4 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

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

It was graded High Contact, Careless, Medium Impact which = 1 week. Low impact = a fine.

14 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 are kidding, right??

On 05/04/2024 at 21:13, P-man said:

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

NO ...... About time we grow some and challenge!

2 hours 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?

We have nothing to lose other than the $10 000 it costs to appeal. We don’t get our money back if we win the appeal but the penalty is also not increased if we lose. 

He didn’t lift his elbow.. he raised and stiffened his shoulder for the impending contact. In that motion, the elbow stays parallel to the body while moving up. Lifting of the elbow suggests he raised his elbow out and away from his body (on a 45-90 angle), which did not happen. 
If he doesn’t brace his shoulder as he did, he exposes his rig cage to injury and leaves his arm/shoulder loose, leaving himself open to injury. 

Edited April 6, 20241 yr by Ethan Tremblay

This must be medium impact as in "Any high bump which constitutes Rough Conduct that has the potential to cause injury will usually be graded at a minimum as Medium Impact"  

There is no suggestion that Pickett or Maynard were au fait with the medical histories of Soligo or Brayshaw respectively and could judge the potential for injury.  There is no prospect of players taking opponent's medical histories into consideration while on the field.  It is therefore of prime importance that players stop hitting each other in the head and if unavoidable, that they endeavour to minimise occurrence and force of contact.  When/if someone dies, I expect and hope that there will be an orderly queue for the criminal negligence charges.

Above it is suggested that Pickett tried to minimise the force of collision.  Above it is also alternately suggested what I saw; that he hunched his shoulder to give him a strong stable point of contact.  As was discussed for Maynard v. Brayshaw, once a body is in the air, its centre of gravity continues in the same direction and with the same horizontal velocity until it is acted on by an external force, e.g. the inertia of Siligo's head.  (Newton's first law of motion). An outstretch arm with a view to passing in front of or behind Soligo would have been much kinder.

A minute or two earlier, Pickett had tried launched similarly and I recall that he did also on another occasion this match.  Goodwin said in the press conference that Pickett was obviously trying to smother the kick.  Now that is strange.  If I want to touch something, I generally use my arm and hand in magnificent harmony rather than my bum.  I find it gives me a much greater reach.  I suspect that if Pickett used his hand, he would be contacting the ball rather than heads.  Win-win; stopping the opponents' momentum and giving players a pleasant future retirement.  This is something for our well-paid well-qualified specialists in the Football Department to promptly fix.  By the way, in this case as with Brayshaw, the ball had long gone and was not going to be spoiled.

I don't see that there is much value in jumping through hoops to get Pickett off the week's suspension.  He needs to stop or he go missing when we need him.  A suspension is a lesson to him.

As the great sage, Arnold Schwarzenegger, said, "Stop bullsheeting on my leg and telling me it's a puppy".  My thoughts entirely.

 

 

 

 

IMO. We should challenge on the severity,

it should be the outcome of the act rather than intent.   Intent can only be implied by the player or observer,  but the outcome is plain for all to see.   If the victim is not injured then the outcome should be a heavy fine.

13 hours ago, chookrat said:

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.

An appeal would be an opportunity to remind the tribunal of our club awareness of the severity of a head high hit. As we see the head as sacred we accept a fine for this low potential and impact as Kossie obviously pulled back . Show the incident in real time and note the glancing effect as Kossie was able to alter his shape and direction but could not avoid the glancing contact. Again refresh the Maynard example  and why the club has welcomed the changed rules and therefore understands why Kossies action must be penalised, however this act was low impact similar to Pendleburys but unlike Pendles was in the flow of the game and a football act.

We could also show the low impact that Kossie received when he had his head nearly pulled off with no free kick even given. Put that video on slow motion, select the point of impact and it looks worse than the contact that occurs as a football act. 

I am sure we could put together a compilation of contacts that were far more severe than Kossies.

Welcome the leagues recognition of head high contact and hope that there is increased on field scrutiny and immediate action tken to such incidents.

 

Should appeal but probably won’t. It’s low impact by any measure, if they want to put in writing that there’s no such thing as low impact high contact then do so rather than put in unwritten loadings when they feel like it.

The incident itself was accidental, he jumped to try and stop the handball going over the top, anyone wetting the bed about “he needs to get this out of his game” needs a lie down - it happened, wasn’t trying to hurt the bloke, move on.. 

