Kozzy bump on Soligo

[Brownie 5,284]

44 minutes ago, 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.

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.

 

 

I thought the same thing @Little Goffy. Really inciting some hatred and stirring the pot. Really poor.

[Young Blood 2,021]

48 minutes ago, sue said:

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. 

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 😪

Edited April 8 by Young Blood

[Dee Viney Intervention 1,484]

53 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.

 

 

 

Each to their own but I’m not sure why the optics aren’t good. What Maynard did and Kossie did are not even in the same postcode. No player remonstration, no doctor assessment, played the game out and player himself said nothing on it. Glad we are appealing because that was low impact. Wouldn’t even mention the word smother I would argue purely and simply low impact.  The sad reality is whether we appeal or don’t appeal Angus is not coming back. Let’s just judge incidents on their merit. Free kick correctly paid, fine Kossie club tells him he dodged a bullet there and reign it in a bit. I hope my comments aren’t viewed as insensitive. I just don’t want us to be the club that constantly thinks about the “optics” because of what happened to Angus. If a Melbourne players crosses the line then they should absolutely wear the consequences, Kossie did not cross the line.

Edited April 8 by Dee Viney Intervention

[Willmoy1947 3,790]

5 hours 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

What about the hit on Fife by the scum bag from Carlton and i know there is a lot of them. He actually looked to see where he was going to hit him and decided on the throat, which is sometimes more dangerous than the face which is also part of the head.

[Willmoy1947 3,790]

It's also becoming more and more obvious that the video evidence that we , the public, are getting is vastly different to what is available to the Media and the AFL. What a bunch of cheats.

[ElDiablo14 3,130]

21 minutes ago, chookrat said:

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.

Why can't some our supporters understand that it wasn't a smother attempt? It was unrealistic for him to try and smother the ball from 6 metres away.

It was purely a thug act disguised as a "football act".

Please stop making excuses for that piece of s***.

[Deestar9 1,411]

2 hours 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.
 

I just find it unbelievable to be comparing Kozzy with the action of Maynard. About the only similar thing is the word “smother”. There was a stat (I think the Richmond game where it was 10 smothers ! & they were lauding this ) in nearly every case where you attempt to smother the ball ..your feet leave the ground. His intention was to smother the ball & it absolutely should be graded low impact . 

[Young Blood 2,021]

Just now, Deestar9 said:

I just find it unbelievable to be comparing Kozzy with the action of Maynard. About the only similar thing is the word “smother”. There was a stat (I think the Richmond game where it was 10 smothers ! & they were lauding this ) in nearly every case where you attempt to smother the ball ..your feet leave the ground. His intention was to smother the ball & it absolutely should be graded low impact . 

Cool but its the action that the AFL are trying to reduce. Where's the duty of care Kozz has for the player in the vulnerable position? Does he need to raise his elbow? Football act?

[Bring-Back-Powell 13,243]

He won’t get off, but can we bring back the defence bloke who got Fritta off in 2021 vs North.

 

Edited April 8 by Bring-Back-Powell

[chookrat 3,776]

18 minutes ago, 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 😪

Good summary Young Blood. For what its worth the rule change re provisions for spoils under rough conduct are working as intended. The Fogarty 1 week suspension and Kossie facing 1 week, or a fine if we can argue low impact shows the change is working as intended.

Had this change being made last year then Van Rooyen probably would have faced 2 weeks and Maynard 3 - 5 weeks with the difference being the Impact grading of High v Severe.

Finally there is no point comparing the Fogarty incident to Pickett. The whole point of the grading system to grade incidents against the criteria on their own merit and that clubs can then elect to challenge the gradings. While taking into account the 'potential' for injury provides some grey area I think it provides for a more appropriate outcome by factoring in the action when grading an incident.

[WalkingCivilWar 32,073]

 

🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮

Not only is this a crock of sch!tt but in light of Kozzie’s huge brigade of little fans it makes me so angry.

Yesterday (like at any and every event) I couldn’t count the number of little kids with 36 on their jumpers. Kids idolise Kozzie. We sold bracelets like these…

The Kozzie ones went in the blink of an eye.

I meet a lot of little Dees and always ask “who’s your favourite player?” Max and Tracc figure strongly but hands down Kozzie is the name I hear most. This sort of talk is disgusting. How dare this nasty person drag Kozzie down to that thug Maynard’s level. 

