Just now, Redleg said:

Adelaide haven’t played Collingwood this year so we’re comparing Apples and oranges 

Call it the Maynard rule or whatever you choose the goalposts changed and we know it

5 minutes ago, Pennant St Dee said:

Adelaide haven’t played Collingwood this year so we’re comparing Apples and oranges 

Call it the Maynard rule or whatever you choose the goalposts changed and we know it

I think he will get a week, but I notice some of the rules being discussed by posters and those rules allow it to be argued down to a fine.

We will see what happens.

The good thing is Soligo shrugged it off and continued to play well.

 

Edited April 5, 2024Apr 5 by Redleg

9 minutes ago, seventyfour said:

Can't defend Kozzy for this at all. Anyone making excuses has their MFC glasses on. He raised his elbow and was clearly trying to make Soligo feel it.

It was a dumb choice, he will get weeks, and he deserves weeks.

In his time off he need to do some work on the mental side of his game.

Raised his elbow? He tucked his arm in to his side just as he was taught at Auskick to protect his vital organs and shoulder.

The force of the collision was significantly due to Soligo's momentum forwards.

I truly can’t believe those saying this is anything like the Maynard one. There are clearly some fans that have made up their minds on Kozzie and want him to pay due to their perceptions. The only thing they have in common is both tried to smother, otherwise. 
Compare the pair:

Maynard: front on, travelling towards kicker, misses the smother immediately then has more time to decide what to do. Lowers shoulder and turns, fist clenched, flexing for the hit square on the head with his shoulder. Impact is front on direct, so intense the player is knocked out cold, through a helmet, for two minutes. 
 

Kozzie: jumps on the spot, ball goes past him much later into his jump, clumsily tucks in elbow, hand open and loose, not flexing for the hit, glances Soligo once he is beyond him with his upper arm. Impact is glancing to the side, Kozzie is beyond Soligo and Soligo runs into him. The impact is so light that Soligo gets up and plays on immediately, is not assessed, has no injury of any kind. 
 

This is a careless, high, low impact fine. Anything else we go to the tribunal and FWIW I think the club would LOVE that as it gives us a chance to point to the Maynard decision, why the rule was brought in and point out the clear difference in impact.

The media bias against us is so shameful, I’m not reading or listening anymore, they give air to absolute, credibility-less rubbish and whack our players any chance they get. Filth.

Edited April 5, 2024Apr 5 by deejammin'

1 minute ago, Redleg said:

I think he will get a week, but I notice some of the rules being discussed by posters and those rules allow it to be argued down to a fine.

We will see what happens.

The good thing is Soligo shrugged it off and continued to play well.

 

Yes we’re in the same thought process 

In one of my earlier responses I mentioned Kozzy needing to say I did what I could to protect the opponent once I knew contact was imminent 

Tried to win the footy

Identified contact was imminent 

Protected myself and Soligo

No intent probably not careless 

High

Low Impact 

where does that fall on the scale 

3 minutes ago, Pennant St Dee said:

Yes we’re in the same thought process 

In one of my earlier responses I mentioned Kozzy needing to say I did what I could to protect the opponent once I knew contact was imminent 

Tried to win the footy

Identified contact was imminent 

Protected myself and Soligo

No intent probably not careless 

High

Low Impact 

where does that fall on the scale 

Fine. Probably $6k because of Kozzie’s recent record.

There is no way he escapes with a fine. He will get a week. It may be low impact but it's the lifting of the elbow for mine. No way he gets off. Was a silly thing for him to do. I like his toughness and hardness but that aspect of his game needs to go in the bin. We can't afford to have him missing for massive games like the one coming up.

3 minutes ago, Bigfoot said:

There is no way he escapes with a fine. He will get a week. It may be low impact but it's the lifting of the elbow for mine. No way he gets off. Was a silly thing for him to do. I like his toughness and hardness but that aspect of his game needs to go in the bin. We can't afford to have him missing for massive games like the one coming up.

The rules don’t have a ‘lifting of the elbow’ clause. It’s careless, high, low impact. That’s a fine. If they find a way to make it a week we will challenge and win. 

9 minutes ago, Bigfoot said:

There is no way he escapes with a fine. He will get a week. It may be low impact but it's the lifting of the elbow for mine. No way he gets off. Was a silly thing for him to do. I like his toughness and hardness but that aspect of his game needs to go in the bin. We can't afford to have him missing for massive games like the one coming up.

