Kozzy bump on Soligo

[leave it to deever 17,517]

On 06/04/2024 at 22:11, picket fence said:

You are kidding, right

On 08/04/2024 at 07:56, 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

 

I think I'm starting to see your point.

I did think Kozzys act was dangerous but not in a big way.

It's the inconsistent decisions that are very  mystifying and annoying.

[leave it to deever 17,517]

34 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

...I'll add that Fox Footy's reporting on this incident has been as disgraceful as the tribunal's handling of it.  They have been gunning for Kossie to be suspended from the start and the suckers at the AFL have been more than happy to play along.

Just look at the below sensationalist headline for a recent example:

‘I’m scared of training with him’; Demons superstar defends Pickett after another ban

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/melbourne-demons/im-scared-of-training-with-him-demons-superstar-defends-pickett-after-another-ban/news-story/b26f75a9c6d0204e9117ce44627119f9

 

Pretty clear from reading that Trac is scared of getting caught from the awsome chasing and tackling defensive pressure that Kossie applies rather than being physically scared for his wellbeing.

It's lonely at the top.

It's been a while now RBG that the media has been coming after us.

We must be doing something right.

Other clubs are afraid of us .

 

[DistrACTION Jackson 9,193]

44 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

Clearly the Afls are now drawing a line in the sand regarding head high contact.

It's a joke they didn't do it last year. 

Their inconsistent decisions make them look like clowns.

This is the major issue and the reason so many fans are frustrated, myself included. There is no consistency to the MRO or the tribunal findings and also the way the media and the AFL questioning is from case to case.

7 months ago Maynard performed one of the more dangerous acts I've seen on a footy field, which resulted in a player retiring and gets nothing. Pretty sure there were still rules around showing a duty of care at that time, so not sure why it wasn't applied in that case.

We now find ourselves where an incidental contact, while dumb from Kozzy it wasn't a dirty act and was made with very little force gets a 1 week suspension. In the same weekend Fogarty runs straight at Fyfe and launches himself at him with a clenched fist, misses the ball by a mile and punches him in the throat. This is assessed the same as a glancing blow from Kozzy.

Then last week Rivers tackles Rozee, who throws himself to the ground (arms free) and the MRO issue a fine. The next weekend Toby Greene dumps Mac Andrew into the turf and it's nothing to see because - his arm was free.

WTF is wrong with this competition and their adjudication.

The MRO needs to be a panel of people, not one bloke who has shown himself to be inept. I would also be comfortable if the AFL said, he will have a 3 man panel deciding each incident and there's no tribunal option, their decision is final. It's the AFL's competition they can suspend anyone they want, why does there have to be tribunal involved if they have a panel who can discuss and make decisions.

[Willmoy1947 4,140]

9 hours ago, 58er said:

If you can’t see some undisciplined play by Kossie then you have no reason asking others whether Kossie is. 

Any reasonable supporter can see now that his tackling is a major problem, 3 times in 30 games spells that out clearly.

Your statement that we are not able to judge that because we don’t know if he has actually breached team rules because we aren’t sure if his actions are against rules as outlined by Goody. 

Snd he has surely shown with his continuous unrealistic MOTY or MOTC absolutely unsuccessful attempts an undoubted disregard of any team or football rules . 

The  mantra of discipline is would it be ok for all of our small players to engage in the same practices. No surely not.

They are towing the line crumbing usually and providing good service to the team.

Let me say that Kossie  is able to generally have a very small licence to thrill and Thsts what makes him a 40 goals plus player.

He is one of our best players BUT if he cuts out the above mentioned consistent faults he will elevate himself to an A grader and undoubted consistent match winner for us.

His gsm in the Semi vs Carlton is a classic example of this. Kicked goals as the cameo FF but got penalised as he spoilt his work with wrongful acts and let the team down. 

One could go so far as to say he lost us the game.in his fifth year of footy it’s about time he and the coaches had a very serious talk about what an AFL player is expected to do. 
 

That wasn't the question that i asked.

[Willmoy1947 4,140]

2 hours ago, IRW said:

I know he's been rubbed out three times .