 

Edited April 8 by WalkingCivilWar

[Jaded No More 58,104]

And then we wonder how in 2024 Kosi and other Indigenous players are still being racially targeted. This is how.

I want to see the article that this so called footy website wrote about Maynard. 

Sick and tired of our club being dragged through the mud at every chance by every god damn halfwit in the media.

 

[ElDiablo14 3,130]

1 minute ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

 

🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮

Not only is this a crock of sch!tt but in light of Kozzie’s huge brigade of little fans it makes me so angry.

Yesterday (like at any every event) I couldn’t count the number of little kids with 36 on their jumpers. Kids idolise Kozzie. We sold bracelets like these…

The Kozzie ones went in the blink of an eye.

I meet a lot of little Dees and always ask “who’s your favourite player?” Max and Tracc figure strongly but hands down Kozzie is the name I hear most. This sort of talk is disgusting. How dare this nasty person drag Kozzie down to that thug Maynard’s level. 

 

The Roar, I haven't spent even a minute on that website for more than 2 years. Wise decision, I would encourage all Demondlanders to stay away from that hooligan-feral style website.

[hardtack 10,127]

2 hours ago, Deestar9 said:

I just find it unbelievable to be comparing Kozzy with the action of Maynard. About the only similar thing is the word “smother”. There was a stat (I think the Richmond game where it was 10 smothers ! & they were lauding this ) in nearly every case where you attempt to smother the ball ..your feet leave the ground. His intention was to smother the ball & it absolutely should be graded low impact . 

It is not unbelievable at all as I am in no way comparing the two incidents other than the fact that they were both attempted smothers that went wrong… the fact is that he (Maynard) attempted to smother, albeit a clumsy attempt, and when it became obvious he would collide with Gus, braced for the collision… once a player is airborne at speed, there is no way they can take effective evasive action.

I’m tired of reading comments from Dees supporters saying that Maynard never had the intention of smothering and that the collision was premeditated! Personally, I do not consider that to be the case!

As a result of the rule changes following Maynard’s crude effort, every player knows the consequences and that they risk getting time off curtesy of the review panel. If players choose to launch themselves off the ground, then they need to be certain that they can nail the smother and not the opponent’s head!

 

Edited April 8 by hardtack

[Demonland 65,434]

1 hour ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

 

🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮

Not only is this a crock of sch!tt but in light of Kozzie’s huge brigade of little fans it makes me so angry.

Yesterday (like at any and every event) I couldn’t count the number of little kids with 36 on their jumpers. Kids idolise Kozzie. We sold bracelets like these…

The Kozzie ones went in the blink of an eye.

I meet a lot of little Dees and always ask “who’s your favourite player?” Max and Tracc figure strongly but hands down Kozzie is the name I hear most. This sort of talk is disgusting. How dare this nasty person drag Kozzie down to that thug Maynard’s level. 

 

You can let the him know what you think of his reporting here.

 

[Deestar9 1,411]

Not sure I disagreed with any of the sentiments you expressed (except the Maynard incident & we can agree to disagree) My position is “in my opinion” I felt the incident should have been graded on the lower side..meriting a fine. In no way do I disagree with the new rulings but I am very happy the club is challenging the “penalty” of the ruling. 

[layzie 28,935]

Give em hell Dees. 

And please choose decent defence counsel.  

[layzie 28,935]

1 hour ago, ElDiablo14 said:

The Roar, I haven't spent even a minute on that website for more than 2 years. Wise decision, I would encourage all Demondlanders to stay away from that hooligan-feral style website.

Exactly.

Any Joe two-shoes can write an article on there, I even wrote one about us in the Neeld era.

STAY CLEAR.

[WalkingCivilWar 32,073]

26 minutes ago, hardtack said:

I’m really tired of reading comments from Dees supporters saying that Maynard never had the intention of smothering and that the collision was premeditated! Absolute nonsense!

You don’t know if this was or wasn’t the case any more than any of us do. I believe it WAS the case, you clearly believe it wasn’t. Please don’t label what I believe as “absolute nonsense”

Besides that, (insert the obligatory everyone’s entitled to their opinion) how about exercising a little sensitivity? This incident has affected people in a variety of ways and to a variety of levels. I personally have been and still am deeply affected by it. Just a suggestion but maybe you should read the room.

