Kysaiah Pickett on report

[daisycutter 26,162]

8 minutes ago, picket fence said:

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

they certainly showed inconsistency by only giving buddy 1 week. pretty dumb if they claim to be that serious with cozzy and the concept of potential risk. cozzy is a midget compared to buddy.

definitely worth a challenge

[Mazer Rackham 14,685]

3 minutes ago, Action Jackson said:

As long as the MRO is consistent

There's your first mistake.

When have they ever shown consistency? Every "precedent" they've ever set has been broken by themselves, usually within a fortnight.

(Not having a shot at you, AJ, but rather the AFL tribunal system.)

[Mazer Rackham 14,685]

Just now, daisycutter said:

they certainly showed inconsistency by only giving buddy 1 week. pretty dumb if they claim to be that serious with cozzy and the concept of potential risk. cozzy is a midget compared to buddy.

In stature, or fame? Because the latter definitely plays a part.

[DistrACTION Jackson 5,041]

Just now, Mazer Rackham said:

There's your first mistake.

When have they ever shown consistency? Every "precedent" they've ever set has been broken by themselves, usually within a fortnight.

(Not having a shot at you, AJ, but rather the AFL tribunal system.)

100% agree. And their lies the problem.

If Buddy had of got 2 as well I can stomach that and happy with they follow these guidelines all year.

[Damo 2,588]

We need Fritsch to cover Kozzie in the forward line.

We need Viney to cover Kozzie in the middle.

[GM11 552]

9 hours 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 can't recall any player ever getting suspended though and often the charge was withdrawn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

I can. Remember the Brent Moloney farce.

[Macca 13,453]

21 minutes ago, 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. 

The Cripps incident and the resulting outcome will never go away.  Loopholes?  I don't think so.  I'm not buying that BS

The AFL and the tribunal could have stood firm but chose not to

Now we have a situation where confusion reigns and unfairness rules

Buddy's act had worse consequences than the Pickett act yet Pickett cops twice the penalty.  Doesn't make sense

[Macca 13,453]

5 minutes ago, GM11 said:

I can. Remember the Brent Moloney farce.

Well you've got a good memory but the point stands.  In a general sense, attempting to strike was rarely seen through

With the Pickett incident, the optics doesn't match up with the outcome.  Looks bad but in the end, the contact was negligible if we look at the outcome

[IRW 820]

35 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Yeah but the toothpick might be on fire!

In fairness to Kossie HE was on fire and if anything was going to keep him at the Dee's it was getting midfield time with Max Trac  and Ollie.

[Kent 1,986]

13 hours ago, Deestar9 said:

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

edge means edge its absolute there are no degrees of edge Just saying.

[IRW 820]

5 minutes ago, Macca said:

Well you've got a good memory but the point stands.  In a general sense, attempting to strike was rarely seen through

With the Pickett incident, the optics doesn't match up with the outcome.  Looks bad but in the end, the contact was negligible if we look at the outcome

Yeah and if if he's not out for 2 the optics actually  say you can still do this and it's OK  while you can be sure the likes of Toby Greene would take that on board.

There just isn't a get out clause for such a pointless brain fade

[GM11 552]

8 minutes ago, Macca said:

Well you've got a good memory but the point stands.  In a general sense, attempting to strike was rarely seen through

With the Pickett incident, the optics doesn't match up with the outcome.  Looks bad but in the end, the contact was negligible if we look at the outcome

Totally agree. It's all about the look now.

[IRW 820]

33 minutes ago, Action Jackson said:

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.

Inconsistency of other is a pretty weak defence from an ethical point of view.

[Gawndy the Great 4,807]

58 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

I’ll give you a real world example…

One driver with 20 years of experience (and should know better) driving a Hilux doesn’t indicate when turning and hits another driver, causing a concussion.

Another person on green P plates, driving a Toyota Yaris 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.

Not a bad analogy, probably worth adding the additional context. Buddy's elbow should also be considered for what it could have done.. , should know better and was lucky that it was a minor concussion. 

[DistrACTION Jackson 5,041]

1 minute ago, IRW said:

Inconsistency of other is a pretty weak defence from an ethical point of view.

What are you talking about? I've literally said I was fine with Kozzy's ban but thought Buddy should get 2 as well given the player he hit went off concussed.

Maybe you should consider the ethical issues with potting other posters for no reason?

[Macca 13,453]

13 minutes ago, IRW said:

Yeah and if if he's not out for 2 the optics actually  say you can still do this and it's OK  while you can be sure the likes of Toby Greene would take that on board.

There just isn't a get out clause for such a pointless brain fade

What you're not doing is looking at the big picture and casting the discussion and debate sideways and all ways

Do that and you'll see the points that many here are trying to make

I haven't seen one poster here saying that Pickett is innocent.  Not one. The discussion is about intent, outcomes and consistent rulings

I agree that Kozzie had a brain fade but if he gets 2 weeks (when the outcome is negligible) then Buddy should get 3 or 4

But Buddy got one week and that's not the end of it ... they might argue it down to a fine same as we might argue Kozzie's penalty down to 1 week

Edited March 19 by Macca

[layzie 20,980]

17 minutes ago, Macca said:

The Cripps incident and the resulting outcome will never go away.  Loopholes?  I don't think so.  I'm not buying that BS

The AFL and the tribunal could have stood firm but chose not to

Now we have a situation where confusion reigns and unfairness rules

Buddy's act had worse consequences than the Pickett act yet Pickett cops twice the penalty.  Doesn't make sense

Buddy could have knocked Collins into next week! The time to act is now and the MRO need to get serious. We've just had a class action lodged that could mean astronomical dollars for the AFL, get this sorted! 

