Kozzy bump on Soligo

[Wells 11 5,449]

6 minutes ago, Bigfoot said:

Just can't see how we're going to pull this one off. I guess you don't know unless you try. Will be a miracle if he runs out on the G on Thursday night.

LOW IMPACT …. especially as it couid so easily have been high impact. 

[DistrACTION Jackson 10,181]

They will have to argue low impact (which it was), but also that the action did not have the potential to cause serious injury, which I think you can definitely do as Kozzie didn't have much momentum and realistically could've hit him even harder if he wanted.

Not defending what Kozzy did, but those are the facts whether you like the way he plays or not.

It will then be up to the tribunal to decide if they agree or not.

Hopefully the lawyer we get does as good a job as Maynard's.....

[Deestinga2 80]

People, please, he isnt getting off, he plays for Melbourne, we arent one of the AFLs protected clubs, now if he played for Geelong, Sydney, Collingwood or Carlton we may have a chance.

But the facts are that he should, low impact, no doctor, no concussion test, no remonstrating from other Crows players.

 

[IRW 1,388]

3 hours ago, Willmoy1947 said:

I presume you have a reason for knowing that he is undisciplined?

I watch him play. 

I don't know whether he makes his bed or washes the dishes at home.

He regularly jumps at impossible marks rather than being waiting at the bottom of the pack. 

He jumps into body contact " tackles" when apparently Maynard should be in jail. 

Choose your own adjective.

I see" playing on the edge"s the go to club talk ," he's still "working on it" apparently".

Thanks for your  interest 

 

[beelzebub 23,390]

1 hour ago, Wells 11 said:

LOW IMPACT …. especially as it couid so easily have been high impact. 

I think this is the idea....have it rerated as low impact....and a fine.

Worth the try.

[IRW 1,388]

3 hours ago, Willmoy1947 said:

I presume you have a reason for knowing that he is undisciplined?

Has he just come back from suspension for a tackle? 

Maybe it was just the  bias against MFC.

Get real pal, none of us know anything first hand and we can only post opinions based on what we see

[In Harmes Way 7,840]

15 hours ago, deanox said:

I am comfortable with it being a week because I feel it is about time that potential for injury is considered. But I do think the AFL needs to take a consistent line on what mitigating factors are sufficient to show duty of care.

If the AFL were serious about handing out weeks' suspensions based on potential, then Fogarty from Carlton should have got considerably more than 1 week. He could have caused significant damage to Fyfe. Completely agree with your comment on consistency.

[Gawndy the Great 9,011]

22 hours ago, hardtack said:

The act needs to be viewed in real time, and I’m not sure that anyone would be capable of mentally summing up the situation and considering the implications. I think the first reaction would be to protect your own body, and that would explain why he braced for contact in the way he did (a first response would likely be to not leave the chest, ribs and mid section exposed).

As I did say in my original post, I believe Maynard did get off very lightly, but if it can be said that anything good actually came out of this incident (regardless of how you or any one of us personally views it), at least it has led to rule changes intended to protect players in such cases. Unfortunately Kossie has become a victim of these changes that are intended to punish the action first, and then the outcome on top of that.

I think that what you say is actually wrong and is at the heart of how this whole incident is misconceived in the public forum.

Jason Dunstall was the only media pundit who actually correctly summarised the incident; Kozzy attempted the smother then actually positioned to push his opponent away.

It was in the later motion he actually caught him with his upper arm. The rear footage just makes it appear as though it was a bump, but when youvv no see the side on footage it is clearly evident that he caught him in the motion where he was attempting to push him away. One could argue it was this motion that minimised the significance of the impact and had Maynard tried the same thing, Brayshaw would still be playing today. 
 

This is what I believe will be argued tonight - it wasn’t a bracing / bump, it was a push away and the player clearly attempted to minimise the extent of impact whilst executing a footy act. The media spin is ludicrous and is part of the selective punishment issue we have in football. How they didn’t go hard after Maynard, which is not even on the same ball park has me bemused. 

Edited April 9, 2024 by Gawndy the Great

[Fromgotowoewodin 1,606]

39 minutes ago, IRW said:

He regularly jumps at impossible marks rather than being waiting at the bottom of the pack.

