24 minutes ago, Action Jackson said:

Only one I can remember was the Viney one when Tom Lynch was knocked out and he got off.

That was ridiculous because he was contesting the ball and braced for impact.

If I remember correctly he was pushed from behind which got Viney off.

4 minutes ago, Macca said:

Shock jock (someone has to do it)

The Kyle Sandilands of AFL media 

Kossie, see you at the G in a couple of weeks!  Keep fit , train hard and sign your contract!  GO DEES!

28 minutes ago, Dee Viney Intervention said:

Serious question. Have we ever appealed a tribunal decision. I would have contested both length of ANB suspension and the Kade Chandler suspension. I genuinely can’t remember us contesting a decision. We are a very “nice club” Good thing we are a football club and not a cricket club because we don’t appeal. In this case if Kossie was consulted and satisfied that will do me. If not we should have at least had a go at getting it down to a 1 game suspension. 

The Fritsch 2021 elbow we managed to get reversed from one week to none at the Tribunal. But I can remember us far more often not taking arguable cases to the Tribunal. 

23 minutes ago, picket fence said:

How do you measure "Potential to cause Injury"? Isnt ANY tackle, bump, in play contest, spoil, high mark hanger, or nearly anything else Potential to cause?? Ambiguous at best and legally perhaps not even enforceable. Prime evidence of Buddy Fiasco Big Buddy given his weight differential was 5 time more likely to put said players head into orbit!! So where was his 6 weeks for potential?? Again the AFL Have made a rod for its back. I hope the Dees challenge on not only this technicality , but also the obvious medium contact to the body and not the head. And remember the mullet got up unscathed and played out the rest of the game! Case closed!

You make a whole bunch of good points especially with the vagueness of the 'Potential to cause harm' bit.  Impossible to correctly measure so get set for more inconsistent outcomes re suspensions

2 weeks is harsh. 

49 minutes ago, picket fence said:

How do you measure "Potential to cause Injury"? Isnt ANY tackle, bump, in play contest, spoil, high mark hanger, or nearly anything else Potential to cause?? Ambiguous at best and legally perhaps not even enforceable. Prime evidence of Buddy Fiasco Big Buddy given his weight differential was 5 time more likely to put said players head into orbit!! So where was his 6 weeks for potential?? Again the AFL Have made a rod for its back. I hope the Dees challenge on not only this technicality , but also the obvious medium contact to the body and not the head. And remember the mullet got up unscathed and played out the rest of the game! Case closed!

 

you are 100% correct you can legally do a lot of harm to players without getting reported, crashing into their back while they are going up for a mark. running through players when they are not expecting it and probably the easiest to get away with marking contests. I don't know how many times Max gets whacked in the head each game going for marks, a couple of games last year it looked like it was a deliberate ploy to take him out that way, but there was no protection there no deterrent other than giving away a free (if caught). which is well worth it to the opposition if you can take him out or put him off his game.  If the AFL is serious about potential to cause injury or harm then they also need to look at these other instances that are considered just a free kick.

2 hours ago, Deebauched said:

Disagree. Its done and Buddy got the best deal of the two.

Melbourne cant be distracted this week by some ridiculous media circus before heading to QLD. 

MFC is far too busy.

That's not true. If you don't stand up for yourself you just get trampled on. 
Perfect case for serious lawyer to challenge the AFL make up rules on the run and their integrity. It's over Tuesday night generally and players have got to learn to handle these issues when they arise. 
It's very easy to walk away but the tackle was not high nor strong. Smith was up instantly with thumbs up and the report by Christian said high impact. Patently wrong 1 week off or even 2!!! 

29 minutes ago, Deecisive said:

 

you are 100% correct you can legally do a lot of harm to players without getting reported, crashing into their back while they are going up for a mark. running through players when they are not expecting it and probably the easiest to get away with marking contests. I don't know how many times Max gets whacked in the head each game going for marks, a couple of games last year it looked like it was a deliberate ploy to take him out that way, but there was no protection there no deterrent other than giving away a free (if caught). which is well worth it to the opposition if you can take him out or put him off his game.  If the AFL is serious about potential to cause injury or harm then they also need to look at these other instances that are considered just a free kick.

They are extremely selective in their handwringing, but consistent in their hypocrisy.

49 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

2 weeks is harsh. 

Disagree entirely. Glad we didn't fight this. I do agree that Buddy got off lightly. Disgraceful that he only got one week. I totally disagree with penalties being partially-based on the severity of injury. Intent should be all that matters. Love Kozzie but did not love what he did on Saturday night.

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

King wants every player who does something wrong hanged, drawn and quartered because he thinks it will somehow magically stop all incidents.

Funnily enough he doesn’t apply the same logic to himself and numerous fellow North team mates who have had run ins with the law.

Cornes is just a troll with a sinister motive.

What's Cornes' sinister motive?

1 minute ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

What's Cornes' sinister motive?

Maybe there sin't one - it takes a functioning brain to make a conspiracy.

9 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

What's Cornes' sinister motive?

He'll stir up as much controversy as he can this year about Pickett to try to make him unsettled and move to Port. He was relentless with North and JHF last year.

