Kozzy bump on Soligo

[Binmans PA 26,080]

23 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Fogarty got the same grading as Kozzie. 

What a shambles. Then by that bar, Kozzy should get off.

My view is Kozzy should get a week and Fogarty 3 or 4, but it's such a horribly inconsistent and poorly applied system.

[IRW 1,232]

2 minutes 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"

Just give it rest. 

Kozzi is undisciplined whether it's  "tackle/ bumps " or ridiculous leaps at impossible balls.

On the ground and in the mix he's a genius

[hardtack 10,127]

26 minutes ago, sue said:

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.

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.

Edited April 8 by hardtack

[daisycutter 28,528]

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

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

the point i'm trying to make is that the grading is the key

1. careless vs accidental. forget it. that was the maynard defence and that has been removed for smothers

2. contact not high. forget it , was unambiguously high

3. impact. low vs medium. this is the only arguable grading category

the defence needs to focus on this only and keep it simple. impact low is still guilty but attracts a fine not suspension. 

[hardtack 10,127]

6 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

3. impact. low vs medium. this is the only arguable grading category

the defence needs to focus on this only and keep it simple. impact low is still guilty but attracts a fine not suspension. 

I would have thought that once the player’s feet have left the ground and contact is made with the head, then there is no consideration for low impact…unfortunately, it’s probably going to be an automatic suspension, as that is the action they are trying to get out of the game.

[Dee-monic 620]

My hope: Kozzie will get off with a fine on the basis that the impact was low.

My prediction: He won't, even if impact was minimal.

The reason: the AFL wants to send a strong message that running towards an opponent and leaving the ground to attempt a spoil or smother now carries the risk of automatic suspension if the opponent's head is struck, even inadvertently.

With hugely significant legal cases in the pipeline regarding head injuries, the AFL is now firmly in "protect the head" mode.

Coaches will all be looking at the decision carefully, with a view to reining in their Maynard-type bruisers if Kozzie loses the appeal.

Edited April 8 by Dee-monic
Spelling correction.

[picket fence 15,163]

26 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

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

THAT..... IS EXACTLY 100% CORRECT😍

[daisycutter 28,528]

7 minutes ago, hardtack said:

I would have thought that once the player’s feet have left the ground and contact is made with the head, then there is no consideration for low impact…unfortunately, it’s probably going to be an automatic suspension, as that is the action they are trying to get out of the game.

ht, i think those types of actions count more towards the accidental/careless category rather than impact category

of course it is impossible to find official documentation on this 

[Young Blood 1,985]

1 minute ago, hardtack said:

I would have thought that once the player’s feet have left the ground and contact is made with the head, then there is no consideration for low impact…unfortunately, it’s probably going to be an automatic suspension, as that is the action they are trying to get out of the game.

Its a bitter pill to swallow as I love Kozzy and this club. But he deserves the week. Its the right decision. I want the AFL to start punishing the 'action' as opposed to the consequence. Its the only way we might take some of these unnecessary injuries out of the game.

The attempt to spoil was fine but following through with shoulder/elbow to a players head in a vulnerable position was not. I understand its a split decision and its going to be difficult for players who play on the edge like Kozz.

The AFL have an opportunity to get it right here. It sucks that we're the ones who will pay the price for it (should be Collingwood for pure karma). But yeah it will be upheld.

[BDA 20,054]

That Roar article is way over the top and out of order. If Kossie really was a sniper he would have laid out Soligo. But he didn’t because I think tried to minimise the contact realising mid-action that he could cause damage. Still made contact but not near to the same extent as he could have. I think this clearly sets the incident apart from Maynard who appeared to make no attempt whatsoever to reduce the impact with Gus.

I wouldn’t give this author the time of day. That said, I’m not sure how others can construe the article as being racist.

In terms of the action itself my understanding is that once you leave the ground and make contact with the head it is automatically graded as medium impact. I guess we’ll find out tomorrow night if that’s a correct application of the rule or not.

