Kozzy bump on Soligo

[leave it to deever 17,498]

I hope this won't be challenged.

I'm surprised by Goody saying he won't ask KP to dial down his aggression.

Third time now in a year he's been suspended. He can be the best player in the AFL but he's no good if he's not on the field.

He's not only letting the/ team down but also himself. I want to see the best version of Kozzie.

Also Jvr needs to settle down a bit.

It was be very silly for him not to play in the Carlton final when we so depleted of players.

Perhaps Viney can mentor them both about channelling their agro.

I'm sure the fire in them is part of what makes them good players but they can become even better if they can he harness it.

May is a great example of someone who used to have a problem in this area who totally turned it around.

Maybe Goody will have a quiet word behind closed doors.

KP is a very important player for us and this is an important game before our bye. It's also the second one he will miss this year.

 

 

Edited April 5 by leave it to deever

[Dee Viney Intervention 1,833]

Thankfully we rolled the dice on Steven May playing against the Crows as he is one of our best and important players. I hope we roll the dice again and challenge the grading of impact, get it down to a fine and then tell Kossie to rein it in a bit. A big game at the G against the Lions, you want your best available. Come on Dees, roll the dice don’t roll over.

[sue 9,058]

I am confused.  Surely while 'potential to cause serious injury' and 'level of impact' are not unrelated, I do not see why his action has to be judged as 'medium impact' in order to invoke 'potential to cause'. 

Surely if an action has potential to cause injury, it doesn't need any particular level of impact to be applied.  The action is the sin.  So why this fake bar of 'medium' gets you into trouble, but 'low' doesn't? 

It looks like they had to absurdly say that an action which was clearly low impact was in fact medium just to punish the sin.  Ridiculous.   How could they revise the rules and not come up with coherent sensible rule that doesn't require such patent nonsense?    No wonder so many of us are cynical as to their motives.

The AFL lives in a corporate fantasy land where they make up the rules and interpretations as they go along to suit.

Edited April 5 by sue

[Master Chief 72]

Unnecessary lifting of the elbow by Kozzy is going to cost the team. He needs to pull his head in with these kinds of acts. Missed too many games for silly, avoidable incidents.

[Fat Tony 5,182]

1 minute ago, Master Chief said:

Unnecessary lifting of the elbow by Kozzy is going to cost the team. He needs to pull his head in with these kinds of acts. Missed too many games for silly, avoidable incidents.

He didn’t lift the elbow. It was by his side. 

[DiscoTurnerFan 0]

If Maynard was given the 10 weeks he deserved at the time it would have sent a signal.
Instead, we had the chief MRO, Michael Christian threaten to resign if he was charged.
However yesterday, ”AFL match review officer Michael Christian graded the incident as careless conduct, medium impact and high contact.”
Effing unbelievable.
 

 

 

[Adam The God 29,635]

23 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

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. 
 

Walker stuck the knees in a number of times and you have to remember that if you whack May, he will get you the next time you're in front for a mark. Not worth it.

[loges 6,767]

1 hour ago, sue said:

I am confused.  Surely while 'potential to cause serious injury' and 'level of impact' are not unrelated, I do not see why his action has to be judged as 'medium impact' in order to invoke 'potential to cause'. 

Surely if an action has potential to cause injury, it doesn't need any particular level of impact to be applied.  The action is the sin.  So why this fake bar of 'medium' gets you into trouble, but 'low' doesn't? 

It looks like they had to absurdly say that an action which was clearly low impact was in fact medium just to punish the sin.  Ridiculous.   How could they revise the rules and not come up with coherent sensible rule that doesn't require such patent nonsense?    No wonder so many of us are cynical as to their motives.

The AFL lives in a corporate fantasy land where they make up the rules and interpretations as they go along to suit.

The term is actually ridiculous surely potential to cause injury is actually realised or occurs at the time of the incident it can't be any better or worse than it actually is. Just a tool to fudge the rating. Impatiently waiting to hear the club is appealing the suspension. As for those hoping Kozzie gets one week to teach him a lesson,get a grip you take whatever advantage you can get from this tainted system.

[sue 9,058]

2 minutes ago, loges said:

...As for those hoping Kozzie gets one week to teach him a lesson,get a grip you take whatever advantage you can get from this tainted system.

Too right.  The system is tainted, no matter what you think of Kossie's action. 

