If Fogarty only got 1 week for that hit on Fyffe then Kozzy MUST SURELY get of. That hit was worth 3>4 weeks easy

19 minutes ago, picket fence said:

If Fogarty only got 1 week for that hit on Fyffe then Kozzy MUST SURELY get of. That hit was worth 3>4 weeks easy

Agree Fogarty should have got 3 or 4.  Full speed hit. Eyes off ball etc etc

But for Kozzie we have zero chance of getting him off.  The rules changed this year and any front on contact (or contact forward of side on), which is high, is graded as a minimum of medium impact this year.  The only way he gets off is grading it low, which it was but because of the change it’s medium impact as a minimum.

Of course the afl can direct the tribunal to do whatever they want though and make an exception, but that only applies for Collingwood and Carlton. 

13 minutes ago, Watson11 said:

Agree Fogarty should have got 3 or 4.  Full speed hit. Eyes off ball etc etc

But for Kozzie we have zero chance of getting him off.  The rules changed this year and any front on contact (or contact forward of side on), which is high, is graded as a minimum of medium impact this year.  The only way he gets off is grading it low, which it was but because of the change it’s medium impact as a minimum.

Of course the afl can direct the tribunal to do whatever they want though and make an exception, but that only applies for Collingwood and Carlton. 

That Fogarty one was a shocker! Ridiculous it gets graded the same as Kozzy. Just shows how broken their system is.

1 hour ago, Watson11 said:

Agree Fogarty should have got 3 or 4.  Full speed hit. Eyes off ball etc etc

But for Kozzie we have zero chance of getting him off.  The rules changed this year and any front on contact (or contact forward of side on), which is high, is graded as a minimum of medium impact this year.  The only way he gets off is grading it low, which it was but because of the change it’s medium impact as a minimum.

Of course the afl can direct the tribunal to do whatever they want though and make an exception, but that only applies for Collingwood and Carlton. 

All very well, but how in this, or any universe, can Fogarty get the same penalty as Kozzie?   Irrational.

I'm comfortable with Kozzy having a week suspension if the AFL decide they want to be ultra strict on head high contact, but this idea that the impact was 'medium' is ridiculous. It was low impact.

I don't understand why they didn't change the gradings for head contact to: low impact - 1 week / medium impact - 2 weeks / high impact - 3 weeks and then severe straight to the tribunal for 4+.

This 'potential to cause injury' wording just confuses everyone and muddies the waters.

Fogarty should have got two weeks for that hit which was essentially the equivalent to Peter Wright except Cunningham got knocked out and Fyfe didn't.

This is probably a bit to common sense though for the AFL to implement. 

One other point on the Kossie incident. I cannot fathom those who are saying " he needs to get that out of his game" after this incident. Pickett jumped in the air to smother the ball. He did not leave the ground intending to bump as he did against Smith and Cripps. 

Smothering is inherently dangerous but you don't win football matches without it.

Those people criticising Pickett are probably also lauding Tom Sparrow, who leapt to smother the ball before the Petracca goal.

 

1 hour ago, Fat Tony said:

Those people criticising Pickett are probably also lauding Tom Sparrow, who leapt to smother the ball before the Petracca goal.

Would you say the same about those criticising Maynard? After all, he was attempting to smother the ball. Yes, I think he got off far too easy, but his action did bring about rule changes which unfortunately have seen Kossie receive a suspension.

I think that if the player chooses to launch himself with both feet off the ground and the smother is successful without making contact with the opponent’s head, then fair enough…but if the player mis-times the smother and in bracing himself, makes contact with the head, then he’s in trouble.
 

19 hours 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

I usually like a lot of the stuff The Roar publishes.

This is purely disgusting. Calling Pickett a "sniper, it was a dog act, football's dirtiest player"

I think I'll find a way to complain to the publishers about this. It's really disgraceful journalism. 

It will just stir up more unwarranted hatred for Koz. I hope the club stands up for him and appeals.

https://www.theroar.com.au/2024/04/07/six-points-clutch-kings-do-it-again-footys-dirtiest-player-and-debunking-vic-centric-fixture-myth/

7 minutes ago, Brownie said:

I usually like a lot of the stuff The Roar publishes.

This is purely disgusting. Calling Pickett a "sniper, it was a dog act, football's dirtiest player"

I think I'll find a way to complain to the publishers about this. It's really disgraceful journalism. 

