Jump to content

Kysaiah Pickett on report

McQueen
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

18 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Yes it was dumb, but you don’t get weeks for being dumb, you get weeks for actual rule breaches.

This is a terrible adjudication of the rules. It’s simply not high impact.

The rules says it’s high impact if it can cause damage to the victim even if, in actuality, it did not. On that basis, the club needs more to sustain an appeal and the visuals are pretty damaging on the face of it.

Hoping that Jack Viney is fit and ready to play on Friday night to offset Kozzie’s absence. 

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
     
    3 minutes ago, david_neitz_is_my_dad said:

    Giving Franklin just 1 week for his hit is rubbing salt into the wounds. He will be free to play us now

    May will be back and he owns Buddy so all good.

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    5 minutes ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

    IMHO . . . 

    Those that are arguing for one week and comparing Kossi's sanction to dumps handed out by others, are overlooking one basic fundamental fact about the human experience. There is no justice in the world. And operating under the illusion that there is only causes sorrow and pain. 

    As they say about the court system - it’s not a court of justice, it’s a court of law.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Love 1
     
    9 minutes ago, david_neitz_is_my_dad said:

    Giving Franklin just 1 week for his hit is rubbing salt into the wounds. He will be free to play us now

    If May is back, Buddy might fake an injury to avoid another smashing

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    • Haha 3
    17 hours ago, Demonland said:

     

    Lo and behold we play West Coast in round 4. Vested interest much?

  • Quote

    If we take off our red and blue glasses for a moment, I think two weeks is a fair outcome. It is perfectly possible for a high impact collision not to cause serious injury, particularly if players do not connect directly with the head. But Kozzie's deliberate leap off the ground at high momentum showed reckless intention and had the potential to do significant damage. Although his absence will leave a big hole he needs to learn to temper his natural aggression with common sense. We would not like to have seen an opposition player do that to any of ours. A couple of years ago, he would probably have got away with one week, but the rules on any kind of violent and illegal contact are rightly being tightened. Let us at least hope that this season we will get some consistency on this kind of disciplinary action.

    Edited by Dee-monic
    Spelling correction

  • Quote
    • Like 7

    Two weeks is a fair outcome. BUT, you can’t look at one without the other. Buddy got graded medium impact. Kosi graded high. Smith played on. Buddy’s opponent had to come off for a concussion test. It is just so unfair! 

  • Quote
    • Like 11
    • Thanks 1
    31 minutes ago, bing181 said:

    Because they upgrade the level based on potential to cause injury. i.e. it's as much about how dangerous a tackle is as the outcome.

    Well if that’s what the rule is, I change my view.

    So if I understand correctly now, it’s one guy’s opinion of what level of danger was in the action. That’s a wonderful rule, that will see a lot of consistency in decisions.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
     
    5 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

    The rules says it’s high impact if it can cause damage to the victim even if, in actuality, it did not. On that basis, the club needs more to sustain an appeal and the visuals are pretty damaging on the face of it.

    Hoping that Jack Viney is fit and ready to play on Friday night to offset Kozzie’s absence. 

    I really don't get how you can be punished on the basis of what might be.

    Either the other party was injured/concussed or not. Is intent somehow being read into this?

  • Quote
    • Like 3

    If the MRO is now including a factor called 'potential to cause injury', then they should not bury it under the level of impact but instead have a seperate line for potential to cause injury.  Furthermore, there should be levels for that, just like they have for impact. 

  • Quote
    • Like 5
    6 minutes ago, sue said:

    If the MRO is now including a factor called 'potential to cause injury', then they should not bury it under the level of impact but instead have a seperate line for potential to cause injury.  Furthermore, there should be levels for that, just like they have for impact. 

    If not that, some more fleshing out how and why things were graded how they were. 

  • Quote

    Considering all the concussion talk going on at the moment Pickett is lucky to get 2 weeks, the AFL loves nothing more than taking a stand on the issue of the week.  
     