If it was 100% certain that him getting a week would make him a better team player (including not getting banned in future), then sure, teach him a lesson ASAP.  But I'd guess the % is more like 30-60%.

But I'll be surprised if we appeal.  Too long a history of rolling over dating from when we were a basket case in desperate need of AFL benificence.

[Pates 9,625]

1 hour ago, Fat Tony said:

He didn’t lift the elbow. It was by his side. 

I'm not sure what you're looking at to be honest, he raised his elbow even if it was only slightly. He keeps his ams by his side the whole time he grazes the Adelaide player and we're not missing him next week.

It's silly from Koz, these silly acts have no genuine benefit to him, the team, and the game. It makes him look like a cheap thug. I don't like it from any player in the comp, so to have one of my favourite players do it really frustrates me. 

I've heard a few people saying Goody should be taking him aside and trying to curtail it, I actually see it as a leadership group situation. A chat from Gawn and Nibbler saying, "you're letting your teammates down with these acts" would be the best approach. If can play the game hard, without playing it dirty. 

Edited April 6 by Pates

[Fat Tony 5,182]

7 minutes ago, Pates said:

I'm not sure what you're looking at to be honest, he raised his elbow even if it was only slightly. He keeps his ams by his side the whole time he grazes the Adelaide player and we're not missing him next week.

It's silly from Koz, these silly acts have no genuine benefit to him, the team, and the game. It makes him look like a cheap thug. I don't like it from any player in the comp, so to have one of my favourite players do it really frustrates me. 

I've heard a few people saying Goody should be taking him aside and trying to curtail it, I actually see it as a leadership group situation. A chat from Gawn and Nibbler saying, "you're letting your teammates down with these acts" would be the best approach. If can play the game hard, without playing it dirty. 

He was charged with Rough Conduct not Striking, as would have been the case had he raised the elbow. 

[sue 9,058]

Pleasing to see that although posters here have disagreed on the seriousness of Kozzie's action and the AFL's 'rules' and what should now happen etc., few (if any) think what he did was 100% OK.   I wonder what it was like on the C'wood site after Maynard KO'd Gus? 

[Pates 9,625]

10 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

He was charged with Rough Conduct not Striking, as would have been the case had he raised the elbow. 

Look I'll agree to disagree, he lifts the elbow out which raises his arm to impact with the upper arm. He doesn't get done for striking because that's the part that made impact.

[daisycutter 29,429]

well if that was classified as medium impact i'd like to see an example of what low impact would be.

this is just wrong classification, and on this basis must be appealed.

regardless of whatever punishment anyone personally thinks, the afl has a standard set of definitions and corresponding punishments.  they can't just deviate from that on a whim or a wish

have some b*lls, mfc and support your player's rights to procedural fairness

[Fat Tony 5,182]

2 minutes ago, Pates said:

Look I'll agree to disagree, he lifts the elbow out which raises his arm to impact with the upper arm. He doesn't get done for striking because that's the part that made impact.

This is the point of impact. The elbow was clearly down and tucked by his side. A raised elbow would mean the contact was with the elbow or forearm, not bicep. 

[doc roet 1,284]

Raising of the elbow was probably a nerve reaction after Kozzies bicep muscle was struck by Soligo face.

[In Harmes Way 7,716]

48 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

well if that was classified as medium impact i'd like to see an example of what low impact would be.

this is just wrong classification, and on this basis must be appealed.

regardless of whatever punishment anyone personally thinks, the afl has a standard set of definitions and corresponding punishments.  they can't just deviate from that on a whim or a wish

have some b*lls, mfc and support your player's rights to procedural fairness

I agree dc. The AFL don’t want to include an escalation category for potential on “ugly” looking incidents,  as they’d have to explain their thinking and it’s easier to hide behind a classification of medium impact. Medium, despite the fact the Adelaide player showed no ill effects. Let’s sort this out once and for all. Trying to retrofit potential into a results based classification system is a joke.