Standard claim by those who reckon he’s undisciplined. You don’t know if he makes his bed and I’m sure you also don’t know what Goody and the coaches tell him to do on field either.

If there was a serious issue with the way he plays he would’ve been at Casey working on it in the twos at some point. 

The Cripps bump was silly but hardly outrageous, this one is not worth a week and discipline had nothing to do with it. 

[deanox 10,045]

1 hour ago, In Harmes Way said:

If the AFL were serious about handing out weeks' suspensions based on potential, then Fogarty from Carlton should have got considerably more than 1 week. He could have caused significant damage to Fyfe. Completely agree with your comment on consistency.

And I think the issue is "how much duty of care is enough?".

In this case Kosi could have hit him hard (or medium) but did lots of things to mitigate it to a low impact glancing blow.

On one hand, that's exactly what the AFal want to see: potentially dangerous situation reduced to low impact due to the actions of the offending player.

However maybe the AFL goes further and says "regardless of how much you mitigated it, you could have mitigated the risk more by running the other way (for example) so you could've done more.

[DeeMee 923]

Worry not. The AFL will find wriggle room for any Blues, Pies or late season potential Brownlow recipients.

[IRW 1,388]

1 hour ago, Fromgotowoewodin said:

Standard claim by those who reckon he’s undisciplined. You don’t know if he makes his bed and I’m sure you also don’t know what Goody and the coaches tell him to do on field either.

If there was a serious issue with the way he plays he would’ve been at Casey working on it in the twos at some point. 

The Cripps bump was silly but hardly outrageous, this one is not worth a and discipline had nothing to do with it. 

Of course if you were paying attention to what I  wrote you would note I balanced my frustration/ criticism with his genius in the ground ball mix.

I doubt he' d be going back to Casey,hes too important for that,more likely the leadership group would be pointing out that he needs to not be  missing games through lack of discipline. 

Still, carry on with your  MFC can do no wrong polemic and no critical opinions should be voiced.

 

 

[Gawndy the Great 9,011]

5 minutes ago, deanox said:

And I think the issue is "how much duty of care is enough?".

In this case Kosi could have hit him hard (or medium) but did lots of things to mitigate it to a low impact glancing blow.

On one hand, that's exactly what the AFal want to see: potentially dangerous situation reduced to low impact due to the actions of the offending player.

However maybe the AFL goes further and says "regardless of how much you mitigated it, you could have mitigated the risk more by running the other way (for example) so you could've done more.

I don’t think that is reasonable. Kozzy wasn’t late to the contest (Maynard was) so he contested the ball by trying to smother it and missed.

It wasn’t an unreasonable act. So saying he should have run the other way and allowed Soligo a clean disposal is not an acceptable argument IMO. 
 

I angree about your mitigating factors and I think that will be sufficient to get him off. If he doesn’t get off, then it’s basically open season on all head high contact irrespective of the footy action being executed.

 

[picket fence 17,967]

8 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

I don’t think that is reasonable. Kozzy wasn’t late to the contest (Maynard was) so he contested the ball by trying to smother it and missed.

It wasn’t an unreasonable act. So saying he should have run the other way and allowed Soligo a clean disposal is not an acceptable argument IMO. 
 

I angree about your mitigating factors and I think that will be sufficient to get him off. If he doesn’t get off, then it’s basically open season on all head high contact irrespective of the footy action being executed.

 

Which then means that piece of Filth excrement, rule is still largely irrelevent!

[Young Blood 2,639]

28 minutes ago, deanox said:

And I think the issue is "how much duty of care is enough?".

In this case Kosi could have hit him hard (or medium) but did lots of things to mitigate it to a low impact glancing blow.

On one hand, that's exactly what the AFal want to see: potentially dangerous situation reduced to low impact due to the actions of the offending player.

However maybe the AFL goes further and says "regardless of how much you mitigated it, you could have mitigated the risk more by running the other way (for example) so you could've done more.

Its the turning and tucking of the shoulder with elbow out (yes I know he eventually extends the arm to push.. quick thinking from Kozz). But its this action the AFL wants to stamp out and the recent history shows this player has a habit of not showing duty of care when they leave their feet. Like the Peter Wright incident its split second stuff and so so hard to think quick but this action/instinct has the potential with head contact to cause damage and this action is why he won't get off tonight. The AFL need to make a stand (unfortunately for us... Should have been with Maynard last year).