It will just stir up more unwarranted hatred for Koz. I hope the club stands up for him and appeals.

https://www.theroar.com.au/2024/04/07/six-points-clutch-kings-do-it-again-footys-dirtiest-player-and-debunking-vic-centric-fixture-myth/

That's ridiculous, it was not a dirty act at all.

I will be unfollowing those clowns.

33 minutes ago, Brownie said:

I usually like a lot of the stuff The Roar publishes.

This is purely disgusting. Calling Pickett a "sniper, it was a dog act, football's dirtiest player"

I think I'll find a way to complain to the publishers about this. It's really disgraceful journalism. 

It will just stir up more unwarranted hatred for Koz. I hope the club stands up for him and appeals.

https://www.theroar.com.au/2024/04/07/six-points-clutch-kings-do-it-again-footys-dirtiest-player-and-debunking-vic-centric-fixture-myth/

That evaluation is so unreasonable and personally vindictive is raises an eyebrow towards racism.

The only other possibility is that he's still in a sulky about the Dog's getting annihilated in the grand final that he's still coming after Melbourne as if we must be bad people because we did something that made him feel the sads.

EDIT:  Here is the same person discussing Peter Wright's full-force impact on the back of the head of a player who was backing into a mark;

To begin with, let’s call it what it was – a collision, and not a hit, nor a bump, and especially not a snipe. It’s the sort of incident that, up until recently, was seen as an occupational hazard of one of the world’s most brutal, fast-paced sports.

Those times have changed, and it’s no longer safe to wave such collisions away without attempting to stamp them out of the game, especially when they result in a serious injury as Wright’s did, with Cunningham suffering a serious concussion.

But it’s worth noting, if for nothing else than to defend Wright’s character, that the only thing he did wrong was, in the split second it took to make the decision, brace for contact rather than continuing to fly for the mark and risking his own wellbeing.

 

 

Edited April 8, 20241 yr by Little Goffy
added Wright comments

Just now, Little Goffy said:

That evaluation is so unreasonable and personally vindictive is raises an eyebrow towards racism.

The only other possibility is that he's still in a sulky about the Dog's getting annihilated in the grand final that he's still coming after Melbourne as if we must be bad people because we did something that made him feel the sads.

Was going to say...could be construed as borderline racist right there, that is not on!

1 hour ago, hardtack said:

Would you say the same about those criticising Maynard? After all, he was attempting to smother the ball. Yes, I think he got off far too easy, but his action did bring about rule changes which unfortunately have seen Kossie receive a suspension.

I think that if the player chooses to launch himself with both feet off the ground and the smother is successful without making contact with the opponent’s head, then fair enough…but if the player mis-times the smother and in bracing himself, makes contact with the head, then he’s in trouble.
 

Regardless of one's view on what penalty Kozie should get (and I haven't seen anyone say he should get off scot free), I cannot let that pass.  Maynard's action was quite different.  He lined Gus up pretending to smother, had plenty of time to not clobber him.  Even if you take the most negative view of what Kossie did, it was nowhere near as bad as Maynard. 

Edited April 8, 20241 yr by sue

2 hours ago, Fat Tony said:

One other point on the Kossie incident. I cannot fathom those who are saying " he needs to get that out of his game" after this incident. Pickett jumped in the air to smother the ball. He did not leave the ground intending to bump as he did against Smith and Cripps. 

Smothering is inherently dangerous but you don't win football matches without it.

Those people criticising Pickett are probably also lauding Tom Sparrow, who leapt to smother the ball before the Petracca goal.

 

The optics of challenging the suspension is the problem in my view, as words to the effect of the above are exactly what the Filth used in their defense of Maynard.  

We all strongly disagreed with that at the time. To come out now and argue the opposite wouldnt be a good look.

 

Just now, Demonland said:

 

If Fogarty only got a week Kosi should get downgraded to a fine. But we know that won’t happen. 

Get your frozen dinners ready for tomorrow night.

We'd all like Koz in the side for Brisbane but if I were MFC I'd let this one go - there's no way he's getting off.   The AFL made clowns of themselves with Maynard and won't be letting any head high stuff slide (unless another Cripps Brownlow is on the line). 

8 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

Excellent. It deserves a challenge 

49 minutes ago, Brownie said:

I usually like a lot of the stuff The Roar publishes.