[monoccular 17,345]

Agree 100% that Kozzie needs to get this out of his game but in what world was that impact “medium”.  How could it be anything other than minor as the guy played straight on. 
The impact levels are frankly pulled out of that inept Collingwood / AFL apologist Christian’s back side in a semi random manner - semi random because it does actually depend on the offenders club.  Would that be “medium” were it Cripps or Neale or even #4💩?   No way.  
It ain’t paranoia when everyone really is out to get you. 🤗

[Swooper1987 3,310]

I don't think this is that hard.  Don't choose to leave the ground and then hit the opposition player in the head under any circumstances and to any degree of force. Retrospectively, Cripps wouldn't be a Brownlow Medallist, Maynard wouldn't be a premiership player.  This "new" rule addresses those things many were unhappy about.  It has now been applied(rightly) to one of our players. I love Kozzy.  His ability on field is matched by very few, but he and Van Rooyen both need to find a better way to channel their natural aggression. We have some naturally very aggressive players - May and Viney being two examples, Sparrow another - who manage to keep out of the way of the MRO.  Pickett and JVR need to examine how they do it.

[leave it to deever 17,498]

2 hours ago, daisycutter said:

well if that was classified as medium impact i'd like to see an example of what low impact would be.

this is just wrong classification, and on this basis must be appealed.

regardless of whatever punishment anyone personally thinks, the afl has a standard set of definitions and corresponding punishments.  they can't just deviate from that on a whim or a wish

have some b*lls, mfc and support your player's rights to procedural fairness

If it's medium he should have got more than a week. It wasn't.

[daisycutter 29,429]

5 minutes ago, Swooper1987 said:

I don't think this is that hard.  Don't choose to leave the ground and then hit the opposition player in the head under any circumstances and to any degree of force. Retrospectively, Cripps wouldn't be a Brownlow Medallist, Maynard wouldn't be a premiership player.  This "new" rule addresses those things many were unhappy about.  It has now been applied(rightly) to one of our players. I love Kozzy.  His ability on field is matched by very few, but he and Van Rooyen both need to find a better way to channel their natural aggression. We have some naturally very aggressive players - May and Viney being two examples, Sparrow another - who manage to keep out of the way of the MRO.  Pickett and JVR need to examine how they do it.

we all know pickett needs to curb his aggression. no argument

but the question is, in this case was pickett's impact low or medium (as mro claim)

if low - fine, if medium 1 week. it was obviously low.

These aren't my rules, they are afl's. and this is the reason we must appeal.

[samcantstandya 1,031]

7 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

I hope this won't be challenged.

I'm surprised by Goody saying he won't ask KP to dial down his aggression.

Third time now in a year he's been suspended. He can be the best player in the AFL but he's no good if he's not on the field.

He's not only letting the/ team down but also himself. I want to see the best version of Kozzie.

Also Jvr needs to settle down a bit.

It was be very silly for him not to play in the Carlton final when we so depleted of players.

Perhaps Viney can mentor them both about channelling their agro.

I'm sure the fire in them is part of what makes them good players but they can become even better if they can he harness it.

May is a great example of someone who used to have a problem in this area who totally turned it around.

Maybe Goody will have a quiet word behind closed doors.

KP is a very important player for us and this is an important game before our bye. It's also the second one he will miss this year.

 

 

You make a really good point. Why can't they be like Viney tough but within the rules. I can't remember when Viney was ever suspended and he is very aggressive but within the rules. Viney needs to mentor Kossie.

[Anti-Saint 245]

10 hours ago, Dee Viney Intervention said:

Thankfully we rolled the dice on Steven May playing against the Crows as he is one of our best and important players. I hope we roll the dice again and challenge the grading of impact, get it down to a fine and then tell Kossie to rein it in a bit. A big game at the G against the Lions, you want your best available. Come on Dees, roll the dice don’t roll over.

there's no penalty is there with appealing or can they give you more?

who knows with the AFL penalty system?

[chookrat 4,215]

10 hours ago, Dee Viney Intervention said:

Thankfully we rolled the dice on Steven May playing against the Crows as he is one of our best and important players. I hope we roll the dice again and challenge the grading of impact, get it down to a fine and then tell Kossie to rein it in a bit. A big game at the G against the Lions, you want your best available. Come on Dees, roll the dice don’t roll over.

I reckon we have a good chance of having it downgraded as it looks like Pickett pulls back a bit before impact resulting in pretty light contact. It is clear that the actual impact was low and also argue potential for injury is low due to Pickett pulling back from the bump. That Pickett made the decision to pull back from forceful contact is exactly what the AFL is looking to achieve and thus a low impact grading is available and appropriate.

[loges 6,767]

34 minutes ago, Anti-Saint said:

there's no penalty is there with appealing or can they give you more?

who knows with the AFL penalty system?

No penalty