important to the team performance than Ginnivan.
For the AFL and the 18 clubs, the issue of handling these videos that go viral is becoming more and more worrisome – social media videos/photos account for a high percentage of all player-related scandals, especially in the realm of illicit drugs, and the competition’s brand protection imperatives mean the player will often pay the price if he is found holding the bag, to so speak.
A problem for the clubs and competition is that members of the public and fans of rival clubs can potentially weaponise a video of a star player, releasing the toxic images into the social media swirl before a big game or final. One club boss said he felt that this was appeared to be where the game was heading.
Club officials know that there would be dozens and dozens of unpleasant or damaging videos – of players displaying genitals and so forth – out there somewhere on the internet, or saved on someone’s phone, ready to detonate.
The answer for the modern player, obviously, is to avoid doing anything that could bring shame. And for those who can’t exercise sufficient self-control, then avoiding posting the offensive stuff, or having it recorded.
Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.