That's enough to form an reasoned opinion

Greg Williams and Rod Grinter send their regards, along with many others

[binman 43,705]

1 hour ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

...I'll add that Fox Footy's reporting on this incident has been as disgraceful as the tribunal's handling of it.  They have been gunning for Kossie to be suspended from the start and the suckers at the AFL have been more than happy to play along.

Just look at the below sensationalist headline for a recent example:

‘I’m scared of training with him’; Demons superstar defends Pickett after another ban

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/melbourne-demons/im-scared-of-training-with-him-demons-superstar-defends-pickett-after-another-ban/news-story/b26f75a9c6d0204e9117ce44627119f9

 

Pretty clear from reading that Trac is scared of getting caught from the awsome chasing and tackling defensive pressure that Kossie applies rather than being physically scared for his wellbeing.

I see the low impact argument, but I'm OK with koz getting a week, not for the bump, but for raising his elbow.

Yes he only glanced his head, but I'm in the factor in the risk of injury camp. If his elbow had, say flushed his temple then some real damage could have been done.

But I'm not ok with the hypocrisy of the coverage of what was really an incidental incident compared to the can't miss a grand final for a 'football action' vibe that dominated the coverage of Maynard's hit on Gus.

And even more frustratingly, there is zero reflection by the media about that blatant hypocrisy.

For god's sake one action ended the football career of a bloke in his mid 20s (at all levels - and I presume Gus can no longer play ANY contact sport, eg basketball).

And the other caused NO injury, with the player 'hit' going on to be his team's best player, even getting coached votes.

And why? Because whilst koz was silly to put his elbow out, it was fleeting and he realised immediately wrong, and pulled it back. That's to say successfully tried to minimise impact.

Maynard did the opposite. No thought at at all to minimise the impact on Gus. His instinct was 100% solely to protect himself. 

The media should be ashamed of the coverage of the Maynard hit.

And ashamed about the white noise it is creating painting koz as a sniper with form.

[samcantstandya 1,057]

13 hours ago, Dodos Demons said:

The matrix table which contains the grading of classifiable offences and in particular, the grading of the degree/level of “contact” (ie the force)  is open to so much wriggle room (aka for the “stars” of the game) and ambiguity because of one sentence buried in the tribunal guidelines under the definition of impact. That sentence is as follows:

“The MRO may however consider the potential to cause injury to upgrade impact from negligible to a higher level of impact.” 
Wait for the day that a fresh air swing or missed bump that May otherwise have collected an opponent on the head results in a Demons player being suspended. The inclusion of a clause granting the MRO with unfettered discretion to upgrade is an indictment on the tribunal system as a forum for fair and impartial adjudication of these matters. 

It has already happened to us when Brent Moloney went to strike someone but missed. Also Chandler got 2 weeks went he ran and laid a perfect tackle but the momentum forced both to fall forward.

[Jaded No More 68,972]

28 minutes ago, binman said:

 

And ashamed about the white noise it is creating painting koz as a sniper with form.

It has definitely crossed my mind that there is more than a hint of racism in all this.

Media were at pains to paint Maynard as Mother Teresa, but Kosi is the biggest snipper in the game?

Something stinks

[ElDiablo14 5,002]

1 hour ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

This is the major issue and the reason so many fans are frustrated, myself included. There is no consistency to the MRO or the tribunal findings and also the way the media and the AFL questioning is from case to case.

7 months ago Maynard performed one of the more dangerous acts I've seen on a footy field, which resulted in a player retiring and gets nothing. Pretty sure there were still rules around showing a duty of care at that time, so not sure why it wasn't applied in that case.

We now find ourselves where an incidental contact, while dumb from Kozzy it wasn't a dirty act and was made with very little force gets a 1 week suspension. In the same weekend Fogarty runs straight at Fyfe and launches himself at him with a clenched fist, misses the ball by a mile and punches him in the throat. This is assessed the same as a glancing blow from Kozzy.

Then last week Rivers tackles Rozee, who throws himself to the ground (arms free) and the MRO issue a fine. The next weekend Toby Greene dumps Mac Andrew into the turf and it's nothing to see because - his arm was free.

