Kysaiah Pickett on report

[binman 28,326]

Poor act in my opinion. Real potential to do harm. 

We have to get head shots our of footy.

Not because of the legal ramifications. Because we have to make tbe game as safe as you can make such a brutal game (ie it will never really be safe).

Paging Webber, but I'm pretty sure the link between repeated head contact and CTE is accepted now.

Jordon Lewis was on 360 last wek and they were discussing concussion and showed the hit he received that triggered changes. Sickening. Out cold before he hit the ground.

Jordon said he only had two 'serious' concussion ie out cold. One in junior footy and that one.

Asked if he worries about the impact, I half expected him to say no. But he said he worries often. All the time.

Good on him for his honesty

Like Jordan, albeit for different reasons, I worry about what will happen to my brain in the future

My mum had dementia and my dad parkinsons, so I have seen the impact of neurological damage. And it scares me ****less that I'll might go down the same path.

As far as possible, we don't want the men and women who play for our enjoyment having to have those same fears - there will always be head trauma in our game. 

All that said, talk of tve current legal stuff and kossie being made an example of because of it, infuriates me.

Similarly the idea the 'optic' should be factored in is ridiculous. As is talk it should go to tbe tribunal. 

The so called decision matrix was introduced to take subjectivity out of it.

The  decision to weight impact, which I disagree with (lpotential impact should be a bigger factor imo) has been made.

Apply the existing framework to kossie, pure and simple.

If that means he gets off with a fine, so be it. It really shouldn't be possible to get more than one week if I understand the criteria properly (which I may well not).

The time for changes to tbat framework is post season, not during the season triggered by a specific incident - particularly one that isn't a new scenario and/or raises new issues fir consideration.

This incident wasn't novel. Not much grey area and not really much to unpack. Meat and potatoes shirt front.

Give him his wack and move on.

 

[Rab D Nesbitt 5,078]

Fine or a week I think. 

[Stiff Arm 2,794]

Worth remembering that Cripps got off not because of what he did, but because of a procedural technicality, a loophole which the AFL have now closed. He would've got weeks had it not been for that.

Kossie cannot use Cripps' charge at the Lions player as a precedent.

I reckon he'll get 4 weeks.

If Smith comes out and says it was a hit to his chest/shoulder, he might get 1 for reckless behaviour. But it looked to me like there was contact to his head (face), even if chest contact was first.

Interesting dilemma for the AFL: Kossie's looked terrible and targetted but Smith got straight back up, Buddy's looked relatively harmless and in the act of going for the ball, but the opponent was concussed. Are they going to punish the act or the outcome, or both?

[Lucifers Hero 34,407]

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.

[Lord Travis 8,509]

Going by the grading system it was: 

CONDUCT - Intentional.
He lined him up and elected to bump.

IMPACT - Low.
Smith got straight back up and played out the game without issue. He did not even have a concussion test. This is what has saved Kozzie IMO

CONTACT - Body.
This is where it gets tricky. If it's deemed to be a body hit, which I believe it was as he got him in the chest and shoulder, then it's deemed body and the sanction is a fine.
If it's deemed he got him in the head, the sanction rises to a week.

SANCTION - Ignoring it wasn't a good look and taking emotion out of it, going by the tribal grading system, the possible sanctions are a fine or one week. Anything more and it's been judged incorrectly to make a statement.

[DistrACTION Jackson 5,041]

5 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Going by the grading system it was: 

CONDUCT - Intentional.
He lined him up and elected to bump.

IMPACT - Low.
Smith got straight back up and played out the game without issue. He did not even have a concussion test. This is what has saved Kozzie IMO

CONTACT - Body.
This is where it gets tricky. If it's deemed to be a body hit, which I believe it was as he got him in the chest and shoulder, then it's deemed body and the sanction is a fine.
If it's deemed he got him in the head, the sanction rises to a week.

SANCTION - Ignoring it wasn't a good look and taking emotion out of it, going by the tribal grading system, the possible sanctions are a fine or one week. Anything more and it's been judged incorrectly to make a statement.

This is the post.

Taking 'optics' out of it and whether you think the act was poor or not, they have to look at the bump objectively.

It is either a fine or a week suspension, anything more you argue that the MRP have based a decision outside of the guidelines available to them.

[MrFreeze 787]

14 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Going by the grading system it was: 

CONDUCT - Intentional.
He lined him up and elected to bump.

