It was breathtakingly stupid  undisciplined and indicative if someone out of control....even if he really wasn't.

The only thing more stupid is spuds trying to defend him.

If the Cub can then that will be a " win".

Maybe down to one week but its unlikely given publicity around the issue

 

Next you guys will be blaming Ablett snr!!

Grow the # up

Edited March 19, 20232 yr by IRW

6 hours ago, Deebauched said:

Cornes says it was the most vicious incident he's ever seen! Footy show out to get Kosi.

Cornes running around the studio like a lunatic in a costume. Loves game by Horne Francis.

Sickening stuff.

Viscous? I didn't know Cornes was related to Zelensky, i.e. a Comedian.

12 hours ago, Demonland said:

I think the optics are the worst thing here. AFL will want to make a statement. If we’re prepared to fight with Carlton level QCs we might get a more lenient sentence but I think the best we can expect is 1-2 weeks. 

In fairness the AFL can make its statement, but rather than go after one of the big boys - Melbourne - they should go after one of the lesser clubs who aren't in contention. Personally I'm comfortable with 1-2 weeks with the second week being due to the impact grading of high vs medium. I could accept a high grading due to potential to cause injury, but only if the evidence shows head high contact otherwise it should ne a fine. A bump with body contact should nto be a suspension.

5 minutes ago, IRW said:

It was breathtakingly stupid  undisciplined and indicative if someone out of control....even if he really wasn't.

The only thing more stupid is spuds trying to defend him.

If the Cub can then that will be a " win".

Maybe down to one week but its unlikely given publicity around the issue

 

Next you guys will be blaming Ablett snr!!

Grow the # up

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

shut the # up

3 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Agree with the Kozzie suspension, disagree with the Buddy one. 

You just get off on suspenders...

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.  

 

2 hours ago, Dee-monic said:

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.

Had it happened to 'ours', what would we be complaining about? Smith played out the rest of the game, got back on his tootsies immediately. Pontius Pilate, where is thine sting??????

52 minutes ago, Billy said:

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

poor effort from Kozzie 

Take the two weeks & move on

How????You heard of Leigh Matthews? Never killed anyone....

17 minutes ago, IRW said:

It was breathtakingly stupid  undisciplined and indicative if someone out of control....even if he really wasn't.

The only thing more stupid is spuds trying to defend him.

If the Cub can then that will be a " win".

Maybe down to one week but its unlikely given publicity around the issue

 

Next you guys will be blaming Ablett snr!!

Grow the # up

This may shock you to the core IRW, but this is the main Demons fan site and, like every fan site, we defend our players. But thanks for the grow the # up advice. Really helpful going forward.

and yes, I do blame Ablett Snr. Not for this, but for something that had considerably higher stakes. 

 

5 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

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

That's right ... most of us are arguing procedures*, fairness, context and consistencies

We aren't bleating that he's innocent.  And that's with reading all the posts carefully.  Both sides of the argument are extremely close in fact with regards to the penalty

For instance I'm saying 1 week (many others 2) for Kozzie with Buddy getting 2 (and Cripps 2 or 3) but that's not the outcome we're seeing

 

*Probably the biggie (procedures) ... they (the AFL) gave got all the time in the world to create clear and concise guidelines but again, certain players get lesser penalties so it's a cluster....

55 minutes ago, Billy said:

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

poor effort from Kozzie 

Take the two weeks & move on

Talk about hysteria: 'could've killed the bloke'?????Please....

7 minutes 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.  

 

exactly, the notion of upgrading a low impact collision to a high impact collision when it patently wasn't is an abuse of process. if they specifically want to highlight (punish) a potential outcome they should add an extra criteria to the decision matrix rather than bastardise a existing criteria of different spcificity.

kossy may well deserve 2 weeks (debateable) but the process is a dogs breakfast.

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.

3 hours 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?

2 hours 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

 

I said this in my previous post but in answer to you both: yes, the system needs to focus more on actions than it currently does and less on outcomes than it currently does.

Let's get the lawyers involved 

Actually I’d like us to appeal & get it down to one …same as Franklin. Franklin had gone past the player & chose to hit . Worse I would have thought 🤔

8 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I said this in my previous post but in answer to you both: yes, the system needs to focus more on actions than it currently does and less on outcomes than it currently does.

I really want to know at what point and what reason they started focusing on how hurt the player was.

29 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

exactly, the notion of upgrading a low impact collision to a high impact collision when it patently wasn't is an abuse of process. if they specifically want to highlight (punish) a potential outcome they should add an extra criteria to the decision matrix rather than bastardise a existing criteria of different spcificity.

kossy may well deserve 2 weeks (debateable) but the process is a dogs breakfast.

And there you have it.

Exactly. What makes it go from low, past medium, to high? That is all we are asking.

Was the bump too hard, fast, high, amount of body on body, without warning or not enough warning, inability to avoid, what type of injury was likely,  etc,etc,etc, while ignoring actual facts, like, the victim got straight up, wasn’t attended by doctors or trainers, didn’t go off, didn’t rub any area in pain, didn’t sustain any impact injury, didn’t argue with aggressor, played very well after the incident getting 27 possessions for the game, etc, etc, etc.

In other words what factors led to an increased grading by 2 levels to the highest possible, given the above factors.