WTF is wrong with this competition and their adjudication.

The MRO needs to be a panel of people, not one bloke who has shown himself to be inept. I would also be comfortable if the AFL said, he will have a 3 man panel deciding each incident and there's no tribunal option, their decision is final. It's the AFL's competition they can suspend anyone they want, why does there have to be tribunal involved if they have a panel who can discuss and make decisions.

Not only is that MRO person inept, but corrupt. Didn't he threatened to resign if certain someone was suspended last September?

[ElDiablo14 5,002]

54 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

It has definitely crossed my mind that there is more than a hint of racism in all this.

Media were at pains to paint Maynard as Mother Teresa, but Kosi is the biggest snipper in the game?

Something stinks

Eddie McGuire 😶😶

[doc roet 1,287]

Based on that decision, (Kozzies suspension) I'd be expecting at least half a dozen incidents a game to be looked at. How many times in a game, that is played at break neck speed, is there a action by one player that has the potential to cause injury to another. I'd say nearly every contested ball there could be an incident whereby a player makes accidental contact with another's head or face. It's football for God's sake, not basketball.

[sue 9,126]

1 hour ago, binman said:

I see the low impact argument, but I'm OK with koz getting a week, not for the bump, but for raising his elbow.

Yes he only glanced his head, but I'm in the factor in the risk of injury camp. If his elbow had, say flushed his temple then some real damage could have been done.

But I'm not ok with the hypocrisy of the coverage of what was really an incidental incident compared to the can't miss a grand final for a 'football action' vibe that dominated the coverage of Maynard's hit on Gus.

And even more frustratingly, there is zero reflection by the media about that blatant hypocrisy.

For god's sake one action ended the football career of a bloke in his mid 20s (at all levels - and I presume Gus can no longer play ANY contact sport, eg basketball).

And the other caused NO injury, with the player 'hit' going on to be his team's best player, even getting coached votes.

And why? Because whilst koz was silly to put his elbow out, it was fleeting and he realised immediately wrong, and pulled it back. That's to say successfully tried to minimise impact.

Maynard did the opposite. No thought at at all to minimise the impact on Gus. His instinct was 100% solely to protect himself. 

The media should be ashamed of the coverage of the Maynard hit.

And ashamed about the white noise it is creating painting koz as a sniper with form.

I agree with all of that Binman except the sentence:

Quote

Maynard did the opposite. No thought at at all to minimise the impact on Gus. His instinct was 100% solely to protect himself. 

I don't think that was his sole aim.

[Brownie 5,986]

4 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

So f###ing angry at this suspension.

Look at it in real time and it's nothing like the Maynard thug thing.  He converges from the side and glances him. The action never had the same potential to do injury as Maynard did, because he wasn't charging straight at him from the polar opposite direction.  Our defence was totally valid, he never lined him up, didnt elect to bump the player, the time he has his arm tucked in for a split second and flys across the front of him, barely brushing him.

It was low impact and wasn't a bump - please change the thread title accordingly to "Kossy glance on Soligo". 

From the reporting I've heard of it, the contemptuous way the AFL tribunal dismissed our case against is a disgrace.  I bring back the example of Chol from a few weeks back where a 6'10" 95kg giant planted his knee with the monentuum and full weight of his body, right into the back of his opponents head at the point where the spine meets the scull, which is apparently ok, because it wasn't a 'bump'.  These people are a joke and I'm sick of our team and our players being their play things and scape goats.

But Chol was jumping to mark not jumping to smother. Jumping to mark and breaking bones is apparently ok.

It's only leaving the ground to smother that appears that somehow now appears to be dangerous?

And.... Then Kozzies submission was that he leapt to catch the ball in the air, not smother or spoil.

Which he is entirely capable of doing.

They wouldn't even let our expert testify!

And argued for 90 mins about this instead of just letting him speak.

Don't tell me they don't play favourites.

Lisa Hannons statement was completely devoid of logic.

PLEASE get rid of Adrian Anderson. I'd love to know his success rate.

 

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,870]

39 minutes ago, Brownie said:

It's only leaving the ground to smother that appears that somehow now appears to be dangerous?