IMPACT - Low.
Smith got straight back up and played out the game without issue. He did not even have a concussion test. This is what has saved Kozzie IMO

CONTACT - Body.
This is where it gets tricky. If it's deemed to be a body hit, which I believe it was as he got him in the chest and shoulder, then it's deemed body and the sanction is a fine.
If it's deemed he got him in the head, the sanction rises to a week.

SANCTION - Ignoring it wasn't a good look and taking emotion out of it, going by the tribal grading system, the possible sanctions are a fine or one week. Anything more and it's been judged incorrectly to make a statement.

Unfortunately I think its very clear he made head high contact 

[Ethan Tremblay 26,362]

Smith shouldn’t have been standing there.

[Brownie 3,920]

Unfortunately the media will have a big say in the result. Nuffies on offsiders today calling for 3 to 4 weeks for Koz.

Optics optics optics.

They'll make an example of him I think. There is no consistency.

Saying that, he should have stayed low and kept his feet on the ground.

He should get 1 to 2. I reckon he'll get 3 to 4 due to concussion being a big media topic right now. That's just how it works.

[layzie 20,954]

1 hour ago, binman said:

Poor act in my opinion. Real potential to do harm. 

We have to get head shots our of footy.

Not because of the legal ramifications. Because we have to make tbe game as safe as you can make such a brutal game (ie it will never really be safe).

Paging Webber, but I'm pretty sure the link between repeated head contact and CTE is accepted now.

Jordon Lewis was on 360 last wek and they were discussing concussion and showed the hit he received that triggered changes. Sickening. Out cold before he hit the ground.

Jordon said he only had two 'serious' concussion ie out cold. One in junior footy and that one.

Asked if he worries about the impact, I half expected him to say no. But he said he worries often. All the time.

Good on him for his honesty

Like Jordan, albeit for different reasons, I worry about what will happen to my brain in the future

My mum had dementia and my dad parkinsons, so I have seen the impact of neurological damage. And it scares me ****less that I'll might go down the same path.

As far as possible, we don't want the men and women who play for our enjoyment having to have those same fears - there will always be head trauma in our game. 

All that said, talk of tve current legal stuff and kossie being made an example of because of it, infuriates me.

Similarly the idea the 'optic' should be factored in is ridiculous. As is talk it should go to tbe tribunal. 

The so called decision matrix was introduced to take subjectivity out of it.

The  decision to weight impact, which I disagree with (lpotential impact should be a bigger factor imo) has been made.

Apply the existing framework to kossie, pure and simple.

If that means he gets off with a fine, so be it. It really shouldn't be possible to get more than one week if I understand the criteria properly (which I may well not).

The time for changes to tbat framework is post season, not during the season triggered by a specific incident - particularly one that isn't a new scenario and/or raises new issues fir consideration.

This incident wasn't novel. Not much grey area and not really much to unpack. Meat and potatoes shirt front.

Give him his wack and move on.

 

Couldn't have said it better Binman.

[DistrACTION Jackson 5,041]

21 minutes ago, MrFreeze said:

Unfortunately I think its very clear he made head high contact 

I disagree. He made contact with his chest.

Not saying I like the act and would prefer he didn't do it, but he definitely didn't get him in the head otherwise Smith would've been out cold and he would be looking at 4-5 weeks.

[Gawndy the Great 4,805]

39 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Going by the grading system it was: 

CONDUCT - Intentional.
He lined him up and elected to bump.

IMPACT - Low.
Smith got straight back up and played out the game without issue. He did not even have a concussion test. This is what has saved Kozzie IMO

CONTACT - Body.
This is where it gets tricky. If it's deemed to be a body hit, which I believe it was as he got him in the chest and shoulder, then it's deemed body and the sanction is a fine.
If it's deemed he got him in the head, the sanction rises to a week.

SANCTION - Ignoring it wasn't a good look and taking emotion out of it, going by the tribal grading system, the possible sanctions are a fine or one week. Anything more and it's been judged incorrectly to make a statement.

Not sure whether the guidelines talk about the contact in stages ie initial vs subsequent.

Kozzy clearly hit Smith shoulder to shoulder initial impact, this is what he intended and can control. The subsequent phase of the contact was that his body rolled around and made contact with his head. 
 

When you break it down like that you could assess the incident in two stages - the initial stage you have assessed correctly.

