Kysaiah Pickett on report

[titan_uranus 25,045]

11 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i'm not so sure you can write off kossy's actions as being a "npn-football act".

kossy is lightning fast and has noticeably and miraculously smothered or deflected opposition disposals in the past where others wouldn't have had a chance in hell. sure, he got his timing wrong here but once he committed that was it. he deserved to be reported but not on the basis it was a "non-football act". even the mro rated it as careless rather than deliberate.

Just now, daisycutter said:

macca i think "deliberate" (or "intentional") means that he intended the offence, i.e. striking head high. His badly timed attempt at a smother was deliberate but not to strike high which was why it was classified careless.. 

does that make sense?

I don't agree at all that it was just a "badly timed attempt at a smother". He decided to bump. IMO, it's a non-football act because he had time to decide what he was doing and it was unnecessary. It maybe isn't as far removed from the game as an off-ball punch, but I don't at all accept it was just an in-game smother gone wrong.

I don't think the sport should tolerate that sort of thing happening. It's unnecessary.

[daisycutter 29,743]

4 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I don't agree at all that it was just a "badly timed attempt at a smother". He decided to bump. IMO, it's a non-football act because he had time to decide what he was doing and it was unnecessary. It maybe isn't as far removed from the game as an off-ball punch, but I don't at all accept it was just an in-game smother gone wrong.

I don't think the sport should tolerate that sort of thing happening. It's unnecessary.

actually i agree that smother was the wrong word i meant to really say that he wanted to deflect the disposal by bumping him as he was kicking but he timed it badly. if smith had delayed his kick by a second he might have succeeded, so yes that's on kossy....but that is why i thought it was somewhat footy related and not just malice

my bad choice of words originally

[Macca 17,034]

49 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

macca i think "deliberate" (or "intentional") means that he intended the offence, i.e. striking head high. His badly timed attempt at a smother was deliberate but not to strike high which was why it was classified careless.. 

does that make sense?

I reckon he lined him up and the optics kind of back that up but I'm arguing outcomes anyway.  Smith was perfectly fine from the 'hit' ... but was it a hit? It looked like it was but not from Smith's reaction

As he hit him I thought that's going to be 3 weeks but because Smith bounced back up (rapidly) I thought maybe 1 week.  All in a split second

The whole language and jargon from the MRO is vague and inconsistent.  All the technical talk lacks common sense. 

Happens in other sports too.  In cricket instead of concentrating on the correct adjudications 100% of the time it's now become a battle of 'reviews' for a lot of the time.  Result - inconsistent outcomes

Edited March 19, 2023 by Macca

[Gawndy the Great 9,011]

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

The fundamental problem is with the system. The box-ticking mechanism for grading incidents is broken and has been for years. It results in some actions being unpunished or fined when they deserve suspension (we see this commonly with punches and elbows) and other actions being overly punished when they shouldn't be (we see this commonly with sling tackles, which are routine football actions gone slightly wrong).

The system here results in a difficult-to-accept situation in which Franklin concusses someone and gets graded lesser impact than Pickett who does no damage. We know this is because the MRO is allowed to upgrade severity of impact to account for potential, and I agree with that in theory, but the Guidelines don't explain how he's supposed to do it and here he's lifted Pickett's action by two grades, not one. 

IMO I don't think a two week penalty for his action is unreasonable at all. What he did was completely unnecessary, in no way was he contesting the ball or doing something he couldn't avoid, and the way he did it could have seriously injured Smith. I have, for years, argued that the system needs to focus more on the action than the outcome, so that we start properly punishing dirty Cotchin-style elbows and we stop overly punishing Chandler-style tackles which go wrong. So IMO, it is absolutely right to punish Pickett for doing something that could have seriously injured Smith. But the way we've come to this two-week penalty is deeply flawed, and I suspect those on here who think he should have received a lesser penalty are thinking about Buddy, and Cotchin, and Cripps, and Hawkins, and all the other "big names" who have escaped punishment for other actions. That's fair, but not a good reason for Pickett to escape punishment.