And.... Then Kozzies submission was that he leapt to catch the ball in the air, not smother or spoil.

Which he is entirely capable of doing.

They wouldn't even let our expert testify!

And argued for 90 mins about this instead of just letting him speak.

Don't tell me they don't play favourites.

Yep and if Kossie had taken the ball, kicked it up feild and we goal, it's probably play on and considered a football act.

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,870]

3 hours ago, binman said:

see the low impact argument, but I'm OK with koz getting a week, not for the bump, but for raising his elbow.

Yes he only glanced his head, but I'm in the factor in the risk of injury camp. If his elbow had, say flushed his temple then some real damage could have been done.

That's not how the tribunal saw it though, they said he elected to bump didn't they?

And sorry, but I see an elbo raise, a conscious effort to bump or anything.  It happens in a split second.  He didn't line him up and follow through like Plugger.

In reality, I don't really think he did either.  He was contesting the ball, was a split second late ...and he jumped.

The AFL needs a new rule - no jumping.

Like others I'm so frustrated at the lack of consistency from with the AFL.  They seem to grade impact level on consequence (i.e. is the player concussed or not) for everyone else but us.  The guy got straig back up imeediatley and wasn't anywhere near needing a concussion test, let alone being subbed out (or knocked out cold for 5mins per Gus).

Kossie is a huge loss to our side.  We have him Rd 0 in the tropics and we might have even won that game.

Edited April 10 by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,870]

3 hours ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

The MRO needs to be a panel of people, not one bloke who has shown himself to be inept. I would also be comfortable if the AFL said, he will have a 3 man panel deciding each incident and there's no tribunal option, their decision is final. It's the AFL's competition they can suspend anyone they want, why does there have to be tribunal involved if they have a panel who can discuss and make decisions.

Yep and keep those mongrel lawyers out of it all together.

[old55 23,687]

Maintaining the rage on the Maynard incident and advocating that Kossie avoids suspension are incompatibly hypocritical for me. Maynard should have got 4-6 weeks.

[doc roet 1,287]

4 minutes ago, old55 said:

Maintaining the rage on the Maynard incident and advocating that Kossie avoids suspension are incompatibly hypocritical for me. Maynard should have got 4-6 weeks.

Life.

[Clintosaurus 7,858]

3 hours ago, binman said:

The media should be ashamed of the coverage of the Maynard hit.

They were just keeping in line with the Flagpies narrative though. HQ approved of course.

[Pates 9,660]

28 minutes ago, old55 said:

Maintaining the rage on the Maynard incident and advocating that Kossie avoids suspension are incompatibly hypocritical for me. Maynard should have got 4-6 weeks.

I think Koz deserves a week, for me it's not something we should accept in the game. I also think that Maynard coming out of last year with a premiership medal is one of the most disgraceful things in AFL history. 4-6 was exactly what he should've got. I hope their premiership is cursed and they never win another one until they retire Maynard's number.

Edited April 10 by Pates

[loges 6,767]

This Geoff Gleeson tribunal chairman is a problem for us , always directs the panel the opposite way to what we are arguing. Surely the chairman's purpose is to clarify technical issues, not to direct the panel to what their finding should be otherwise he might as well make the decision himself.

[daisycutter 29,701]

1 minute ago, loges said:

This Geoff Gleeson tribunal chairman is a problem for us , always directs the panel the opposite way to what we are arguing. Surely the chairman's purpose is to clarify technical issues, not to direct the panel to what their finding should be otherwise he might as well make the decision himself.

what do you expect from a filth supporter?

the minute he refused to listen to our expert witness i knew we were done

[Red and Bluebeard 2,089]

52 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

what do you expect from a filth supporter?

the minute he refused to listen to our expert witness i knew we were done

Well, you wouldn't want someone to provide evidence that contradicts your foregone conclusion reached a long time ago, would you? 

[Redleg 41,398]

2 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Yep and keep those mongrel lawyers out of it all together.

Settle down. 

[leave it to deever 17,517]

The other penalty for punching a bloke on the throat to be the same is just plain wrong.