    Cop the 2 weeks and move on. 

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    49 minutes ago, DubDee said:

    I hear you, but can you honestly look at the two incidents without thinking of all the BS gradings and not think that Kozzi deserves more weeks than Buddy?  The ball was in dispute with Buddy, he was on the ground.  Kozzi, the ball was gone

    I know what you mean,  but Buddy could have easily avoided all contact but chose not to. The other player was bending down to get the ball, and did not see him coming.

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    12 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

    I really don't get how you can be punished on the basis of what might be.

    Either the other party was injured/concussed or not. Is intent somehow being read into this?

    i hear ya but it is punishing the action rather than the outcome which i think is the way it should be

  • Quote
    35 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

    The rules says it’s high impact if it can cause damage to the victim even if, in actuality, it did not. On that basis, the club needs more to sustain an appeal and the visuals are pretty damaging on the face of it.

    Hoping that Jack Viney is fit and ready to play on Friday night to offset Kozzie’s absence. 

    thank you for providing some sense to this thread!

  • Quote
    3 minutes ago, Red and Bluebeard said:

    I know what you mean,  but Buddy could have easily avoided all contact but chose not to. The other player was bending down to get the ball, and did not see him coming.

    true. but i reckon one week if fair. a drive by clip. buddy has gotten away with fines in the past for these but deserved a week

    Edited by DubDee

  • Quote

    I can see "some" logic in upgrading  the impact rating (albeit subjective without any specific guidelines), but this was low impact and has been upgraded two levels not one.

    that needs to be at least challenged

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    24 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

    Two weeks is a fair outcome. BUT, you can’t look at one without the other. Buddy got graded medium impact. Kosi graded high. Smith played on. Buddy’s opponent had to come off for a concussion test. It is just so unfair! 

    you honestly think Buddy deserves the same punishment as Kozzi??

  • Quote

    Just now, DubDee said:

    you honestly think Buddy deserves the same punishment as Kozzi??

    You honestly think the impact grading for both incidents shouldn’t be the same, when one player came off for a concussion test and one went on to get 30 touches?

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    4 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

    You honestly think the impact grading for both incidents shouldn’t be the same, when one player came off for a concussion test and one went on to get 30 touches?

    of course not. completely different incidents. one was a clip to the head. other was a flying tackle to the chest, hitting high later. 

    apples and oranges

  • Quote
    •  

    Careless? Certainly.

    High contact? Barely.

    High impact? No way. 

    It was stupid and a bad look, but if we aren't fighting this to be downgraded to a one week or a fine, I'll be very disappointed.

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    3 minutes ago, DubDee said:

    i hear ya but it is punishing the action rather than the outcome which i think is the way it should be

    Fair enough Dub but every time players tackle or clash in an aerial contest there is potential for injury. These are big hard bodied athletes moving at high speed. There are numerous opportunities for bad outcomes from innocent acts.

    What concerns me is that once litigators / lawyers get into the act the game will change fundamentally.

    I hope this doesn't sound like I'm going down the the reductio ad absurdum  track but once some sort of a lawsuit occurs will we get to the point where tackling is litigated out of the game ?

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • CASEY: Sydney

      The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • REPORT: St. Kilda

      Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
      This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Collingwood

      After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • 198 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: St. Kilda

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
      Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
      Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

        • Thanks
      • 47 replies
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: St. Kilda

      After kicking the first goal of the match the Demons were always playing catch up against the Saints in Alice Spring and could never make the most of their inside 50 entries to wrestle back the lead.

        • Clap
        • Like
      • 330 replies
      Demonland

    • VOTES: St. Kilda

      Max Gawn still has a massive lead in the Demonland Player of the Year award as Christian Petracca, Jake Bowey, Clayton Oliver & Kozzy Pickett round out the Top 5. Your votes please. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1

        • Like
      • 31 replies
      Demonland
    View All