18 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Yes it was dumb, but you don’t get weeks for being dumb, you get weeks for actual rule breaches.

This is a terrible adjudication of the rules. It’s simply not high impact.

The rules says it’s high impact if it can cause damage to the victim even if, in actuality, it did not. On that basis, the club needs more to sustain an appeal and the visuals are pretty damaging on the face of it.

Hoping that Jack Viney is fit and ready to play on Friday night to offset Kozzie’s absence. 

3 minutes ago, david_neitz_is_my_dad said:

Giving Franklin just 1 week for his hit is rubbing salt into the wounds. He will be free to play us now

May will be back and he owns Buddy so all good.

5 minutes ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

IMHO . . . 

Those that are arguing for one week and comparing Kossi's sanction to dumps handed out by others, are overlooking one basic fundamental fact about the human experience. There is no justice in the world. And operating under the illusion that there is only causes sorrow and pain. 

As they say about the court system - it’s not a court of justice, it’s a court of law.

9 minutes ago, david_neitz_is_my_dad said:

Giving Franklin just 1 week for his hit is rubbing salt into the wounds. He will be free to play us now

If May is back, Buddy might fake an injury to avoid another smashing

17 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

Lo and behold we play West Coast in round 4. Vested interest much?

If we take off our red and blue glasses for a moment, I think two weeks is a fair outcome. It is perfectly possible for a high impact collision not to cause serious injury, particularly if players do not connect directly with the head. But Kozzie's deliberate leap off the ground at high momentum showed reckless intention and had the potential to do significant damage. Although his absence will leave a big hole he needs to learn to temper his natural aggression with common sense. We would not like to have seen an opposition player do that to any of ours. A couple of years ago, he would probably have got away with one week, but the rules on any kind of violent and illegal contact are rightly being tightened. Let us at least hope that this season we will get some consistency on this kind of disciplinary action.

Edited March 19, 20232 yr by Dee-monic
Spelling correction

Two weeks is a fair outcome. BUT, you can’t look at one without the other. Buddy got graded medium impact. Kosi graded high. Smith played on. Buddy’s opponent had to come off for a concussion test. It is just so unfair! 

31 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Because they upgrade the level based on potential to cause injury. i.e. it's as much about how dangerous a tackle is as the outcome.

Well if that’s what the rule is, I change my view.

So if I understand correctly now, it’s one guy’s opinion of what level of danger was in the action. That’s a wonderful rule, that will see a lot of consistency in decisions.

I'm not to worried if it means fritta comes back

5 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

The rules says it’s high impact if it can cause damage to the victim even if, in actuality, it did not. On that basis, the club needs more to sustain an appeal and the visuals are pretty damaging on the face of it.

Hoping that Jack Viney is fit and ready to play on Friday night to offset Kozzie’s absence. 

I really don't get how you can be punished on the basis of what might be.

Either the other party was injured/concussed or not. Is intent somehow being read into this?

If the MRO is now including a factor called 'potential to cause injury', then they should not bury it under the level of impact but instead have a seperate line for potential to cause injury.  Furthermore, there should be levels for that, just like they have for impact. 

6 minutes ago, sue said:

If the MRO is now including a factor called 'potential to cause injury', then they should not bury it under the level of impact but instead have a seperate line for potential to cause injury.  Furthermore, there should be levels for that, just like they have for impact. 

If not that, some more fleshing out how and why things were graded how they were. 

Considering all the concussion talk going on at the moment Pickett is lucky to get 2 weeks, the AFL loves nothing more than taking a stand on the issue of the week.  
 

Cop the 2 weeks and move on. 

171cm (5'7") demon giant terrorises dogs

49 minutes ago, DubDee said:

I hear you, but can you honestly look at the two incidents without thinking of all the BS gradings and not think that Kozzi deserves more weeks than Buddy?  The ball was in dispute with Buddy, he was on the ground.  Kozzi, the ball was gone

I know what you mean,  but Buddy could have easily avoided all contact but chose not to. The other player was bending down to get the ball, and did not see him coming.

12 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

I really don't get how you can be punished on the basis of what might be.

Either the other party was injured/concussed or not. Is intent somehow being read into this?

i hear ya but it is punishing the action rather than the outcome which i think is the way it should be

35 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

The rules says it’s high impact if it can cause damage to the victim even if, in actuality, it did not. On that basis, the club needs more to sustain an appeal and the visuals are pretty damaging on the face of it.

Hoping that Jack Viney is fit and ready to play on Friday night to offset Kozzie’s absence. 

thank you for providing some sense to this thread!

3 minutes ago, Red and Bluebeard said:

I know what you mean,  but Buddy could have easily avoided all contact but chose not to. The other player was bending down to get the ball, and did not see him coming.

true. but i reckon one week if fair. a drive by clip. buddy has gotten away with fines in the past for these but deserved a week

Edited March 19, 20232 yr by DubDee

I can see "some" logic in upgrading  the impact rating (albeit subjective without any specific guidelines), but this was low impact and has been upgraded two levels not one.

that needs to be at least challenged

24 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Two weeks is a fair outcome. BUT, you can’t look at one without the other. Buddy got graded medium impact. Kosi graded high. Smith played on. Buddy’s opponent had to come off for a concussion test. It is just so unfair! 

you honestly think Buddy deserves the same punishment as Kozzi??

Just now, DubDee said:

you honestly think Buddy deserves the same punishment as Kozzi??

You honestly think the impact grading for both incidents shouldn’t be the same, when one player came off for a concussion test and one went on to get 30 touches?

4 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

You honestly think the impact grading for both incidents shouldn’t be the same, when one player came off for a concussion test and one went on to get 30 touches?

of course not. completely different incidents. one was a clip to the head. other was a flying tackle to the chest, hitting high later. 

apples and oranges

If anyone's interested, here are the current guidelines. Quite specific I would say. Page 10 is probably the one you want (re impact).

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2023/03/01/9c9bdc05-2377-4ffb-a8a0-885835edcaf1/2023-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

Careless? Certainly.

High contact? Barely.

High impact? No way. 

It was stupid and a bad look, but if we aren't fighting this to be downgraded to a one week or a fine, I'll be very disappointed.

3 minutes ago, DubDee said:

i hear ya but it is punishing the action rather than the outcome which i think is the way it should be

Fair enough Dub but every time players tackle or clash in an aerial contest there is potential for injury. These are big hard bodied athletes moving at high speed. There are numerous opportunities for bad outcomes from innocent acts.

What concerns me is that once litigators / lawyers get into the act the game will change fundamentally.

I hope this doesn't sound like I'm going down the the reductio ad absurdum  track but once some sort of a lawsuit occurs will we get to the point where tackling is litigated out of the game ?