And of course the also-obligatory… IMVFHO

[WalkingCivilWar 32,073]

@Dee Viney Intervention I can’t quote your post since you added it to another post but this is what you said…
 

“Each to their own but I’m not sure why the optics aren’t good. What Maynard did and Kossie did are not even in the same postcode. No player remonstration, no doctor assessment, played the game out and player himself said nothing on it. Glad we are appealing because that was low impact. Wouldn’t even mention the word smother I would argue purely and simply low impact.  The sad reality is whether we appeal or don’t appeal Angus is not coming back. Let’s just judge incidents on their merit. Free kick correctly paid, fine Kossie club tells him he dodged a bullet there and reign it in a bit. I hope my comments aren’t viewed as insensitive. I just don’t want us to be the club that constantly thinks about the “optics” because of what happened to Angus. If a Melbourne players crosses the line then they should absolutely wear the consequences, Kossie did not cross the line.”

In response to the bolded bit… no, your comments are NOT insensitive. You’ve expressed your views on a very delicate and contentious issue with sensitivity and thoughtfulness. Thank you. 🙂

[ElDiablo14 3,130]

19 minutes ago, layzie said:

Exactly.

Any Joe two-shoes can write an article on there, I even wrote one about us in the Neeld era.

STAY CLEAR.

You have more integrity than that so called Journo who wrote this piece of [censored] article.

[sue 8,443]

54 minutes ago, hardtack said:

It is not unbelievable at all as I am in no way comparing the two incidents other than the fact that they were both attempted smothers that went wrong… the fact is that he (Maynard) attempted to smother, albeit a clumsy attempt, and when it became obvious he would collide with Gus, braced for the collision… once a player is airborne at speed, there is no way they can take effective evasive action. I’m really tired of reading comments from Dees supporters saying that Maynard never had the intention of smothering and that the collision was premeditated! Absolute nonsense!

As a result of the rule changes following Maynard’s crude effort, every player knows the consequences and that they risk getting time off curtesy of the review panel. If players choose to launch themselves off the ground, then they need to be certain that they can nail the smother and not the opponent’s head!

 

OK, as one having said in a recent post that he never intended to smother, I retract that.  That may be his original intention but once he'd gone past the ball he lined Gus up. He did not brace for the collision to protect himself as there were other ways to do that - he has arms for example. He decided to clobber Gus instead. 

And it's not just one-eyed Demons supporters who saw it that way.  A lot of supporters from each team that has played C'wood this year have booed him.

[hardtack 10,127]

7 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

You don’t know if this was or wasn’t the case any more than any of us do. I believe it WAS the case, you clearly believe it wasn’t. Please don’t label what I believe as “absolute nonsense”

Besides that, (insert the obligatory everyone’s entitled to their opinion) how about exercising a little sensitivity? This incident has affected people in a variety of ways and to a variety of levels. I personally have been and still am deeply affected by it. Just a suggestion but maybe you should read the room.

And of course the also-obligatory… IMVFHO

It’s ok for posters such as yourself to say that this WAS a premeditated/intentional act, but unacceptable for me to say that that statement is absolute nonsense?? (incidentally, it’s obvious that that is my view and so shouldn’t need any clarification)

Ok, I’ll edit my post to remove the ‘offensive’ wording, but that will not change my view in any way.

Yes, you may have been affected by it, which is understandable considering that you are in contact with players and families of players, so, I’ll apologise as it has caused you some pain, but please don’t project that on to the majority of others whose only connection to the club is, like myself, as a member or supporter.

[biggestred 4,317]

I believe Maynard's was intentional as he'd been interviewed the week before saying he was going to make a statement and hurt people, but that's by the by.

I think kozzie deserves a week. I think it's not a good look for us to appeal. BUT

I hope we use "soligo moved into kozzies way" "kozzie was protecting himself" "he was just trying to smother" "it was a football act"

[daisycutter 28,576]

1 minute ago, biggestred said:

I believe Maynard's was intentional as he'd been interviewed the week before saying he was going to make a statement and hurt people, but that's by the by.

I think kozzie deserves a week. I think it's not a good look for us to appeal. BUT

I hope we use "soligo moved into kozzies way" "kozzie was protecting himself" "he was just trying to smother" "it was a football act"

why not just keep it simple and argue (correctly) that the impact was low.   it's not that hard.