Whilst I think he tried to minimise the impact I’m not sure why Kossie needs to leave the ground in this situation. I’m sure the FD will be coaching in this regard. Just stay on your feet kossie.

[HarpenDee 174]

100%. Soligo was a sitting duck and Koz could have levelled him and caused serious damage.

But he didnt.

[Bitter but optimistic 21,254]

55 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

the point i'm trying to make is that the grading is the key

1. careless vs accidental. forget it. that was the maynard defence and that has been removed for smothers

2. contact not high. forget it , was unambiguously high

3. impact. low vs medium. this is the only arguable grading category

the defence needs to focus on this only and keep it simple. impact low is still guilty but attracts a fine not suspension. 

Dc do you have the rule or document whereby "low v medium " contact is defined?

[sue 8,430]

12 minutes ago, BDA said:

...

In terms of the action itself my understanding is that once you leave the ground and make contact with the head it is automatically graded as medium impact. I guess we’ll find out tomorrow night if that’s a correct application of the rule or not.

...

A number of people have said this is the AFL's policy.  But seriously, how can they come up with such a patent absurdity.  If you want to make a rule that in circumstances A, B or C, an impact with the head is punishable with X, do so and I'd support it.  But don't torture the English language by calling clearly a low impact, medium.

Edited April 8 by sue

[dpositive 1,547]

32 minutes ago, Dee-monic said:

My hope: Kozzie will get off with a fine on the basis that the impact was low.

My prediction: He won't, even if impact was minimal.

The reason: the AFL wants to send a strong message that running towards an opponent and leaving the ground to attempt a spoil or smother now carries the risk of automatic suspension if the opponent's head is struck, even inadvertently.

With hugely significant legal cases in the pipeline regarding head injuries, the AFL is now firmly in "protect the head" mode.

Coaches will all be looking at the decision carefully, with a view to reining in their Maynard-type bruisers if Kozzie loses the appeal.

Low impact is part of the argument I would emphasise. But remind tribunal of "learnings". our club is more conscious than most of the impact of  head high contact. Kozzie has altered his playing style and was able to turn a full collision as part of a football act  into a glancing blow that had low impact on the player. We support a fine and believe Kozzie should keep playing to continue to inspire youngsters to increase skills in avoiding contacts and make changes to the way they play.

Alternatively they could claim that he was unaware of any features of the game after he had his head ripped off in the first quarter and therefore is not responsible for the action. 

[DEE fence 4,464]

I actually believe the coach on this, that they have worked on Kossie, and that he wasn't trying to snipe Soligo.

Sadly while I believe his guilt to be less in this specific case, he's getting the tax for his prior actions.

Whoever pointed out the hand being open is also correct, goes a long way to towards intent not being a bump.

He's still going to get a week and I still love him.

[Fat Tony 4,408]

51 minutes ago, BDA said:

That Roar article is way over the top and out of order. If Kossie really was a sniper he would have laid out Soligo. But he didn’t because I think tried to minimise the contact realising mid-action that he could cause damage. Still made contact but not near to the same extent as he could have. I think this clearly sets the incident apart from Maynard who appeared to make no attempt whatsoever to reduce the impact with Gus.

I wouldn’t give this author the time of day. That said, I’m not sure how others can construe the article as being racist.

In terms of the action itself my understanding is that once you leave the ground and make contact with the head it is automatically graded as medium impact. I guess we’ll find out tomorrow night if that’s a correct application of the rule or not.

Whilst I think he tried to minimise the impact I’m not sure why Kossie needs to leave the ground in this situation. I’m sure the FD will be coaching in this regard. Just stay on your feet kossie.

He left the ground to try and get the ball which was sailing over his head. 

[fr_ap 2,147]

I hope it doesn't for our chances against Brisbane, but the week should stand and we as a fan base should be accepting of this. It's an action that was entirely unnecessary - that he could have 'laid out' Soligo but didn't is completely irrelevant and tbh a very silly thing to say. "I could have decked the guy but only elbowed him slightly in the head, I'm innocent". Ridiculous suggestion. 

