16 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

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. 

He didn't knock him out though. Any act on a football field could potentially result in injury, it is a 360 degree full contact sport. If Kozzie knocked out Smith then I would agree 4-6 weeks - but he didn't which suggests he didn't actually get him in the head.

25 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

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

You're missing the point, the potential for an unnecessary act to cause injury.  

Edited March 19, 20232 yr by YearOfTheDees
Changed word to keep folks happy

7 minutes ago, Macca said:

(not sure how quick Kozzie was traveling)

10 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

You're missing the point, the potential for an un-need act to cause injury.  

what is an "un-need" act

How about applying the same standard to Buddy as was applied to Kossie.   ie The potential to cause injury.  eg Possible broken neck?

 

Edited March 19, 20232 yr by Deemist
context

52 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

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. 

Who got knocked out?

The Pickett outcome is covering up Buddy getting just 1 week for linning a guy up, not going the ball and actually getting him high

Edited March 19, 20232 yr by david_neitz_is_my_dad

2 weeks was about right. Probably a little light for what could have been. What irks me is:

1. Buddy was let off lightly - already showing cracks in the MRO guidelines
2. The subjectivity and lack of transparency of the powers afforded to the MRO when upgrading impact on head high collisions (see point 1)
3. Has yet to transpire but how inconsistently this will be applied throughout the year. Ill bet 1 week will become the norm for the no-concussion head high impact (as opposed to a fine last year). 

11 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

2 weeks was about right. Probably a little light for what could have been. What irks me is:

1. Buddy was let off lightly - already showing cracks in the MRO guidelines
2. The subjectivity and lack of transparency of the powers afforded to the MRO when upgrading impact on head high collisions (see point 1)
3. Has yet to transpire but how inconsistently this will be applied throughout the year. Ill bet 1 week will become the norm for the no-concussion head high impact (as opposed to a fine last year). 

Part of the issue is there is one person making the decision.

There should be 3 MROs and they discuss each event and if they aren't unanimous can vote on the outcome.

No way. The last thing we need is three monkeys staring at a video and picking their nose and toe nails at the same time. Ones enough. jessus

1 hour ago, Macca said:

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)

macca, the fact he went off his feet quite a distance from contact meant he had less driving force than if he had a foot anchored.

people carry on a bit about jumping but in fact it can reduce impact force, but it does increase the height of contact making head contact a better possibility, However less so if you are as short as kossy (171cm)

On 3/19/2023 at 11:17 AM, Lucifers Hero said:

Under the new rules he will get two weeks.  And Buddy should also get two.

Players were warned a few months ago:  "Under the amendments ...the League has ruled that the potential to cause serious injury must be factored into the determination of impact in cases where there is head-high contact...Under the new guidelines, high bumps will usually draw an impact grading of at least medium, "even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low".  harsher-penalties-for-high-hits-crackdown-on-umpire-contact

If Kozzie is deemed to have hit Smith's head under the old rules he should get a week:  Deliberate, high contact, low impact.  Under the new rules he will get two weeks.  If not 'high' it is a fine.

Buddy's hit:  Careless (but I thought it was deliberate), high contact, high impact.

I don't have a problem with the new rules but they must be applied consistently.  Every head high contact has the 'potential to cause damage' so they should all result in a ban.

Excellent post.

We shouldn't complain about Pickett's two weeks. It's what he deserves. The real issue is whether the MRO will remain consistent throughout the season. If not, that's when we should complain.

If this sentencing policy had been in place for the last few years, I doubt Pickett would have done what he did because he would have been conditioned to play differently. Hopefully he'll learn from this and take late bumps out of his game. And that will make it a safer sport, which needs to be the priority here.

Is two weeks about right? - probably. Should we appeal on the grounds that it was medium impact? Yes: Show our players that we will fight for them. Enough of our BOHECA approach which too often sees our players cop the maximum only to see other clubs protected-species 'stars' benefit from wet-lettuce penalties.

1 minute ago, TRIGON said:

Is two weeks about right? - probably. Should we appeal on the grounds that it was medium impact? Yes: Show our players that we will fight for them. Enough of our BOHECA approach which too often sees our players cop the maximum only to see other clubs protected-species 'stars' benefit from wet-lettuce penalties.

I really hope we appeal can get it down to one week.

We have Sydney in round 3, and that's our massive litmus test for the year to see how far we've improved from last year. Them and Collingwood.

13 minutes ago, Deebauched said:

No way. The last thing we need is three monkeys staring at a video and picking their nose and toe nails at the same time. Ones enough. jessus

I agree, Jesus would be great at it but unfortunately he is not available.

1 hour ago, YearOfTheDees said:

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. 

There was no "knocked out " so you wouldn't have had to worry. See my earlier post. 

35 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

macca, the fact he went off his feet quite a distance from contact meant he had less driving force than if he had a foot anchored.

people carry on a bit about jumping but in fact it can reduce impact force, but it does increase the height of contact making head contact a better possibility, However less so if you are as short as kossy (171cm)

That's a very good point (less driving force without an anchored foot) ... so the action still 'looks' bad but optics can always be questioned, dc

Smith not being on the move at any sort of pace is also a factor as well as Kozzie's stature

I've read about the Roger Dean/Barassi incident late in '63 incident where 'Video evidence' was not allowed to be presented to the tribunal

The widely held belief back then was that Barassi didn't connect when he swung at Dean but Dean staged as if hit.  Barassi got 4 weeks and missed the finals (we lost a prelim final to Hawthorn by 9 points in '63) 

This time around Kozzie has connected (sorta kinda) yet not only did Smith not accentuate the contact, he's come out of it unscathed

So looking ahead, does every bump that causes minimal contact or incidental contact to the head incur at least a 2 week penalty?  If so, we're on the road to a non-contact sport

Edited March 20, 20232 yr by Macca

18 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I really hope we appeal can get it down to one week.

We have Sydney in round 3, and that's our massive litmus test for the year to see how far we've improved from last year. Them and Collingwood.

Prefer to cop the two quietly rather than appeal. It’ll become a media circus (even more than it currently is) upon appeal and I just can’t see the AFL letting him get away with 1 week. 

3 minutes ago, Macca said:

That's a very good point (less driving force with an anchored foot) ... so the action still 'looks' bad but optics can always be questioned, dc

 

i think you meant to say without.............lol

Just now, daisycutter said:

i think you meant to say without.............lol

I knew what you meant

27 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Excellent post.

We shouldn't complain about Pickett's two weeks. It's what he deserves. The real issue is whether the MRO will remain consistent throughout the season. If not, that's when we should complain.

Haven't you seen enough evidence?  And it's happened again already this season (Buddy)

The MRO has been a standing joke for years as has the weak-kneed penalties handed out to the name players by the various tribunals (for decades)

Not that any of this talk is going to make a skerrick of difference anyway ... expect more of the same ongoing

5 minutes ago, The Jackson FIX said:

Prefer to cop the two quietly rather than appeal. It’ll become a media circus (even more than it currently is) upon appeal and I just can’t see the AFL letting him get away with 1 week. 

Agreed. Plus Kozzi doesn't appear to be all that comfortable with the press. Tbh I'd be asking him what he'd like the club to do here as he would have to deal with that exposure. 

Not contesting it.

 

Very disappointing that we aren’t contesting it. Maybe we didn’t want the media circus around Kosi. 
 

edit: two weeks to rest the hands for a signature on a long contract 😂

Edited March 20, 20232 yr by Jaded No More

8 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Maybe we didn’t want the media circus around Kosi.

Exactly what i've been thinking this whole time. There's something definitely in that.

Edited March 20, 20232 yr by RedLegs23