2 minutes ago, old dee said:

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. 

Further, let's see if they bite consistently, regardless of player star power

12 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Didn't see Franklin's but I can see Pickett getting anywhere from 2 to 6 weeks especially with the current climate of concussion legal actions against the AFL. If he gets off it would be a miracle. Smith playing on helps the cause but the AFL won't like seeing hits like that replayed through the week and will want to send a message that we are serious on potential head injuries.

6 weeks?  You're kidding, you know the tribunal looks at whether the player is actually hurt right? 

1 hour ago, Brownie said:

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.

Smith wasnt concussed. No high contact. He played out the game sorry Perry Mason.

18 minutes ago, DubDee said:

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

Yes Smith's head went flying back but the way he bounced back was extremely quick.  In fact, has anyone ever seen a player bounce back like that after seemingly being cleaned up?

Most players would milk the contact even if there is only minimal contact.  Smith bounced back like he was the inflatable man!  Weird!

We can certainly argue minimal impact (and/or contact)

Where as Cripps knocked Ah Chee into tomorrowland ... and got off!

Edited March 19, 20232 yr by Macca

I'm predicting 2 weeks

4 minutes ago, Macca said:

.....

Where as Cripps knocked Ah Chee into tomorrowland ... and got off!

yeah, but he got off on an (outrageous) legal technicality.  No such option for Kozzie.

I assume we find out tomorrow?

There is perhaps a bit more complexity to the MRO grading than I had first though.

Was it careless or intentional? Most of the time these are graded careless but Pickett leaves the ground - what else was he intending to do? Upgrading to intentional will add a week to his suspension.

Severity should be medium - it was actually "low" but the Guidelines don't just allow the MRO to upgrade it to medium, they pretty much mandate it given the potential for severe injury.

But then was it high contact or not? It's almost implicit that he didn't contact Smith's head because if he did, Smith would have been far worse off than he actually was. So was it just shoulder to shoulder/chest, and if so is that "high" or is that "body"?

If he gets intentional, medium and high, that's two weeks. If it's careless, medium and body, it's a fine. So IMO it's anything from a fine to two weeks. For him to get three weeks, it has to be intentional, high and high, but I don't think the MRO can give it high impact given Smith appears to have walked away unscathed.

9 minutes ago, sue said:

yeah, but he got off on an (outrageous) legal technicality.  No such option for Kozzie.

We can argue outcome though and go very strong on that aspect

And the outcome was that Smith was not affected in any way.  If he'd stayed down and was concussed, different story

The camera angles we've seen makes it look like Kozzie has cleaned the bloke right up ... but Smith bounced back up as if he wasn't even hit.  And with no ill-effects

It wasn't a good look but the Cripps/Ah Chee incident sets a precedent regardless of the legal technicality

I reckon it's 1 week or less

Edited March 19, 20232 yr by Macca

Quoting the Cripps case is etiher posters being disingenuous or they don't understand what happened.

The MRO referred it directly to the Tribunal which gave him a two week ban.

High end lawyers went to court and argued some abnormality in the Tribunal process.  Cripps got off on a legal technicality.  The AFL has closed that loophole.

It is not relevant to Pickett's case.

Buddy cleaning up a player yesterday is relevant.  They will argue it was in play but he veers away from the ball to lay the bump.

Despite the fact that the initial contact might have been shoulder to shoulder that doesn't factor in the impact then caused Smith to hit his head on the turf which can cause damage and concussion too.

The only thing working in Kozzy's favour is that Smith did not receive a concussion and continued playing.

MRO inconsistency is very frustrating. The star player discount is a real thing for sure.

However, removing the red and blue goggles, that action should not be allowed. If he connected with Smiths head he could have caused some serious damage. He absolutely deserves a ban. If roles were reversed and Smith barrelled into Kossie like that DL would be apoplectic.

Love Kossie but he made a very bad decision. He’ll cop a ban and hopefully learns from it.

31 minutes ago, Deebauched said:

Smith wasnt concussed. No high contact. He played out the game sorry Perry Mason.

Correct.  If he gets more than a week it will be on potential. Another kettle of fish altogether

Laughable if that happens.  e.g.  let's jail this bloke for 10 years., he looks like he might rob a bank.????

But we can still refer to the Cripps incident in pure footballing terms (ignoring all the stuff that went on in the background and/or any loopholes)

That stuff doesn't have to be brought up and the 3 tribunal members may not be au fait with any previous technicalities.  It only takes 1 member of the tribunal to see the Cripps incident as a precedent and away you go on a strong defence.  Remembering that they are generally ex footballers who aren't trained lawyers (some are)

And the Cripps/Ah Chee incident is very recent.  The other thing is that when it suits, the AFL panders when it comes to self interest (they often make stuff up on the run)

Kozzie is a star player, there's a big Friday night game coming up etc etc. 

Call me cynical but I don't trust any of the AFL processes and I don't know anyone who does

So the wheel turns ... suddenly we're a star team that people want to watch with a star player which the football world admires

Edited March 19, 20232 yr by Macca

Who knows, a few years back he would get no suspension. Media are already calling for a large suspension and the AFL certainly wants to get rid of actions that cause concussions.