Plainly put, explain the decision, so next time that the same gets less, we will have some idea why. 
 

19 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I said this in my previous post but in answer to you both: yes, the system needs to focus more on actions than it currently does and less on outcomes than it currently does.

Yes agreed but the right balance needs to be reached.  In other words, one action can't carry a greater sentence than an action which is deemed worse (all things considered)

See they bring in new rules/laws/adjudications which can often create more confusing outcomes

Normally I wouldn't really care that much but it's one of our players and we're now a real contender.  One extra loss when you're trying to win 16+ games is important

Ok so he was almost certainly going to miss the Lions game (which will be tough to win) but if he misses the Sydney game and we lose a close one ......meanwhile Buddy* will be free to play against us. 

That's plus 2 in Sydney's favour in terms of game changing difference-making talent.  Right now the Swans MC will be pleased

*Buddy should have got a 2 game suspension

Edited March 19, 20232 yr by Macca

6 minutes ago, Macca said:

Yes agreed but the right balance needs to be reached.  In other words, one action can't carry a greater sentence than an action which is deemed worse (all things considered)

See they bring in new rules/laws/adjudications which can often create more confusing outcomes

Normally I wouldn't really care that much but it's one of our players and we're now a real contender.  One extra loss when you're trying to win 16+ games is important

Ok so he was almost certainly going to miss the Lions game (which will be tough to win) but if he misses the Sydney game and we lose a close one ......meanwhile Buddy* will be free to play against us. 

That's plus 2 in Sydney's favour in terms of game changing difference-making talent.  Right now the Swans MC will be pleased

*Buddy should have got a 2 game suspension

I agree but what does "deemed worse" mean?

Chandler got 3 weeks last year for a tackle gone wrong because the opponent was concussed. But I would argue Pickett's action was "worse" because Chandler's was a football action gone (slightly) wrong, whilst Pickett's was an unnecessary non-football act.

Under the current MRO system, there is scope to challenge the two weeks given to Pickett because of the lack of clarity as to how the MRO upgraded him from low to high, and by directly comparing with the concussion Buddy gave Collins.

1 minute ago, titan_uranus said:

I agree but what does "deemed worse" mean?

Chandler got 3 weeks last year for a tackle gone wrong because the opponent was concussed. But I would argue Pickett's action was "worse" because Chandler's was a football action gone (slightly) wrong, whilst Pickett's was an unnecessary non-football act.

Under the current MRO system, there is scope to challenge the two weeks given to Pickett because of the lack of clarity as to how the MRO upgraded him from low to high, and by directly comparing with the concussion Buddy gave Collins.

Well from an overall perspective common sense should prevail with regards to what is deemed to be worse

Barry Hall's king hit on Brent Staker is at one end of the scale and incidental contact to the head from a bump with no impacting injuries is at the other end of the scale (in terms of suspension outcomes)

Hall got 7 but could have got 12+ whilst the incidental contact to the head maybe a week or a heavy fine

Kossie's action was deliberate but the impact was negligible so a week is about right.  If Smith was concussed/hurt maybe 3 or 4 weeks

2 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I agree but what does "deemed worse" mean?

Chandler got 3 weeks last year for a tackle gone wrong because the opponent was concussed. But I would argue Pickett's action was "worse" because Chandler's was a football action gone (slightly) wrong, whilst Pickett's was an unnecessary non-football act.

Under the current MRO system, there is scope to challenge the two weeks given to Pickett because of the lack of clarity as to how the MRO upgraded him from low to high, and by directly comparing with the concussion Buddy gave Collins.

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.

1 minute 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.

See I reckon it was deliberate but Smith bounced up like a Jack-in-the-box and was not hurt at all (seemingly)

Hey DC, I remember the days when you could get reported for attempting to strike ... can't recall any player ever getting suspended though and often the charge was withdrawn

This Kossie incident has similarities.  No one got hurt but he has to sit for 2 games

5 minutes ago, Macca said:

See I reckon it was deliberate but Smith bounced up like a Jack-in-the-box and was not hurt at all (seemingly)

Hey DC, I remember the days when you could get reported for attempting to strike ... can't recall any player ever getting suspended though and often the charge was withdrawn

This Kossie incident has similarities.  No one got hurt but he has to sit for 2 games

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?

Edited March 19, 20232 yr by daisycutter

IMO both Buddy and Kossie have a duty of care. Kossie shouldn't have elected to leave the ground in applying a bump. Buddy is 30 kg heavier than Kossie and needs to recognise he's among the taller, heavier units in the league and will potentially have significant momentum behind him when he goes past the ball and bumps an opponent and is likely to cause more damage as a result.

Agree wholeheartedly with analysing potential, but I think this should be in both cases. Whilst Sam Collins had apparently sustained more damage than Bailey Smith, what's to say that Sam Collins' concussion isn't even more significant than first thought and he misses multiple weeks. On this basis, and per other's views above, I'd be happy if the "potential" analysis had visibility and assessed elements such as speed of impact, whether the action was targetted, whether the player left the ground to bump, was the action off the ball or in play, was the player > 100kg etc. If Kossie had Low upgraded to High based on this criteria, I'd be quite happy. But Buddy's bump on Collins has additional potential as well as the actual injury observed at the time of the MRO assessment.