Where's the duty of care of the players head here? And don't tell me this [censored] of 'he could have hit him so much harder' like thats going to stand up at the tribunal. Yes I know its the back angle which looks worse but it shows him turn his body and tucking.

 

Edited April 9, 2024 by Young Blood

[Sir Why You Little 37,297]

On 08/04/2024 at 10:24, Young Blood said:

As much as I absolutely detest the man, I don't think Maynards action was premeditated before he left the air. He jumped to spoil/smother. Its once he was in the air he decided to turn his body and make full contact with his shoulder with the intention to hurt the player (Gus). I know its a lost cause but it still baffles me as to why old vision of the hundreds of times a similar situation occurred where the player in the air simply put their arms out to brace/push off the kicker was not enough to influence the decision. This is the duty of care we're talking about, not a thug taking advantage of a player in a vulnerable position.

Unfortunately while the impact is so different, the act is somewhat similar with Kozz. Leaves his feet to intercept/spoil the handball then decides in that split second to clip the players head with elbow. It was a split second but unnecessary. This part was not a football act.

Any other year he gets off. But not this year 😪

Maynard left the Ground after the ball had passed. 
it was premeditated and executed 

First minute of the game 

Lest We Forget 

Edited April 9, 2024 by Sir Why You Little

[DistrACTION Jackson 10,181]

12 minutes ago, Young Blood said:

Its the turning and tucking of the shoulder with elbow out (yes I know he eventually extends the arm to push.. quick thinking from Kozz). But its this action the AFL wants to stamp out and the recent history shows this player has a habit of not showing duty of care when they leave their feet. Like the Peter Wright incident its split second stuff and so so hard to think quick but this action/instinct has the potential with head contact to cause damage and this action is why he won't get off tonight. The AFL need to make a stand (unfortunately for us... Should have been with Maynard last year).

Where's the duty of care of the players head here? And don't tell me this [censored] of 'he could have hit him so much harder' like thats going to stand up at the tribunal. Yes I know its the back angle which looks worse but it shows him turn his body and tucking.

 

If you just looked at that photo and nothing else you would think it's worth 3 weeks, but a photo doesn't tell the whole story and just captures a split second.

If you watch the video in real time he goes to smother the ball and then clips him very lightly, which you can't tell from a photo.

The media have been running with that photo because it suits their narrative.

[Demonstone 23,336]

9 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

First minute of the game 

Early in the first quarter but not the first minute.  Collingwood had already kicked two goals.

Please don't take this comment as supporting that dog Maynard in any way, shape or form.

Edited April 9, 2024 by Demonstone

[Young Blood 2,639]

11 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

If you just looked at that photo and nothing else you would think it's worth 3 weeks, but a photo doesn't tell the whole story and just captures a split second.

If you watch the video in real time he goes to smother the ball and then clips him very lightly, which you can't tell from a photo.

The media have been running with that photo because it suits their narrative.

Cool but I'm not the media. Just someone who is sick and tired of concussions due to careless acts from opposition players.

Here's another angle. If an opposition player lightly clipped a demon player in this same act I would be furious. Especially if they have a history of careless/reckless behaviour like Kozzy has. Its not the impact, its the act! Why did he need to turn and knock his head with the elbow? Its unnecessary. 

Edited April 9, 2024 by Young Blood

[Fromgotowoewodin 1,606]

29 minutes ago, IRW said:

Of course if you were paying attention to what I  wrote you would note I balanced my frustration/ criticism with his genius in the ground ball mix.

I doubt he' d be going back to Casey,hes too important for that,more likely the leadership group would be pointing out that he needs to not be  missing games through lack of discipline. 

Still, carry on with your  MFC can do no wrong polemic and no critical opinions should be voiced.

 

 

My issue isn’t with how you want to soften your criticism. 

My issue is with the myth that he’s ill-disciplined. Think about what you’re actually putting forward “he’s too important” to play at Casey? So are Goody and co scared to drop a 22yo even though he ignores their instructions to be front and centre? And they’re also ticked off with him about bumping players but can’t drop him for that either?

Or is it more likely that there aren’t any such instructions and frustrations internally and he’s doing fine on the field (averaging 2goals per game so far, above his career average of 1.49) and the bump is just one of those things that happens (and one which he may still get off with a fine for)?