I think it’s the subsequent phase where the isssues arise and it can be graded as Careless, low impact, head contact. With the rule tweaks and the the AFLs need to make a statement  I’d expect the impact to be upgraded to medium, which is then in the 2-3 weeks. 
 

Buddys assessment has to be a higher ruling in the impact as the player was concussed, so that’s my barometer on whether the MRO has ruled correctly.

Edited March 19 by Gawndy the Great

[The heart beats true 11,519]

2 weeks seems about right. It was really obvious at the ground that it was a reckless action. You can’t use your body like a missile, especially after the ball has been cleared of the area.

I actually felt like he knew it was bad, and he’d get weeks. He seemed to play like he who owed something to his teammates after that.

[McQueen 16,427]

This ‘optics’ sentiment is so very subjective so it sits perfectly in the set of variables the MRO will use to reach a decision. 
They have spent so long on adjusting in season nuance within the game and it infuriates us all. 
Why can’t it just be left at outcome based? He chose to bump late, gave away free kick and the opposition player played on without issue.
Had he been left concussed or injured on the ground then a suspension is reasonable… in this instance, a fine is more than reasonable as a reminder of bad ‘optics’  

 

[Ethan Tremblay 26,362]

Buddy’s is 4 weeks every day of the week. Except for the day his matter is heard. 

[dazzledavey36 42,200]

3 hours ago, The Third Eye said:

 

How on earth did he get off??

Edited March 19 by dazzledavey36

[binman 28,326]

29 minutes ago, Action Jackson said:

but he definitely didn't get him in the head otherwise Smith would've been out cold and he would be looking at 4-5 weeks.

Exactly.

Smith's head whipped back and that made it look as if hw had been hit in the head.

But kozzie is incredibly lucky Smith is clearly really strong through the shoulders and neck. Because otherwise he wouldn't have been able to stop his head whiplashing into the ground - which seems to be the cause of many concussions in these sort of incidents.

[DubDee 16,149]

could be anywhere from 2-4 weeks. 

seems to be a divisive one in the media. and not great timing that the concussion lawsuits are happening. 

Kozzi could have easily flushed him and Smith would be in serious medical trouble. 

love his aggression but you can’t go flying into a blokes shoulder/neck/head after he kicks the ball. 

[Macca 13,451]

Cripps getting off allows Kozzie to get off.  But whether that happens or not (getting off) is subjective and obscure.  The MRO is often inconsistent as is the tribunal

Maybe the best course of action is to argue and (possibly) appeal with a view to limiting the suspension to 1 week (which isn't too bad of an outcome) 

I'd take 1 week if it came to that and get on with it ... get him back for the Sydney game

Fritsch & Viney could be back next week and May is an outside chance so the make-up of the team will still be super-strong for the Lions clash (especially when analysing our dismantling of the Doggies last night)

[DubDee 16,149]

42 minutes ago, Action Jackson said:

I disagree. He made contact with his chest.

Not saying I like the act and would prefer he didn't do it, but he definitely didn't get him in the head otherwise Smith would've been out cold and he would be looking at 4-5 weeks.

initial impact was the chest but there is certainly secondary contact above shoulders. Smiths head goes flying back. 

[Deebauched 461]

Why are so many trying to condemn Pickett ? No head contact. Stop being so technical all the time. 

Smith got straight up again and the ump awarded a 50m penalty. Fine him 3k for being careless.

.

F###ng Cripps knocked a bloke out and was awarded the Brownlow.

The last thing Tricky Gill wants is two major drawcards rubbed out after R1. Everyone looking forward to May v Buddy.

Bailey Smith laughed it off. Tough  SOB.

 

 

Edited March 19 by Deebauched

[old dee 21,823]

If he isn't out it will mean the AFL campaign against these hits is BS. Let's see if their bite is up to their bark. 

[old dee 21,823]

2 minutes ago, Deebauched said:

Why are so many trying to condemn Pickett ?

Smith got straight up again and the ump awarded a 50m penalty. Fine him 3k for being careless.

.

F###ng Cripps knocked a bloke out and was awarded the Brownlow.

 

But that is Carlton!

[DubDee 16,149]

if the ball had of been in dispute Kozzi might have a chance of 1-2 weeks but it was a deliberate late hit. i reckon he is serious trouble 

😫

[Stiff Arm 2,794]

1 hour ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Smith shouldn’t have been standing there.

Smith shouldn't be such a short arrse