Separately, the commentary around Koz and his nature has been disgusting. Even without the Roar article, Collingwood and Carlton fans have been into him for a long time. Carlton fans in particular despise Koz (because he's consistently pulled their pants down, Motlop is half as good only in their wettest of dreams) - their common name for him is 'the junkyard dog'. 

People will deny it but there is a particularly pernicious tone to these accusations when it's a player of certain colour. Seen it before in this sport all too many times. 

[daisycutter 28,528]

46 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

Dc do you have the rule or document whereby "low v medium " contact is defined?

lol. an afl document that describes the rules.  that's real funny, uncle

[Winners at last 4,729]

From Foxsports ... 

The AFL has tightened its rules around head-high contact for 2022, with more suspensions likely to be given out under tweaks for the Match Review and Tribunal.

Previously when a high bump or front-on contact occurred, “strong consideration” had to be given to the potential to cause injury. New for next season, the potential to cause injury must be factored into the impact grading.

It means, as with striking charges, any high contact with the potential to cause injury will “usually” be classified as either medium, high or severe impact - not low impact.

 

To those who keep banging on that the impact was minor. Yes, Soligo wasn't injured. However, potential to cause injury caused it to be classified as 'medium'.

Can't see Kozzy getting off with a fine.

[sue 8,430]

14 minutes ago, Winners at last said:

From Foxsports ... 

The AFL has tightened its rules around head-high contact for 2022, with more suspensions likely to be given out under tweaks for the Match Review and Tribunal.

Previously when a high bump or front-on contact occurred, “strong consideration” had to be given to the potential to cause injury. New for next season, the potential to cause injury must be factored into the impact grading.

It means, as with striking charges, any high contact with the potential to cause injury will “usually” be classified as either medium, high or severe impact - not low impact.

 

To those who keep banging on that the impact was minor. Yes, Soligo wasn't injured. However, potential to cause injury caused it to be classified as 'medium'.

Can't see Kozzy getting off with a fine.

Leaving aside the silly way they have tied it to “medium" rather than just stating it gets an immediate minum 1 week ban, what I wonder qualifies as not " usually" in the sentence above?

Since the club has challenged, maybe they know. 

Edited April 8 by sue

[Garbo 1,330]

1 hour ago, HarpenDee said:

100%. Soligo was a sitting duck and Koz could have levelled him and caused serious damage.

But he didnt.

And if he was concussed he would be getting a month or more not a week

[leucopogon 1,468]

Unfortunately there is no way Kozzie will get downgraded. Watch again the slow-mo and you'll see that he could have avoided contact with Soligo's head if he had just kept his arms up to smother instead of dropping the arm into a brace position. 

Not only did he brace for impact but he also lifted the eblow slightly as he contacted Soligo's head which makes it look even worse. Get the stupid [censored] out of your game Kozzie!

[DubDee 20,618]

How TF do you grade potential for injury?? imo there is zero potential for injury unless the impact is medium or severe. 

so in this case there is no potential 

[Garbo 1,330]

Soon as he bumped and got the head it was as a medium, the only occasion I’ve seen head contract get a low in recent time would be someone pushing in a melee making glancing contact. The level of contact kozzie made is medium plain and simple 

Edited April 8 by Garbo

[Little Goffy 12,571]

We'll all be pleased to know that Tim Miller has done a neat 180 for tone on Pickett..

"The 22-year-old jumped off the ground and made glancing contact with his opponent’s head during the Demons’ 15-point win at Adelaide Oval on Thursday night.

Soligo finished the game and on Friday played down the incident."

Presumably someone had a word with him. Considering he's never had a job except at The Roar but his 'dress for the job you want' profile picture makes him look like the host of a Young Liberals cocktail party debate night, you'd suspect he was quite ready to duck for cover.