It’s not about MFC can do no wrong, it’s don’t make things up in your head and project them out into reality. 

[Fat Tony 5,303]

14 minutes ago, Young Blood said:

Its the turning and tucking of the shoulder with elbow out (yes I know he eventually extends the arm to push.. quick thinking from Kozz). But its this action the AFL wants to stamp out and the recent history shows this player has a habit of not showing duty of care when they leave their feet. Like the Peter Wright incident its split second stuff and so so hard to think quick but this action/instinct has the potential with head contact to cause damage and this action is why he won't get off tonight. The AFL need to make a stand (unfortunately for us... Should have been with Maynard last year).

Where's the duty of care of the players head here? And don't tell me this [censored] of 'he could have hit him so much harder' like thats going to stand up at the tribunal. Yes I know its the back angle which looks worse but it shows him turn his body and tucking.

 

Kossie's humerus bone is almost vertical at the point of collision, so his elbow is pointing down. He raised his wrist to 90 degrees, in a half brace action. A full brace would have brought the elbow down lower but also tensed the biceps and made the hit harder.

The action to half brace has little or no impact on if Soligo got a concussion or not. But failing to do this action might have seen Kossie with a shoulder injury, broken ribs or losing a kidney. 

Did Kossie jump with any intention to bump Soligo? No, he was trying to smother.

Could have he done anything to prevent a collision with Soligo's head whilst in the air? No. The trajectory of both players' prior to the incident was always going to result in contact, as Kossie was initially running a path to tackle Soligo.

Did Kossie's actions make the collision with Soligo harder than it needed to be? Not really. Kossie did not fully tense his biceps. If he had have kept the right wrist down, there still would have been a similar force collision and Kossie might need a shoulder reconstruction.

[Fat Tony 5,303]

13 minutes ago, Young Blood said:

Cool but I'm not the media. Just someone who is sick and tired of concussions due to careless acts from opposition players.

Here's another angle. If an opposition player lightly clipped a demon player in this same act I would be furious. Especially if they have a history of careless/reckless behaviour like Kozzy has. Its not the impact, its the act! Why did he need to turn and knock his head with the elbow? Its unnecessary. 

The elbow is down here. 

What was Kossie meant to do? Cut his arm off in the air?

[JTR 2,883]

I hope the tribunal pay more attention to the actual vision, which shows both players heading in the same (not opposite) direction and towards the ball.

If you hadn't seen the incident and were just looking at the still pictures above (like most of the 'expert' armchair commentators out there), it looks like Kossie is jumping into Soligo and putting his elbow right though his head, which didnt happen.

[Dee Zephyr 19,269]

Is this show on the road yet?

[Young Blood 2,639]

34 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

Kossie's humerus bone is almost vertical at the point of collision, so his elbow is pointing down. He raised his wrist to 90 degrees, in a half brace action. A full brace would have brought the elbow down lower but also tensed the biceps and made the hit harder.

The action to half brace has little or no impact on if Soligo got a concussion or not. But failing to do this action might have seen Kossie with a shoulder injury, broken ribs or losing a kidney. 

Did Kossie jump with any intention to bump Soligo? No, he was trying to smother.

Could have he done anything to prevent a collision with Soligo's head whilst in the air? No. The trajectory of both players' prior to the incident was always going to result in contact, as Kossie was initially running a path to tackle Soligo.

Did Kossie's actions make the collision with Soligo harder than it needed to be? Not really. Kossie did not fully tense his biceps. If he had have kept the right wrist down, there still would have been a similar force collision and Kossie might need a shoulder reconstruction.

I wish I knew the inner workings of Kozzy's biceps like you do 😉

There's two actions there and both replay angles show it. Yes the first is to spoil but after that he has an opportunity to brace with arm out on Soligo's shoulder. He could have kept his body aligned with the trajectory he was going instead of turning his body and pushing out with the elbow/shoulder (general area) to Soligo's head.

Regardless of whether we believe Maynard went to spoil the kick, once he was in the air he could have put both hands out to brace and push off or land on Brayshaw. Yes this alternative could have caused injury to both players bodies but at least one wouldn't have a champion player retire far too early after one last horrible concussion. GET RID OF THIS ACT.

Edited April 9, 2024 by Young Blood