He is lucky Smith was not concussed and its a reckless action I am hoping for the best and that its a 2 week suspension.

I also liked Grundy standing up for him.

Edited March 19, 20232 yr by david_neitz_is_my_dad

23 minutes ago, Buzzy said:

6 weeks?  You're kidding, you know the tribunal looks at whether the player is actually hurt right? 

That's the only thing going for Kossie: impact to Smith was low.

Otherwise: intentional, off the ball, in air at impact, reckless and (arguably) some head contact

Doesn't bode well IMO 

4 hours ago, Redleg said:

I think that’s right, he gets a week for the look.

Player ok and played well.

Cripps sent Ah-Chee into next week, knocking him out and then missing games. Appealed and got off, winning a Brownlow for fairest and best and getting votes in last games.

We have changed interpretations so often, from outcome, to intent, to possible outcome etc.

With all the concussion talk, it will be a week for possible outcome and the opticals.

I agree ... it's a week but once it's a possible week then things can get argued to a fine

I also believe that a player should have the option to pay a higher fine as a bargaining chip.  Right now, there are maximum fines with the CBA agreement

But if Smith was hurt, it's different ... you pay the price

The outcome was negligible so a heavy fine would be sufficient ... unless, as you stated, it's about the 'look'

Also, the camera can paint a different picture to realities.  For instance, the Kossie/Smith incident looked far worse than the actual outcome

Media are headhunting now. Such enthusiasm to see Kossie rubbed out by ABC, Kane Cornes....suddenly an example must be made. There is a real appetite for it. I fear for the effect this will have.

If we take our Melbourne hats off, he should probably get 2, reduced to one with an early plea. Anything more is outrageous, anything less is probably not right. At the game from my angle it didn’t look too bad, on tv it looks terrible. 

1 hour ago, DubDee said:

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 

😫

The correct term for conduct is intentional and the ball was in play (he could have tackled him) so it can only be ruled as careless. You can take that to the bank - anything else is contrary to the actual definition.

The only aspect up for discussion is impact. Is it low or medium. If it’s graded low I believe it’s now a 1 week (last year was a fine) and a medium is 2-3. 

If Kozzy gets medium, then Buddy has to get high as the player was concussed and will then likely face a 4+ week suspension. 
 

But I have zero faith in Michael Christiansen as i don’t have the highest opinion on his integrity given his track record.  

 

I’m no expert, but gut feel is three weeks to appease everyone. We feel robbed it’s not 1, the fearful outcriers will want 6. If it was viney with the exact same act he would have got 6 for the force if it and smith would have been buried on the spot. Love kossie but it was late and he needs to address that in his otherwise almost flawless play. 

I'm thinking it would be fair to say that Cripps had won the BL already, and then got reported and HAD to get off!!!

46 minutes ago, Demon17 said:

Correct.  If he gets more than a week it will be on potential. Another kettle of fish altogether

Laughable if that happens.  e.g.  let's jail this bloke for 10 years., he looks like he might rob a bank.????

no you punish the action not the result which is the way it should be. i realise this was not the way it has been in the past but i think it has changed. it was a late cheap and dangerous hit. 

Just now, pitmaster said:

Media are headhunting now. Such enthusiasm to see Kossie rubbed out by ABC, Kane Cornes....suddenly an example must be made. There is a real appetite for it. I fear for the effect this will have.

The average football supporter might want Kozzie rubbed out as we as a club are now seen as a threat

But if he gets off then many of those same people will tune in Friday night to admire his exquisite skills and openly (or secretly) wish that he was playing for their club ... a quick turnaround in thinking.  That's your footy supporter

Meanwhile, the AFL know all this and will almost certainly make (or influence) a business decision to suit self-interest.  So which way do they go?

There are numerous examples ... for instance, the Essendon 34 were set free by the tribunal yet later on all rubbed out by CAS (for a season no less)

So with regards to Kozzie, if it was purely about the money and staying in the news (for the AFL) then the rest of it is academic in my view

Also, the precedent has been set with star players in a myriad of different sports.  It's not all confined to the AFL

9 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

The correct term for conduct is intentional and the ball was in play (he could have tackled him) so it can only be ruled as careless. You can take that to the bank - anything else is contrary to the actual definition.

The only aspect up for discussion is impact. Is it low or medium. If it’s graded low I believe it’s now a 1 week (last year was a fine) and a medium is 2-3. 

If Kozzy gets medium, then Buddy has to get high as the player was concussed and will then likely face a 4+ week suspension. 
 

But I have zero faith in Michael Christiansen as i don’t have the highest opinion on his integrity given his track record.  

 

Smith got the kick off before Kossie contacted him. It was late, too late for a tackle. Kossie could also have pulled up or tried to smother. Instead he chose to go airborne with his shoulder, playing the man rather than the ball

An interesting 24 hours of deliberations ahead!