It makes you wonder that with all the brainpower and legal know-how in the AFL, how the MRO is still in disarray.

Give the problem to ChatGPT - it’ll get solved in a microsecond.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Gawndy the Great

[spirit of norm smith 16,589]

From the Age

Match review officer Michael Christian classified Pickett’s rough conduct charge as careless conduct, high impact and high contact.

Christian’s high-impact call was critical to the finding, given Smith quickly bounced to his feet, avoided an injury and played the match out.

Pickett could have escaped with even a fine in the scenario the impact was judged to be low, and typically cases where a bump does not cause injury are graded no worse than medium impact.

 

but 

it wasn’t high contact as Smith was hit in the upper torso. No HIA was called upon. 

but 

it wasn’t high impact as Smith got straight up and played the rest of the game.  
 

SIMPLY MUST CONTEST OR LET THIS INJUSTICE CONTINUE 

Edited March 19, 2023 by spirit of norm smith
Ridiculous MATCH REVIEW PANEL

[spirit of norm smith 16,589]

2 hours ago, The Corridor said:

The relative decisions on Franklin and Kozzie are hard to stomach. In Franklin's incident, actual realised harm occurred (concussion), and yet it is punished less severely than the potential of that exact harm occurring in Kozzie's case. Needless to say it is unhelpful to have further unnecessary greyness added in, which has the potential to be abused in the cases like the Franklin versus Kozzie incident. 

It also seems that the MRO has looked at the impact level of the primary contact with the shoulder, and applied the same to the secondary contact with Smith's head which followed. If the impact was actually high to the head, or if the primary contact to the shoulder of this hit actually had that much potential to cause injury he would have been certainly concussed and would not have immediately risen to his feet.

I think most of us would not justify the nature of the hit. But the application of the rules is important and shouldn't be made up to fit the narrative.  

 

Ditto

[DutchDemons 1,430]

7 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Pickett could have escaped with even a fine in the scenario the impact was judged to be low, and typically cases where a bump does not cause injury are graded no worse than medium impact.

 

 

 

but 

it wasn’t high contact as Smith was hit in the upper torso. No HIA was called upon. 

but 

it wasn’t high impact as Smith got straight up and played the rest of the game.  
 

SIMPLY MUST CONTEST OR LET THIS INJUSTICE CONTINUE 

Isn't this kind of lazy or disingenuous reporting by The Age though? One of the changes to the system this year is that:

Quote

3. Potential to cause injury for Body Contact

The Tribunal Guidelines previously provided that where contact is both High and to the Body, the MRO will classify the contact as High even in circumstances where the Body contact is significantly greater than the High contact.

The Tribunal Guidelines have been amended to provide that the MRO has the discretion to grade an incident as Body contact where the impact to the Body is more significant than the High contact (i.e. where the High contact is only glancing but significant Body contact is made which would result in a more significant sanction).

From https://www.afl.com.au/news/878231/2023-amendments-to-afl-tribunal-guidelines

So it doesn't matter what was typically done in the past because the system has been changed?

Also in Section 4.2 of the tribunal guidelines it says regarding impact:

 

Quote

(B) IMPACT
Consideration will be given as to whether the Impact is Low, Medium,
High or Severe. In determining the level of Impact, regard will be had
to several factors.

Firstly, consideration will be given to the extent of force and in particular,
any injury sustained by the Player who was offended against. The absence
of injury does not preclude the classification of impact as Severe.
Secondly, the potential to cause injury must be factored into the
determination of Impact, particularly in the following cases:
» Intentional strikes, such as those with a swinging clenched fist,
raised forearm or elbow;
» High bumps, particularly with significant head contact
and/or Player momentum;

So pretty much I think there's no case to appeal. And honestly, rightly so considering how huge the potential damage from concussion is.

[McQueen 17,867]

6 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

The Buddy and Kozzi decions are unreal.  Both Carless, Both HIgh contact.  Buddy medium Impact and Kozzie HIgh impact yet it was Buddy's player that went off concussed while Kpzzi's opponent bounced up and played out the game.

How on earth could Kozzie's bump be high impact while Buddy's be medium impact?