[Macca 13,453]

9 minutes ago, GM11 said:

Totally agree. It's all about the look now.

And that's dangerous territory ... Nanny state stuff.  Where does it end?  Or does it end? 

[58er 4,284]

8 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.

Really I am astounded at the "bush lawyers"' opinions on this charge.

Seriously I  haven't seen Buddy's or the Giants/Crows clashes except that both resulted in concussion and were out of the game I believe.

In fact I only became aware of the Kossie report speaking on the train going home with fellow Dees fans.

I was at Punt Rd end behind the point post just under cover but have never liked any other area at the footy than  the wing/HFF area if possible. Looking into the crowd and it being  on the members wing and the down field decision was quick that is all correct.

Whatever Kossie  did was late BUT to compare it with the result and affect on the game to Smith and opposition in the other two charges is miles apart. Yes it could have been much worse BUT IT WASNT. Smith got up immediately and indicated he was fine   AS he was not hit in the head but a solid bump to the shoulder area was delivered. 

The ridiculous "potential to cause" damage inclusion should be irrelevant as the RESULT was no injury or damage and no time was  lost plus a half  hearted skirmish which indicates player reaction was over in about 5/10 seconds. Hardly earth shattering. TBH there weren't enough Dogs fans there to cause more than a light boo afterwards when Kossie  continued to slaughter them on the field at every opportunity. No retaliation was ever apparent either.

So in footy terms what  is this charge about?  Really it is a very poor attempt to bump a player and is slightly late by a very small player who tried with all his might ( jumping off the ground accentuates his actions but if he didn't the  bump would have been  a waste of time at his height).

No damage done free downfield all clear goal ball back to centre and play on.  
The umpire has in the heat of action reported Kossie but when it is  assessed after its really a mountain out of a molehill. Christian has agreed but he is also saying it's the look not the result. NO RESULT to worry about !!

no damage no injury the AFL want it both ways at times but when it suits tries to pin it on the attempt and it's graded as high when clearly Smith got up in record time indicating thst it has mo more hurting him than about 300 bumps in the game. 

If we judged all cases in law on attempts we would have more people in prisons than outside in some cities in the world. A fine msybe but TWO matches vs the other charges is OTT.

I witnessed the Patrick Cripps incident last year that he pinched the Brownlow by default from 50m above in the stand right in front of me was correct in 2 matches as he chose to from on bump and deliberately ran about 5 metres to do it. Plus he is 100kg and counting. The other case is Rioli got off last year in Round 1 then this  is similar to that. 

Melb should appeal on all grounds to get off not just lower the charge to one.  
The only issue is the lateness and jumping action of Kossie but how is he  going to deliver any tackle  or retarding action at his height ? 

I am staggered at the reaction that Kossie should get 2 matches where a fine for action snd result is more fitting compared to the crude attempts and results of the other events in Round1.

PS I am not expecting whole hearted support but really think about  The whole issue and the AFL. 

 

 

[YearOfTheDees 1,021]

Changed my option on this, I wanted Kossie to get off but what if it had been reversed and a Bulldog had knocked out Oliver or Trac. Also interesting to hear the talk about Howes lack of duty of care and what he could have done to Stengle. We do need this out of our game. 

[Macca 13,453]

My gut feeling is that Kozzie has pulled up just before impact or not followed through with the action.  And the camera can't pick that up

I'm actually still quite stunned that Smith was not effected in the clash at all

[IRW 820]

7 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. 

Yeah rub out the judge and ket Kossie be uncle Byron 

#fmdmadness

[Jaded No More 42,477]

6 minutes ago, Macca said:

My gut feeling is that Kozzie has pulled up just before impact or not followed through with the action.  And the camera can't pick that up

I'm actually still quite stunned that Smith was not effected in the clash at all

I don't like Smith, but massive kudos to him for not overplaying it, jumping straight back up, and giving Kosi a pat on the bum. He might not be able to hit a target, or get a haircut, but he is one tough cookie.

[Demonstone 15,722]

13 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

what if it had been reversed and a Bulldog had knocked out Oliver or Trac.

Smith wasn't knocked out.  If he had been, Kozzy would have been suspended for a LONG time.

[Macca 13,453]

10 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

I don't like Smith, but massive kudos to him for not overplaying it, jumping straight back up, and giving Kosi a pat on the bum. He might not be able to hit a target, or get a haircut, but he is one tough cookie.

Well Smith didn't overplay it that's for sure and kudos to him for getting on with it (in a split second)

But what if the contact was negligible anyway which as it's turned out, seems to be the truth? 

He wasn't hurt or concussed which makes me think that Kossie pulled up on contact.  Hard to prove or substantiate but nevertheless, the action would normally cause quite a bit of damage.  And it didn't

The other part to remember is that Smith wasn't travelling at high speed (not sure how quick Kozzie was traveling)

Edited March 19 by Macca