Kozzy bump on Soligo

[bluey 1,118]

Needs to learn, that’s a fair whack, still only a cameo player, but a good one.

[Demonsterative 3,021]

3 hours ago, Pennant St Dee said:

FFS it’s graded medium under the potential to cause injury factor.

Once you leave the ground this is what you leave yourself open to

Complain all you want but it’s the new rules rewritten after Maynard successfully challenged the ban he was given last season 

So we get F@#ked over twice by Maynard? 
 

i seriously have rage for that TWIT

 

🤨😡😤😖

Edited April 5, 2024 by Demonsterative

[At the break of Gawn 4,460]

Soligo got interviewed:

“I didn't think there was too much (in it)," Soligo said.

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

As Hawthorn did with the Sicily charge, I think we should definitely challenge the grading. The only thing I’m not sure about is the “potential to cause injury” weighting which might be in play here.

[layzie 34,373]

The only surprisng thing is that so many here are surprised.

[loges 6,767]

What actually is potential to cause injury that's just a clause so they can  interpret something anyway they want 

[P-man 13,367]

Deserved. Silly and unnecessary from Koz. Copt the week and move on.

[titan_uranus 25,209]

1 hour ago, ElDiablo14 said:

What about Pendlebury? No bias or "corruption" there?

None at all. He got off because the system us broken. Intentional punches get a fine if they’re los impact. That’s moronic. 

The “potential to cause injury” thing is being used to upgrade impact levels for head high contact. The AFL is hyper vigilant on head high contact, less so on gut punches. 

[Demonsterative 3,021]

I’m in the low impact school of thought, but would love the club to challenge this regardless of opinions. 
 

I would like the club to challenge the AFL. We tend to bend over too much 

[Fritta and Turner 4,678]

Can we challenge and get a downgrade to a fine?

[Demonsterative 3,021]

2 minutes ago, Jontee said:

Can we challenge and get a downgrade to a fine?

I’m assuming/hoping we can 

[picket fence 18,057]

Garbage! need to appeal and go for LOW Impact fine and free to play next week!

[DubDee 26,385]

The media control this so much. Half time tonight Kozzi was mentioned he had 3 in 26. no mention of appeal

When it was Pendelbury’s punch it was all about the appeal 

[Brownie 6,080]

3 hours ago, DubDee said:

Kozzi sprints around all game putting fear into the opposition and manic pressure on every time. He will occasionally slip high while attempting a spoil etc.

He is THE ultimate team player. 

I'm with you @DubDee

I don't understand the continual bagging of Koz.

He made a mistake with Bailey Smith and has since adjusted his play.

The bump in the final last year was nothing. He shouldn't have got a week and the same again now.

Dead set, if we had more players that go as hard and as desperate as Kozzie does to chase and smother, it would be fantastic.

His chasing and closing speed is amazing. You can't make a last minute, desperate tackle or smother without leaving the ground.

You don't want to remove that desperation from his game or see it disappear from our game.

He put his arms up to spoil and then did his best to get his arms down before contact.

This was low impact. If he gets a week for potential to cause harm then logic has it that most aerial contests can have the same potential.

The circus continues.

How does a bloke that threatens to resign if he has to cite Maynard still have his job?

Oh yeah, mates.

He won't get off but at least we should be supporting one of our hardest working players.

[Scoop Junior 3,573]

1 hour ago, loges said:

What actually is potential to cause injury that's just a clause so they can  interpret something anyway they want 

Exactly. It’s a nebulous concept that not only vests too much discretion in the MRO (sometimes it’s applied, sometimes it’s not) but requires the MRO to make an assessment it’s not qualified to give.

What qualifications does the MRO have to assess whether an incident has more or less potential to cause injury? I’m pretty sure the MRO doesn’t have biomechanics expertise to make a proper assessment.

It’s simply a way for the AFL medical/legal team to ensure they get the result they want to protect themselves in potential future litigation.