The club has accepted the 2 match ban.

WTH??

Edited March 20, 20232 yr by picket fence

5 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

He'll stir up as much controversy as he can this year about Pickett to try to make him unsettled and move to Port. He was relentless with North and JHF last year.

I'm not sure if leading the public witch hunt for Pickett will do much to endear Port to Pickett or Picketts family.

We're playing Brisbane....... bunnies in the headlights, they'll be begging to be relegated after playing us. Then Sydney, sure that's historically been a tough game for us, not this time, comfortable 6 goal win. Take a break Kosworthamiilion and see you in 2 weeks. Go Dee's

23 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

What's Cornes' sinister motive?

A daily search for relevance.

I think we all agree that what Kosi did was poor and that if he hurt Smith, he'd be spending 4-6 weeks on the sidelines and rightly so.

I LOVE Kosi. Everything about him is magic, including the way he plays on the edge. He scares the living daylight out of the opposition for so many reasons, and it makes him that much more of a special player. But like Viney, playing on the edge sometimes comes with consequences. I didn't like Viney putting a GC player in a choke hold 2 years ago, and I don't like seeing Kosi leave the ground to bump someone high. If Smith did that Kosi, I'd also want him suspended, regardless of outcome.

I am sure Kosi knows what he did wasn't right, and he will learn from it. Unfortunately for him, the days of Uncle Byron are long gone. You must have duty of care, and when you see what someone like Gus (and many other Melbourne players, especially Daniel Bell) have gone through with concussion, it is absolutely correct and necessary.

What gets me riled up is the absolute disgraceful 'superstar tax' that keeps getting applied to the likes of Buddy. While Kosi's action looked worse, the consequences of Franklin's actions WERE worse. Both deserve the same penalty, but one is the darling of the AFL, and one is a Melbourne player. 

 

If it was later in the Season, I think we would have contested the severity 

Round 1 too much Media scrutiny 

Kozzie can sit with Goody and Richi for 2 weeks 

39 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

He'll stir up as much controversy as he can this year about Pickett to try to make him unsettled and move to Port. He was relentless with North and JHF last year.

I reckon we need a conspiracy theory thread with a monthly winner

'Demonland's Conspiracy Theory of the Month' goes to ...

You're in with a chance DS but not all conspiracy theories are bunkum so I won't rule out your theory

#sinistermotives

I get that in the heat of the action decisions are made in a fraction of a second, but this was an ill considered and highly dangerous act which deserves to be punished.

I would hate to see my son cop a hit like that when he is completely open and unprotected. A two week ban is certainly not excessive, and it clearly would have been much more if Smith had copped a serious injury. 

I'm not thrilled about some of the other verdicts this round, or the entire process, but we can hardly complain about this one.

6 hours ago, Macca said:

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

I thought I said that the Club might go for the reduction ..not because he doesn't deserve 2 for the dangerous idiocy but because that's the way the AFL " game" is played.

Other players, other situations and Michael Chtistian don't really come into it unless the arguments can be sustained in the tribunal rather than the internet.

My take out of Saturday is that there is a slight chance he had so much fun as a mid he might think about staying.

It wouldn't hurt if the Club fought to get him a reduction.

"Please please please stay" and " what about Cripps" is just embarrassing 

20 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

What gets me riled up is the absolute disgraceful 'superstar tax' that keeps getting applied to the likes of Buddy. While Kosi's action looked worse, the consequences of Franklin's actions WERE worse. Both deserve the same penalty, but one is the darling of the AFL, and one is a Melbourne player. 

I agree 100%, Buddy lined up the Sydney player, and he copped the point of the shoulder on his chin. People also trying to justify it with Buddy being tall and head high contact will always be harder... Sam Collins is 194 key defender and wasn't bent over the ball. Am also curious to see how Shane McAdam's bump will get graded, a very similar launching with the shoulder up at the player to Pickett's, but the player was hurt, he came off a very long run up to line up the player, unlike Pickett though, surely cannot be considered careless.

19 minutes ago, poita said:

I get that in the heat of the action decisions are made in a fraction of a second, but this was an ill considered and highly dangerous act which deserves to be punished.

I would hate to see my son cop a hit like that when he is completely open and unprotected. A two week ban is certainly not excessive, and it clearly would have been much more if Smith had copped a serious injury. 

I'm not thrilled about some of the other verdicts this round, or the entire process, but we can hardly complain about this one.

are many of us here complaining that it's too harsh? and those who are (perhaps look @ their usernames :D) If anything I think most are saying that Buddy's is too lenient, rather than the other way around.

25 minutes ago, IRW said:

"Please please please stay" and " what about Cripps" is just embarrassing 

Cripps getting off was embarrassing and the stigma will stay forever ... top player and it's not his fault he was let off

But an undeserving Brownlow winner ... the AFL buckled and were weak

And so what if Demon supporters want Kozzie to stay.  What do want us to do?  Open the door for him?

He's a gun and a matchwinner and we cannot afford to lose him

Edited March 20, 20232 yr by Macca