I try to look at these things as if one of our guys was on the receiving end 

In this case it just seemed quite innocuous and relatively speaking had less impact on the player contacted than a hard tackle that is allowed dozens of times each game 

Fine maybe but anything beyond that seems excessive to me - if it was one of ours coping that I’m confident I wouldn’t be calling for a suspension 

3 minutes ago, deejammin' said:

Fine. Probably $6k because of Kozzie’s recent record.

Can’t take recent record into account at the tribunal 

The issue with the new rules are the potential to cause serious injury, how is that assessed?

Bump to the head - yes

Impact still low - but this new rule can elevate that to medium 

Potential to cause injury is the key, Kozzie’s momentum to try and smother the footy is not as high speed/intensity as Maynard’s which I consider reduces the potential to cause injury

 

1 hour ago, Young Blood said:

Kozzy hit player head = bad

Pendles hit player stomach = good

Me AFL make decision

Funny that no one paid much attention to Pendles basically hanging a dual brownlow medalist out to dry and saying he was only retaliating for something Neale did.. St Pendlebury never does anything wrong. Did you know he played basketball growing up?

3 hours ago, binman said:

That was a shocker. He was clearly trying to actually kick the ball forward and collect it, something he dies often - usually successfully.

The whole idea of umpires being directed by the AFL to favor a team is ridiculous.

But if you are the conspiratorial type, last night was smoking gun standard grist for the mill.

Big SA club, needing a win in front of a sold out home crowd at the start of the AFL's annual cash grab from the SA government. 

And right from the get go - Kozzy getting his head taken off dead in front and no free - it was as if the free fix was in. 

21 to 9 frees tells the story of the night

Good form from Soligo

"I didn't think there was too much (in it)," Soligo told reporters on Friday. 

"I kept playing through the game so I was fine. I was all sweet." 

13 minutes ago, Pennant St Dee said:

Can’t take recent record into account at the tribunal 

The issue with the new rules are the potential to cause serious injury, how is that assessed?

Bump to the head - yes

Impact still low - but this new rule can elevate that to medium 

Potential to cause injury is the key, Kozzie’s momentum to try and smother the footy is not as high speed/intensity as Maynard’s which I consider reduces the potential to cause injury

 

There’s an excellent post on page four of this thread that has the picture of the fines for low impact offences and how they go up based on first, second, third offence. You can’t take previous actions into account when determining the sentence but the fines are determined by how many suspensions have happened recently. Sorry if I wasn’t clear in making that distinction.

No good, will go for weeks.

Deserves a week just so he stops doing it ffs

10 minutes ago, DubDee said:

Good form from Soligo

"I didn't think there was too much (in it)," Soligo told reporters on Friday. 

"I kept playing through the game so I was fine. I was all sweet." 

I have to say, I thought Adelaide in general were very fair last night. I was especially impressed with Walker who I expected would try and absolutely smash into May. He had plenty of opportunities but didn’t. Same with the rest of their forwards. 

They also received a lot of frees that frankly they didn’t deserve for high contact, BUT unlike Port, their players weren’t throwing themselves around. It was just the umpires being horrible and getting sucked in by the crowd. 
 

11 minutes ago, bluey said:

No good, will go for weeks.

Weeks is incorrect. Will be max 1 if anything.

When you apply the matrix it is careless conduct, high impact and then either medium or low impact. That's either 1 week or a fine. To get 2 weeks it would have to be deemed as high impact, which it is not anywhere near.

22 minutes ago, Longsufferingnomore said:

21 to 9 frees tells the story of the night

And we got the first two of the game early, I'm going with 21-7 after that 😁

1 hour ago, seventyfour said:

Can't defend Kozzy for this at all. Anyone making excuses has their MFC glasses on. He raised his elbow and was clearly trying to make Soligo feel it.

It was a dumb choice, he will get weeks, and he deserves weeks.

In his time off he need to do some work on the mental side of his game.

Thought he would’ve done that over the summer when he cost himself and the team a round zero spot (or a prelim vs Lions had we hung on against Carlton)

Unfortunately we’ve got to take the good with the bad with Kozzie. Not sure he’ll ever get these indiscretions out of his game.

 

He will get a week due to past record

Needs to get it out of his game as he is getting tarnished with a bad rep

He will get a week due to past record imo 

Needs to get it out of his game as he is getting tarnished with a bad rep

3 minutes ago, SthSea22 said:

He will get a week due to past record

Needs to get it out of his game as he is getting tarnished with a bad rep

They don't take past record into account anymore other than for fines.