Jump to content


Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by hardtack
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
  • Clap 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Dee-monic
Spelling correction.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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😍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


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.

  • Like 3
  • Vomit 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3
  • Clap 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by sue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 7
  • Clap 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites


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.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by sue
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Garbo
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Haha 3
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Demonland Forums  

  • Match Previews, Reports & Articles  

    GAMEDAY: Rd 11 vs St. Kilda

    It's Game Day and after 2 losses on the trot the Dees must win against the Saints today at the MCG to keep in touch with the Top 4. A loss today will see them drop out of the Top 8 for the first time since 2020.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 64

    HEAVEN OR HELL by The Oracle

    Clashes between Melbourne and St Kilda are often described as battles between the forces of heaven and hell. However, based on recent performances, it’s hard to get excited about the forthcoming match between these two sides. It would be fair to say that, at the moment, both of these teams are in the doldrums. The Demons have become the competition’s slow starters while the Saints are not only slow to begin, they’re not doing much of a job finishing off their games either. About the only th

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons

    THE BLOW by Whispering Jack

    Narrm’s finals prospects took a crushing blow after the team’s insipid performance at Optus Stadium against a confident Waaljit Marawar in the first of its Doug Nicholls Round outings for 2024.  I use the description “crushing blow” advisedly because, although the season is not yet at it’s halfway mark, the Demons have now failed abysmally in two of their games against teams currently occupying bottom eight places on the ladder.  The manner in which these losing games were played out w

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports 6

    HALF FULL by KC from Casey

    It was a case of the Casey Demons going into a game with a glass half full in their match up against the Brisbane Lions at Casey Fields on Saturday. As the list of injured and unavailable AFL and VFL listed players continues to grow and with Melbourne taking all three emergencies to Perth for the weekend on a “just in case” basis, its little brother was always destined to struggle. Casey was left with only eight AFL listed players from who to select their team but only two - an out-of-form

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Casey Articles

    PREGAME: Rd 11 vs St. Kilda

    The Demons return to the MCG to take on the Saints in Round 11 on the back of two straight losses in a row. With Jake Lever out with concussion who comes in and who goes out?

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 419

    PODCAST: Rd 10 vs West Coast

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 20th May @ 8:30pm. Join George, Binman & I as we dissect the Demons disaapoiting performance against the Eagles at Optus Stadium in Round 10. You questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show. If you would like to leave us a voicemail please call 03 9016 3666 and don't worry no body answers so you don't have to talk to a human.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 45

    VOTES: Rd 10 vs West Coast

    Last week Captain Max Gawn consolidated his lead over reigning champion Christian Petracca in the Demonland Player of the Year Award. Steven May, Alex Neal-Bullen & Jake Lever make up the Top 5. Your votes for the loss against the Blues. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 37

    POSTGAME: Rd 10 vs West Coast

    Many warned that this was a danger game and the Demons were totally outclassed all game by a young Eagles team at Optus Stadium in Perth as they were defeated by 35 points.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 445

    GAMEDAY: Rd 10 vs West Coast

    It's Game Day and the Demons have returned to the site of their drought breaking Premiership to take on the West Coast Eagles in what could very well be a danger game for Narrm at Optus Stadium. A win and a percentage boost will keep the Dees in top four contention whilst a loss will cast doubt on the Dees flag credentials and bring them back to the pack fighting for a spot in the 8 as we fast approach the halfway point of the season.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 884
  • Tell a friend

    Love Demonland? Tell a friend!

×
×
  • Create New...