This is purely disgusting. Calling Pickett a "sniper, it was a dog act, football's dirtiest player"

I think I'll find a way to complain to the publishers about this. It's really disgraceful journalism. 

It will just stir up more unwarranted hatred for Koz. I hope the club stands up for him and appeals.

https://www.theroar.com.au/2024/04/07/six-points-clutch-kings-do-it-again-footys-dirtiest-player-and-debunking-vic-centric-fixture-myth/

I saw this article as well. Wouldn't be surprised if the author was a Collingwood or Adelaide supporter. Its articles like this which really turn me off visiting that website, which is more and more beginning to be run like a facebook page.

18 minutes ago, JTR said:

The optics of challenging the suspension is the problem in my view, as words to the effect of the above are exactly what the Filth used in their defense of Maynard.  

We all strongly disagreed with that at the time. To come out now and argue the opposite wouldnt be a good look.

First, MFC said nothing at the time as far as I can recall, so we're not in danger of appearing hypocritic in front of that bastion of integrity the MRO.  Second, I don't think we need make the same arguments about 'football act' etc that C'wood did.    Obviously we can compare to Fogarty and say impact was much lower.  Our only difficulty will be the contorted definition of impact the AFL has conjured up.  But worth a go in my view.

7 minutes ago, deegirl said:

We'd all like Koz in the side for Brisbane but if I were MFC I'd let this one go - there's no way he's getting off.   The AFL made clowns of themselves with Maynard and won't be letting any head high stuff slide (unless another Cripps Brownlow is on the line). 

They only made clowns of themselves in the eyes of MFC supporters.  No one in the media gave a stuff which is what counts (even though some supporters of other teams did as evidenced by the booing Maynard gets).

Edited April 8, 20241 yr by sue

I’ve never been so confident. We are winning this. Call the AFL doctor, the Adelaide doctor, a concussion specialist, compare the impact to Fogarty.
Medium goes to light, Kozzie plays.

Then I’d be tempted to sue the Roar for defamation on Kozzies behalf, “dirtiest player” seemed pretty defamatory to me.
 

It’s time our club starts throwing some legal weight around, a main rumour for Maynard getting off was that Collingwood intended to challenge any ban in court. It’s time we start challenging the journos pedalling credibility less leaks and theories. Goody reportedly already threatened Kane with a defamation suit last year leading to an apology, time for more…

The more often I watch the replay, the more convinced I become that Kozzie has a reasonable case.

Unlike Maynard on Gus, he had no forward momentum, his intention was clearly to smother, and there was little movement of his arm before the collision with Soligo.

Given that Soligo played on without any ill-effects, it is hard to justify a verdict of medium impact, which surely must involve a significant upgrade on low impact.

A free kick to Soligo should have been the end of the matter.

14 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

I saw this article as well. Wouldn't be surprised if the author was a Collingwood or Adelaide supporter. Its articles like this which really turn me off visiting that website, which is more and more beginning to be run like a facebook page.

Someone in the Facebook thread reckoned he was a bulldog supporter.

Might have been holding a grudge since the Bailey Smith hit. I thought that one was reckless by Koz.

The last two citings have been low impact glances.

1 hour ago, hardtack said:

Would you say the same about those criticising Maynard? After all, he was attempting to smother the ball. Yes, I think he got off far too easy, but his action did bring about rule changes which unfortunately have seen Kossie receive a suspension.

I think that if the player chooses to launch himself with both feet off the ground and the smother is successful without making contact with the opponent’s head, then fair enough…but if the player mis-times the smother and in bracing himself, makes contact with the head, then he’s in trouble.
 

The problem with the Maynard incident was that the spoil was carelessly executed and he made no effort to minimise impact to Brayshaw after he had committed the spoil. In comparison Kossie deliberately pulls back from the bump to minimise impact to Soligo.

The rule change this year re spoils, following the Maynard and Van Rooyen incidents last year, means that they are covered under rough conduct and players have a duty of care to other players when executing a spoil.

I'm a supporter of gradings taking into account potential to cause injury as it weighs not only the outcome but also the action. In this case I think we can successfully argue low impact on both actual and potential injury on account of Kossie's decision to pull back from the bump.

If the suspension is upheld, we should never see another incident classified as “low impact” ever again.