Arrrgghhh!  No sense in that!!!!!  Kozzie take the two weeks and learn from it.

No, I think it might be as arbitrary as Pickett only weighing 70 kg but travelling at 100 mile an hour versus Buddy Franklin who is 110 kg travelling at 80 mile an hour.
Yeah, I know doesn’t make sense.

[The heart beats true 18,145]

I get that people are disappointed about the suspension, but I don’t think anyone wants someone jumping into Gawn, Oliver or Tracc like that. The ball is gone, and Koz chooses to bump. He leaves the ground and turns his body in a deliberate act to use his upper back like a missile. He’s an amazing player, but he really did the wrong thing.

In the context of our season I’m just glad he didn’t knock Smith out - as he could have got 4-6 weeks. We are lucky that didn’t happen, because Koz had no control over his body once it left the ground with that much force. That’s what the suspension is about.

And it’s got nothing to do with Franklin. It’s like trying to compare jail terms for assault and theft. Different crimes, and circumstances.

[Gawndy the Great 9,011]

32 minutes ago, DutchDemons said:

Isn't this kind of lazy or disingenuous reporting by The Age though? One of the changes to the system this year is that:

So it doesn't matter what was typically done in the past because the system has been changed?

Also in Section 4.2 of the tribunal guidelines it says regarding impact:

 

So pretty much I think there's no case to appeal. And honestly, rightly so considering how huge the potential damage from concussion is.

The issue is that the discretion is with Christiansen to grade it. That is the problem with the whole grading system.  

[John Crow Batty 8,879]

Christian should be suspended for discombobulation of the MRP rules. He does it all the time. How could Kozzie’s hit be considered high impact when Smith barely noticed it? Just another shocker from him. 

Edited March 19, 2023 by John Crow Batty

[deva5610 970]

3 hours ago, The heart beats true said:

 

And it’s got nothing to do with Franklin. It’s like trying to compare jail terms for assault and theft. Different crimes, and circumstances.

I agree with the rest of your post up to this point. I think the MRO has got the Kozzy grading pretty much spot on, sadly, but with regards to Buddy - How can the "potential for injury" be graded High Impact but a player that actually caused a concussion be Medium Impact. It's utterly ridiculous and both should've been graded the same IMO.

[Bags 34]

I think Kozzie is very lucky here. I would take 2 weeks in a heartbeat. His action was reckless and I don't know how he didn't injure Smith. It was not pretty to watch and if an opposition player did that to one of our players, I would be expecting multiple weeks, even if they escaped serious harm. 

The fact that he didn't injure Smith really shouldn't be taken into account because of the danger he put the ball carrier in. 

Take the two weeks. 

[IRW 1,387]

9 hours ago, daisycutter said:

oh c'mon, irw, you are starting to sound like paul keating lecturing others

shut the # up

The thing is that Keating is usually correct 

Attacking the AFL from a fan page is like throwing a toothpick at a mountain

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

6 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

The issue is that the discretion is with Christiansen to grade it. That is the problem with the whole grading system.  

The problem is that there is a shadow Match Review Panel guiding the "official" MRO in what his decision should be. Informally known as the Sunday Footy Show.

 

5 hours ago, John Crow Batty said:

Christian should be suspended for discombobulation of the MRP rules. He does it all the time. How could Kozzie’s hit be considered high impact when Smith barely noticed it? Just another shocker from him. 

Christian's hands were tied. The shadow Match Review Officer had already declared the incident to be the worst that's ever occurred in league football.

[Dee Viney Intervention 1,963]

Do I think he should get a suspension….yes. But I would be appealing the level of impact and see if we can get 2 weeks down to one. This is a bloke that we are absolutely desperate to sign a new contract, or do we roll over on that as well. 
we have nothing to really lose by appealing but potentially a lot to lose if we don’t. Pretty confident the big clubs would appeal. Will not appealing be the difference between Kossie staying or going……no. But having his back and at least asking the question might help to get him to sign on.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Dee Viney Intervention

[Dr. Gonzo 24,305]

7 hours ago, DutchDemons said:

Isn't this kind of lazy or disingenuous reporting by The Age though? One of the changes to the system this year is that:

So it doesn't matter what was typically done in the past because the system has been changed?

