When  you compare this farcical outcome to what  Cripps  received from actually knocking out his direct opponent.

You know the afl tribunal a corrupt entity. The club must appeal this moronic decision!

Different sets of rules for different club will not stand.

So surely bad outcomes (resulting in concussion) are more important than intent (resulting in zero concussion)

So if we compare the Buddy one to Kozzie in terms of intent/outcome, it's 1 tick for Kozzie but 2 ticks for Buddy

Yet Kozzie gets 2 weeks and Buddy 1 week

 

Edited March 19, 20232 yr by Macca

1 minute ago, Wilbur said:

When  you compare this farcical outcome to what  Cripps  received from actually knocking out his direct opponent.

You know the afl tribunal a corrupt entity. The club must appeal this moronic decision!

Different sets of rules for different club will not stand.

The AFL weren’t happy with it and changed the rules to reduce the possibility of the Cripps farce happening again.

16 minutes ago, bing181 said:

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

Quote

Any Careless or Intentional Forceful Front-On Conduct where High Contact has been made and that has the potential to cause injury will usually be graded at a minimum as Medium Impact, even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low.

so, it needs to be established then why a low impact was graded higher than the expected medium

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

How can no damage be high impact?

Because the MRO is allowed to grade based on the potential to cause injury. As the tribunal/MRO guidelines state - "The absence of injury does not preclude the classification of impact as Severe.".

In Koz's case specifically I think he's been done based on two points - 

1 - High bumps, particularly with significant head contact and/or Player momentum
and
2 - Any contact that occurs when the Victim Player should not reasonably be expecting or is not reasonably prepared for contact (i.e. contact off the ball)

Hard to argue that Koz wasn't coming in like a bat out of hell and that it was without a doubt a late bump.

While I hope we appeal, I don't like our chances. I think it's a fair assessment overall.

I'm also not sure how concussing someone isn't automatically high impact. If the potential to cause injury is high impact, then surely causing injury is also high impact?

Edited March 19, 20232 yr by deva5610

Smith ought to be on KPs Christmas card list

 

Aside the heinous mullet, class act 

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

so, it needs to be established then why a low impact was graded higher than the expected medium

Key word there is minimum, they might have better luck arguing it wasn’t front on but side on and therefore that doesn’t need to apply and it can be downgraded to low

The Petty high contact that happened yesterday was interesting and related here in terms of head-high contact ... yet no report

Sure, Petty ducked his head so he wasn't going to win a high contact free but the tackler gave him plenty of '"After's" to a point where it became purposeful high contact and quite dangerous

The outcome was 'play on'?

My point is that if intent is going to be clamped down and highlighted then incidents where a player like Petty having his neck wrenched has to be cited

The law of inintended consequences comes into play if the duckers get singled out ... it can't be a licence for the tackler to go willy-nilly on the neck area

 

49 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. 

Challenge in a court of law The AFL HATE THAT!!

So the 'potential' is the AFLs way of manipulating suspensions. This is FIFA territory. What a sham.

Every one knows why he got singled out. Because he is such a good player, and he plays for us

The AFL are probably a group of senile Royal Caledonian Buffalo Society members who fall asleep at every meeting they attend.  

Happy with two. Was reminiscent of Uncle Byron. Was fearing the worst.

8 minutes ago, dee-tox said:

Happy with two. Was reminiscent of Uncle Byron. Was fearing the worst.

As much as I hate it …I’d take 2 as well. My reasoning is play under as much adversity at the start of the season ..can only hold us in good stead for the back end. Kozzie will learn to pull back a bit & as a club we learn to deal with best 22 players missing & testing our depth . 

6 minutes ago, Deestar9 said:

As much as I hate it …I’d take 2 as well. My reasoning is play under as much adversity at the start of the season ..can only hold us in good stead for the back end. Kozzie will learn to pull back a bit & as a club we learn to deal with best 22 players missing & testing our depth . 

but goody says it wants him to keep playing on the edge

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

but goody says it wants him to keep playing on the edge

Absolutely agree with Goody but you learn to temper your aggression  & bump  legally 

3 hours ago, Stiff Arm said:

"Shall we darnce?"

LOVE KOZZY but he was always going to be made example of in a week when concussion is on the minds of those at AFL house.

1 hour ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

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 ?

i don’t want that either. if you isolate off the ball or late hits then it makes it easier. you could elbow a bloke with same action twice and depending on his position it could be a broken jaw or he could be right to play on. do we let one guy off for the same action?

it’s an interesting discussion 

Didn’t like it, could’ve killed the bloke

poor effort from Kozzie 

Take the two weeks & move on

Cripps got off on a legal technicality.  He went on to win the 2022 Brownlow.  At appeal, Carlton brought in a QC.  The act itself was never questioned, only procedural fairness of the mechanics of the MRO and Tribunal.  As a result, the AFL changed the 'law'. 

The debate as to whether Kozzie deserves suspension or not is understandable, but to me, there is no natural justice in this decision, based on the Cripps ruling and the Franklin decision.  Disgraceful in my view.

8 hours ago, Macca said:

Cripps getting off allows Kozzie to get off.  But whether that happens or not (getting off) is subjective and obscure.  The MRO is often inconsistent as is the tribunal

Maybe the best course of action is to argue and (possibly) appeal with a view to limiting the suspension to 1 week (which isn't too bad of an outcome) 

I'd take 1 week if it came to that and get on with it ... get him back for the Sydney game

Fritsch & Viney could be back next week and May is an outside chance so the make-up of the team will still be super-strong for the Lions clash (especially when analysing our dismantling of the Doggies last night)

This is totally irrelevant: the issue is that it is not an equal system. What Cripps can do, others can't. What Buddy does, ditto. The other aspect which has not been mentioned once - within  my demented earshot anyway - is this is not normal Kozzie behavior, in that he has no 'form' in this regard. Had Smith been injured, a suspension might have been suitable, but to ping a player for 2 weeks for a spur of the moment on field decision - especially in the context that I could name two dozen players who have committed far worse crimes yet walked away with not even the sentence of a Hail Mary as penitence, is to put it mildly, sickening.

2 hours ago, deegirl said:

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. 

 

1 hour ago, Macca said:

So surely bad outcomes (resulting in concussion) are more important than intent (resulting in zero concussion)

So if we compare the Buddy one to Kozzie in terms of intent/outcome, it's 1 tick for Kozzie but 2 ticks for Buddy

Yet Kozzie gets 2 weeks and Buddy 1 week

 

 

56 minutes ago, mandeelorian said:

LOVE KOZZY but he was always going to be made example of in a week when concussion is on the minds of those at AFL house.

The relativity of the two suspensions is what is infuriating.

One caused a player to go off, potentially concussed, the other caused no injury.

The former gets one week; the latter two.    And they wonder why some suggest that there is corruption in the AFL judicial system.

 

I go back to my point. Kossie was giving angry signals before the incident. What was said....

6 hours ago, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

first highlight in this package shows a very similar action. Defence team needs to argue it’s always been a part of his game and not outside the rules

 

Not quite sure what the similarity is. He followed up tp protect and give safe passage tp his team -mate who was heading towards goal. To insinuate that Pickett has a history of attack is almost insane.