7 minutes ago, leucopogon said:

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!

Agree.

It's the lifting of the elbow that is the problem, not so much the bracing.

2 hours ago, hardtack said:

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.

Any apology that’s followed with “but…” shouldn’t be accepted because it’s at that point that the apology is voided.

Anyways. I asked you in a civil manner to exercise sensitivity, you amended your post, and I appreciate it. Thank you.

Incidentally, that I’m in contact with players and their families makes a grand total of ZERO difference to how badly that incident affects me. I’m a member and supporter, same as everyone else.

 

I also cannot see how we downgrade Kosi’s charge in the current environment and I’m comfortable with him missing a week, independently of what else has happened this year. 
He has to know that he’s now going to be looked at closely as someone with a history and he needs to be exceptionally careful. 

The AFL need to understand that NEITHER the MRO or Tribunals are Courts of Law.  Therefore, they cannot rely on precedent or "priors".  Nor can they rely on a change of policy.  Each incident can only be examined under CURRENT AFL rules and not ones the AFL want to bring in as a knee jerk reaction.  The AFL needs to get its house in order and not be a 'law' unto itself.

1 hour ago, fr_ap said:

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. 

CARRRYST U GUYS SERIOUS

CMON SUPPORT OUR GUY!

MFC to appeal Kozzies suspension:

https://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/1525732/mro-update-dees-challenge-pickett-sanction

 

1 hour ago, I'va Worn Smith said:

The AFL needs to get its house in order and not be a 'law' unto itself.

That's never going to happen unless all clubs stand up as one on matters of controversy and protest / act up against issues that they believe / feel the AFL need to change or fix IWS.

And when has that ever happened?  They all (eventually) just fall in to line with HQ.  At the end of the day they all know where their bread is buttered.

This is the way the AFL prefer things, in flux, so they can 'manage' particular outcomes in their preferred direction.  Both on and off the field.

Another great example in the last 24 hours, their refusal to consider a Captain's challenge (at all) that might avert controversial issues on field, such as the touched mark and resulting goal that cost Freo the match yesterday.

Yet another example, the Maynard wrecking ball incident.  Normally (even before recent changes and assuming it happened in a H&A game with no chance of said player missimg a GF) that would automatically be 3 to 4 weeks minimum, regardless of which player jumped off the ground and K.O.'D opposing defenceless player.  He had an alternative, to push away with hands, and chose to curl up and lower his shoulder instead.

The AFL was happy to NOT protest the 'nothing to see here / football act' outcome at the tribunal, which allowed a key player to continue through finals and eventually win a flag.

I suspect this is also why they are dead against introducing any red card or sin bin style send off against a Maynard type incident.  It takes the control / manipulation side out of the hands of the AFL system (read circus) and hands it over (somewhat) to the umpires or most likely an off field official.

Edited April 8, 20241 yr by Demon Dynasty

8 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

If the suspension is upheld, we should never see another incident classified as “low impact” ever again.

Maybe they are reserving “low impact”  for a Moloney Bartel near miss?  

I don’t know if Kozzie can get off, probably not, but Toby Greene’s smashing of Mac Andrew’s head into the turf, after he had gotten rid of the footy, was far, far worse and dangerous and had the very real possibility of causing a serious injury.

How the hell was he completely let off?

The MRO, without any consistency of adjudicating, is little more than an embarrassing joke.

15 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I don’t know if Kozzie can get off, probably not, but Toby Greene’s smashing of Mac Andrew’s head into the turf, after he had gotten rid of the footy, was far, far worse and dangerous and had the very real possibility of causing a serious injury.

How the hell was he completely let off?

The MRO, without any consistency of adjudicating, is little more than an embarrassing joke.

MC is not the sharpest tool in the shed it would appear.   When he used to present his adjudications on tv he never seemed to follow a coherent pattern.  

11 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

I also cannot see how we downgrade Kosi’s charge in the current environment and I’m comfortable with him missing a week, independently of what else has happened this year. 
He has to know that he’s now going to be looked at closely as someone with a history and he needs to be exceptionally careful. 

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.

The wording of the rule appears to allow the potential to cause injury clause to be mitigated if the player is shown to have tried to minimise the impact, including through body position. (Effectively saying if you demonstrate you have exercised a duty of care but contact was still unavoidable then you can get off the hook).

In Kosi's case I suspect we will argue he didn't intend to make contact, and expected to pass behind Soligo, but once he realised it was inevitable he did the following to exercise duty of care as best as he could:

- he brought his arm down to protect his own ribs as he was in a vulnerable position too

-he pulls up as much as possible, minimises contact force

- he brought his arm in to make sure he didn't lead with the elbow. Note it looks like his elbow flicks up (reflex action, like looking at a tree while riding a mountain bike) but I think he actually controls it and drops it back loosely.

- Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, he doesn't actually brace for contact. You can see his arm is slack and his hands are open wide, in a soft body position ready to absorb impact, not tensed and tucked ready to dish out contact. 

The reason I believe the last is most important is because the tribunal has previously discussed hands open v clenched, and the tribunal rule specifically describes body position that affects impact.

 

To be clear I'm not making a position here that he definitely did all that he could do to mitigate it. Just describing what I think we will argue.

I do think he attempted to mitigate and reduce impact - he could've run through him, he could've hit him firmly, but in actual fact he barely touched him, which means he was successful in applying his duty of care.

