On 22/03/2023 at 00:04, Gawndy the Great said:

Absolutely he does. Don’t get fooled by all the hype and inuendo in the media. He is protected by all. Buddy’s hit was not a football action and was direct to the opponents head. 

The check that both Kozzy and McAdams performed were only problematic as the opponent was not in the right state to protect themselves and hence secondary impact to the head was inevitable . Now I don’t support these acts by any stretch and I think they should be outlawed as the have, but Buddys cheap hit was vile, unprofessional and had actual intent to impact the head - which has been overlooked by all.

I haven't watched or read any media on the hits, just watched the footage.

The umm 'checks' as you call them, one was a bloke flying through the air and the other was clearly head high brutal hit. far worse than Buddys. "The checks were only problematic as the opponent was not in the right state to protect themselves"?  that is the funniest thing I have ever heard!  with a split second different timing or if Smith was not so big, Pickett could have knocked anyone out cold or worse.

Buddy's was the only one where the ball was in dispute. The tall poppy syndrome is full on on this site. oh he's Buddy so he only gets a week.  maybe we should look at our own baises as well.  

  On 22/03/2023 at 00:12, DubDee said:

I haven't watched or read any media on the hits, just watched the footage.

The umm 'checks' as you call them, one was a bloke flying through the air and the other was clearly head high brutal hit. far worse than Buddys. "The checks were only problematic as the opponent was not in the right state to protect themselves"?  that is the funniest thing I have ever heard!  with a split second different timing or if Smith was not so big, Pickett could have knocked anyone out cold or worse.

Buddy's was the only one where the ball was in dispute. The tall poppy syndrome is full on on this site. oh he's Buddy so he only gets a week.  maybe we should look at our own baises as well.  

Then I’d educate myself on the matter before jumping on here and critiquing others on their views as it is no laughing matter. 

  On 22/03/2023 at 00:25, Gawndy the Great said:

Then I’d educate myself on the matter before jumping on here and critiquing others on their views as it is no laughing matter. 

lol

don't get fooled by the media

then - go watch some media

  On 22/03/2023 at 00:02, sue said:

While I think the MRO and Tribunal decisions are too often a toin coss biased towards famous players, I'm not inclined to bag our club for rarely appealing.  But given Crows are appealing for an almost identical hit as Pickett's which actually injured the opponent, I am perplexed. Are we too compliant, or Crows to much the other way or maybe Pickett didn't want the fuss?

Geez McAdam lined him up from a long way out. I think we were right to just let it rest. Goody is right, the bump is dead. 

Koz does quite a lot of late tackles etc. I love watching him play but he's going to have to adjust his game.

He can hurt blokes just by making them look like witches hats. He has the potential to bust open matches and break their hearts.

Will be interesting to see how he handles being scragged, continually held and punched in the guts like Clarry when he's in the middle.

In the rush to align actions of a similar nature, are Adelaide suggesting the AFL toss out the outcome altogether?

McAdam's and Kossie's weren't entirely "similar". McAdam was later and the victim was concussed. Kossie didn't cause that level of injury. Three weeks for one and two for the other seems appropriate to me.

Buddy maybe should have got two weeks, but he didn't launch at the player off the ground like the other two.

  On 22/03/2023 at 00:38, mauriesy said:

In the rush to align actions of a similar nature, are Adelaide suggesting the AFL toss out the outcome altogether?

McAdam's and Kossie's weren't entirely "similar". McAdam was later and the victim was concussed. Kossie didn't cause that level of injury. Three weeks for one and two for the other seems appropriate to me.

Buddy maybe should have got two weeks, but he didn't launch at the player off the ground like the other two.

I think they will be trying to argue it down to a 'high impact' rating and a 2 week suspension like Kozzie.

I also think 2 weeks for the Kozzy act is actually spot on given the outcome was no injury.

2 weeks for the act is fair and then the outcome should then determine the remaining additional weeks.

Yeah, we don’t want this in junior footy, but let’s keeping showing the Kozzie and McAdam hits over and over and over on the telly. 

I don’t agree with high hit bumps. But Kozzie playing tough sends a message. It was a split second action and the doggies player lowered his knees. He also got up straight away so no damage done. 
it says: I may be small, I may be a MFC player but watch out!