Also in Section 4.2 of the tribunal guidelines it says regarding impact:

 

So pretty much I think there's no case to appeal. And honestly, rightly so considering how huge the potential damage from concussion is.

There is definitely a case to appeal, a proper defence would tear that ti shreds. How can they determine potential for injury for starters? Should be appealing high impact down to low and settle for medium.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,305]

27 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

The problem is that there is a shadow Match Review Panel guiding the "official" MRO in what his decision should be. Informally known as the Sunday Footy Show.

 

Christian's hands were tied. The shadow Match Review Officer had already declared the incident to be the worst that's ever occurred in league football.

Who is that now that S Hocking and B Scott are not there? Have they replaced that role yet? Is it Gil??

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Who is that now that S Hocking and B Scott are not there? Have they replaced that role yet? Is it Gil??

Kane Cornes

[The heart beats true 18,145]

4 hours ago, deva5610 said:

I agree with the rest of your post up to this point. I think the MRO has got the Kozzy grading pretty much spot on, sadly, but with regards to Buddy - How can the "potential for injury" be graded High Impact but a player that actually caused a concussion be Medium Impact. It's utterly ridiculous and both should've been graded the same IMO.

I’ll give you a real world example…

One driver doesn’t indicate when turning and hits another driver, causing a concussion.

Another person is caught driving at 140 in a 60 zone with a blood alcohol level of 1.2.

One crime is punished for what it did, and another for what it could do. Different crimes, different punishments.

[picket fence 17,526]

1 hour ago, IRW said:

The thing is that Keating is usually correct 

Attacking the AFL from a fan page is like throwing a toothpick at a mountain

Yeah but the toothpick might be on fire!

[layzie 34,013]

8 hours ago, Macca said:

I reckon he lined him up and the optics kind of back that up but I'm arguing outcomes anyway.  Smith was perfectly fine from the 'hit' ... but was it a hit? It looked like it was but not from Smith's reaction

As he hit him I thought that's going to be 3 weeks but because Smith bounced back up (rapidly) I thought maybe 1 week.  All in a split second

The whole language and jargon from the MRO is vague and inconsistent.  All the technical talk lacks common sense. 

Happens in other sports too.  In cricket instead of concentrating on the correct adjudications 100% of the time it's now become a battle of 'reviews' for a lot of the time.  Result - inconsistent outcomes

The Cripps saga has done a lot of damage. Forget how it impacted the Brownlow, it's made a mockery of the 'outcomes based' approach and now no-one seems to care about the damage or potential damage these actions can bring. 2 potentially dangerous acts this round and we see 2 weeks and 1 week given, where's the deterrent?

I don't want to be all PC about this but it isn't the old days anymore and if they are fair dinkum about getting this out of the game then they need to get serious. 

[picket fence 17,526]

Just now, layzie said:

The Cripps saga has done a lot of damage. Forget how it impacted the Brownlow, it's made a mockery of the 'outcomes based' approach and now no-one seems to care about the damage or potential damage these actions can bring. 2 potentially dangerous acts this round and we see 2 weeks and 1 week given, where's the deterrent?

I don't want to be all PC about this but it isn't the old days anymore and if they are fair dinkum about getting this out of the game then they need to get serious. 

Like the AFL has with Buddy, one lousy week, coz its Buddy. Hypocrisy reigns supreme!

[DistrACTION Jackson 9,246]

As long as the MRO is consistent I think everyone is happy, but they have already shown some inconsistency.

I feel if an action results in an injury to a player i.e Collins concussion it has to be at minimum high impact. I can't fathom how an act that 'could' result in injury be graded higher than an act that does result in injury.

Shane McAdam will also have to get 2 weeks minimum as it was almost identical to Kozzy's hit.

[layzie 34,013]

11 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Like the AFL has with Buddy, one lousy week, coz its Buddy. Hypocrisy reigns supreme!

And as usual with Buddy he could have done some serious damage.