I don't know if he did all he could be reasonably expected to do in the circumstances or if it still crosses the line of where we want to be. Given he did successfully mitigate the impact, do we truly expect more? What would that look like?

Edited April 8, 20241 yr by deanox

Glad they're appealing as the suspension is garbage but the week will stand.

6 hours ago, Garbo said:

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

Sorry @Garbo - for clarity I was using this as a rebuttal to the claims of "sniper", "dog", "dirtiest player in the game" accusations rather than disputing the MRO charge.

7 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Any apology that’s followed with “but…” shouldn’t be accepted because it’s at that point that the apology is voided.

The apology was for any pain my comments may have caused you personally. The “but” was not intended to negate or diminish that at all… it was the beginning of request that you don’t project your feelings onto others…perhaps I should have used ‘however’?

If you do not stand up for yourself , your players, your club.

the larger clubs  and the AFL as a whole will walk over you. as they have in the recent past, (Gus) and for years.

Stand up and argue your case.  At least you might get a bit of respect from them and media.  Smash the bears on Thursday as well,   Statement to be made  !

5 hours ago, hardtack said:

The apology was for any pain my comments may have caused you personally. The “but” was not intended to negate or diminish that at all… it was the beginning of request that you don’t project your feelings onto others…perhaps I should have used ‘however’?

I just think you need to tread carefully when discussing such a sensitive issue, especially while on a Demons forum. It’s a suggestion and a polite request.

FWIW, ‘However’ is the same as ‘but’ when it comes to an apology.

13 hours ago, I'va Worn Smith said:

The AFL need to understand that NEITHER the MRO or Tribunals are Courts of Law.  Therefore, they cannot rely on precedent or "priors".  Nor can they rely on a change of policy.  Each incident can only be examined under CURRENT AFL rules and not ones the AFL want to bring in as a knee jerk reaction.  The AFL needs to get its house in order and not be a 'law' unto itself.

Here here! Couldn't have said it any better

51 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

I just think you need to tread carefully when discussing such a sensitive issue, especially while on a Demons forum. It’s a suggestion and a polite request.

FWIW, ‘However’ is the same as ‘but’ when it comes to an apology.

Semantics do not change what I was trying to do with the best of intentions. I give up. Time for a break!

Feel for Koz, it's like his brain went from "smother the ball" to "clean him up" to "ah actually no I can't do that anymore" which is where you see him push him off right at the end of the collision.  Looks like he's trying but has strong Byron instincts he's trying to overcome.

I don't think the AFL can let him escape without a week at the moment unfortunately. 

14 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

I also cannot see how we downgrade Kosi’s charge in the current environment and I’m comfortable with him missing a week, independently of what else has happened this year. 
He has to know that he’s now going to be looked at closely as someone with a history and he needs to be exceptionally careful. 

This is where I'm at with this bump, when I first saw it I thought, "it's a week". Nothing changes every time I see it, he gets him high and he doesn't need to. I'm totally happy with the club challenging it because in the past we have rolled over when I thought we should make a stand, this at least is telling the competition that we are backing ourselves to do what we need to do to win.

I go on the AFL Reddit page and there were some really vitriolic statements from people and the general consensus is that he's a thug and a sniper. I like our players playing hard but I don't like our guys being seen as thugs and dirty players. I really do hope the club is able to curtail Kozzie's attitude on this.

The other funny part of that page though were Carlton fans criticising the club for challenging. Like seriously, they are going to criticised a club for trying to use the rules to get their player off a charge? Some club supporters really have zero self reflection on them, you can guarantee is Cripps does the same thing they'll be whining that the other player ran into him and to challenge it at the Supreme Court. 

18 hours ago, IRW said:

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

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

1 hour ago, Pates said:

This is where I'm at with this bump, when I first saw it I thought, "it's a week". Nothing changes every time I see it, he gets him high and he doesn't need to. I'm totally happy with the club challenging it because in the past we have rolled over when I thought we should make a stand, this at least is telling the competition that we are backing ourselves to do what we need to do to win.

I go on the AFL Reddit page and there were some really vitriolic statements from people and the general consensus is that he's a thug and a sniper. I like our players playing hard but I don't like our guys being seen as thugs and dirty players. I really do hope the club is able to curtail Kozzie's attitude on this.

The other funny part of that page though were Carlton fans criticising the club for challenging. Like seriously, they are going to criticised a club for trying to use the rules to get their player off a charge? Some club supporters really have zero self reflection on them, you can guarantee is Cripps does the same thing they'll be whining that the other player ran into him and to challenge it at the Supreme Court. 

Who the hell cares what other 'fans' think of our players? They all have their own agendas and blind spots.

16 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Any apology that’s followed with “but…” shouldn’t be accepted because it’s at that point that the apology is voided.

Anyways. I asked you in a civil manner to exercise sensitivity, you amended your post, and I appreciate it. Thank you.

Incidentally, that I’m in contact with players and their families makes a grand total of ZERO difference to how badly that incident affects me. I’m a member and supporter, same as everyone else.

 

The above is a proper explanation, as against a lame excuse by others

The other point here is that MFC instead of being cornered into not challenging this rubbish, we have decided to be quite upfront, and support our player to the hilt.

The Media would be all over this, if we didn't support Kossi by saying that, we were so upset that another club's player had done such a thing to one of ours, and yet we couldn't even stand by one of our own. That's their scummy attitude.

To my mind we can add this incident, one way or another to the WAR CHEST. Hand out retribution by winning this week's game and onward.

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.