10 minutes ago, Fromgotowoewodin said:

Should appeal but probably won’t. It’s low impact by any measure, if they want to put in writing that there’s no such thing as low impact high contact then do so rather than put in unwritten loadings when they feel like it.

The incident itself was accidental, he jumped to try and stop the handball going over the top, anyone wetting the bed about “he needs to get this out of his game” needs a lie down - it happened, wasn’t trying to hurt the bloke, move on.. 

Good points, but why wouldn't we appeal?

38 minutes ago, dpositive said:

An appeal would be an opportunity to remind the tribunal of our club awareness of the severity of a head high hit. As we see the head as sacred we accept a fine for this low potential and impact as Kossie obviously pulled back . Show the incident in real time and note the glancing effect as Kossie was able to alter his shape and direction but could not avoid the glancing contact. Again refresh the Maynard example  and why the club has welcomed the changed rules and therefore understands why Kossies action must be penalised, however this act was low impact similar to Pendleburys but unlike Pendles was in the flow of the game and a football act.

We could also show the low impact that Kossie received when he had his head nearly pulled off with no free kick even given. Put that video on slow motion, select the point of impact and it looks worse than the contact that occurs as a football act. 

I am sure we could put together a compilation of contacts that were far more severe than Kossies.

Welcome the leagues recognition of head high contact and hope that there is increased on field scrutiny and immediate action tken to such incidents.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Fromgotowoewodin said:

Should appeal but probably won’t. It’s low impact by any measure, if they want to put in writing that there’s no such thing as low impact high contact then do so rather than put in unwritten loadings when they feel like it.

The incident itself was accidental, he jumped to try and stop the handball going over the top, anyone wetting the bed about “he needs to get this out of his game” needs a lie down - it happened, wasn’t trying to hurt the bloke, move on.. 

Could agree more, accept that I'm really hoping the club does appeal and I think there a reasonable chance we will.

Kossies was nothing like Maynard scum's hit.  Converged from the side and made minimal contact as opposed to a full on charge that was dangerous from the start.

You could sense Goody being [censored] off in his presser that the media were turning their attention and gunning for Kossie to be rubbed out.  "Has made alot of changes to his game ... it looked pretty light" I seem to remember his words.

Really sick of us being made scape goats like this.  They recon Ginivan has been denied free kicks, I think Kossie is being targeted by match review in a social sense. Loosing a player of Kossies quality for important games like the clash against Brisbane - enough is enough.  Everyone else appeals for stuff much more, it's about time we stood up for our players and team a bit more in this respects.

7 minutes ago, loges said:

Good points, but why wouldn't we appeal?

I think we’ll avoid the media false equivalence linking us losing Brayshaw to a high hit with defending Koz 

when will we know if they are appealing or not?

Soligo has also come out and said it was nothing

My gut feel is we will move on.

 

Edited April 7, 20241 yr by Redleg

On 05/04/2024 at 21:36, picket fence said:

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

Alan Richardson said they will appeal - at training this morning

 

r

2 hours ago, Redleg said:

My gut feel is we will move on.

 

Maybe it was just flatulence.

2 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Soligo has also come out and said it was nothing

FWIW, he got votes on Sunday Footy show as their best player, who continued his very good game after the Kozzie bump.

 

6 minutes ago, Dingo said:

Alan Richardson said they will appeal - at training this morning

 

r

Hope we get good representation, someone who's prepared to go hard.

4 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Soligo has also come out and said it was nothing

I read this as not only meaning the actual impact was light but also that Kossie played fairly and did show duty of care, e.g he could have lined me up but consciously decided to pull back from full contact.

Fogarty got the same grading as Kozzie. 

I presume it’s Kozzy who had been the target of online racial abuse as a result of this too. The media riled up the opposition supporters. See the statement on club website

22 minutes ago, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

I presume it’s Kozzy who had been the target of online racial abuse as a result of this too. The media riled up the opposition supporters. See the statement on club website

Yep. I saw and reported a few comments on Instagram 

Humanity is trash

8 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Yep. I saw and reported a few comments on Instagram 

Humanity is trash

Social media is vile. However, some of the stuff SEN ran on its talkback was just as bad. Andy Maher was loving it. 

Demonland is the ONLY social media That I do! Other stuff Far too dangerous, even more so than the Sltheras at Casey!🤪