FWIW, I don’t have a problem with Picket getting a week. I just don’t like this “potential to cause injury” and its indiscriminate application. That impact was simply not medium, it was clearly low. I’d rather they just say we are punishing the action instead of this contrived grading of medium impact based on potential.

[Sydee 4,662]

Potential to cause injury 😂 

Is that anything like jumping with your knees into someone? I wonder 💭 

Nobody is getting injured from a glancing blow which was all this was - ridiculous imo 

[FireInTheBennelly 4,104]

Appeal. First witness is the AFL doctor.

Question: why did you deem the head high contact so minimal as to allow the player to continue the game without any further assessment?

Game. Over.

[Dee-monic 620]

4 hours ago, DubDee said:

Kozzi sprints around all game putting fear into the opposition and manic pressure on every time. He will occasionally slip high while attempting a spoil etc.

He is THE ultimate team player. 

This is true, but on the other hand he is actually letting the team down with silly and needless actions that mean he will now have missed two games out of six this season. Given that he adds an irreplaceable X-factor to our attack, Goodwin needs to have a serious chat with him.

It was a marginal call whether to grade the impact as low or medium, but I doubt if there is enough mitigating evidence to take it to the tribunal. I hope I'm wrong.

 

Edited April 5, 2024 by Dee-monic

[spirit of norm smith 16,651]

careless conduct with high contact and a medium impact, which has triggered a one-match suspension
 

IT WAS NOT MEDIUM IMPACT 

Soligo got straight up and played out the game with no issue.  Repeat no issue. 
 

CHALLENGE.  Show some support for Kozzy and challenge this one.  

[Pennant St Dee 13,412]

3 hours ago, Demonsterative said:

So we get F@#ked over twice by Maynard? 
 

i seriously have rage for that TWIT

 

🤨😡😤😖

No we don’t if this was in place last year Kossie would have got 6 weeks for his jump at Bailey Smith 

[deejammin' 2,374]

33 minutes ago, FireInTheBennelly said:

Appeal. First witness is the AFL doctor.

Question: why did you deem the head high contact so minimal as to allow the player to continue the game without any further assessment?

Game. Over.

Seriously, that’s brilliant! How can you possibly call something medium impact when the player wasn’t ever assessed or taken from the field? Especially when the AFL doctor seeing the vision thought it was minimal enough to not even bring him off.
That should be enough on its own.

But let’s get a biomechanics expert, compare the last ten other medium impact incidents to this one and send Kozzie to Soligo’s Mum’s place with some flowers just to be sure. 

[spirit of norm smith 16,651]

5 minutes ago, deejammin' said:

Seriously, that’s brilliant! How can you possibly call something medium impact when the player wasn’t ever assessed or taken from the field? Especially when the AFL doctor seeing the vision thought it was minimal enough to not even bring him off.
That should be enough on its own.

But let’s get a biomechanics expert, compare the last ten other medium impact incidents to this one and send Kozzie to Soligo’s Mum’s place with some flowers just to be sure. 

Absolutely correct. Medium impact ???? How.  It wasn’t even assessed.  Get the Crows doctor to testify. THE DOC has to say  “No real impact. He was fine. Hardly even any contact “.  Kozzy goes free.  Come on Dees. It’s not a time to bend over and accept this [censored] from the MRO. 

[layzie 34,373]

I appreciate wanting to challenge the MRO but at this stage the only possible action will be busting him out by baking a him cake with a file in it. 

[Moonshadow 17,678]

Eddie will be laughing his head off at the irony

[Nasher 33,617]

28 minutes ago, Sydee said:

Potential to cause injury 😂 

Is that anything like jumping with your knees into someone? I wonder 💭 

Nobody is getting injured from a glancing blow which was all this was - ridiculous imo 

Presumably any offence that is punishable by suspension has the potential to cause injury, that’s why it warrants such a heavy penalty. 

[Fat Tony 5,322]

The concept of using “potential to cause injury” to alter the level of “impact” of the charge has more holes than Swiss cheese. The case could fail at the corrupt MRO, but I reckon the chance at appeal is decent.