2 minutes ago, chookrat said:

Another perspective on this is that if Kossie's leg was seriously injured in the collision then Moore would have been on report. I wonder what happens if both Moore was concussed and Kossie's leg broken in the same incident, would both players be suspended?

There is nothing in the Tribunal Guidelines which prioritises one reportable offence over another, and if Moore's action is not considered for Kossie's report then the same argument would apply if both players were injured, e.g. ignore the other players action and purely focus on the bump and slide separately for each reportable offence.

It’s a perfect test case for outcome focussed decisions.

I posted the Trac photo above in jest, but I am spiteful about the incident. Putting his knee into Trac was intended to hurt.

Kossy was contesting the ball in a reasonable action, at an angle that causes an inevitable collision. He has no other option other than to pull out of the contest.

AND circumstances of high contact were outside of his control. Moore slid. Kossy was lucky not to be seriously injured.

He only needs to win one of those arguments. Both are solid.

This is a good case to be argued, it might finally be the precedent needed for an injury to the head caused by a player drawing high contact.

5 hours ago, Redleg said:

You mean the Pies’ supporting Tribunal Chairman.

It has been reported somewhere he is a Pies’ fan.

Maybe the female alternate Chairman will officiate.

Anyway until one second before impact there is absolutely no possible way Moore’s head is involved. While Kozzie is looking down at the ball Moore drops to his knees. That caused the bump. Kozzie’s feet seem to be slightly taken out from under him as well.

That is classic exemption of “ circumstances beyond the player’s control” and that is what you run.

I would call a biomechanic expert to show when Moore dropped there was nothing Kozzie could do in a split second at the pace he was contesting.

My point, exactly...

Um, today Christian and Co. chose to fine an Essendon player who kicked his opponent. I am so disgusted by the AFL: nuff is enough. 

20 minutes ago, Monbon said:

Um, today Christian and Co. chose to fine an Essendon player who kicked his opponent. I am so disgusted by the AFL: nuff is enough. 

You're joking. That deserved a week just for how bad it looks

1 hour ago, Monbon said:

Um, today Christian and Co. chose to fine an Essendon player who kicked his opponent. I am so disgusted by the AFL: nuff is enough. 

The player’s father is CEO of Collingwood and a former team mate of Christian.

13 hours ago, chookrat said:

Another perspective on this is that if Kossie's leg was seriously injured in the collision then Moore would have been on report. I wonder what happens if both Moore was concussed and Kossie's leg broken in the same incident, would both players be suspended?

There is nothing in the Tribunal Guidelines which prioritises one reportable offence over another, and if Moore's action is not considered for Kossie's report then the same argument would apply if both players were injured, e.g. ignore the other players action and purely focus on the bump and slide separately for each reportable offence.

Agree. But if a dual offence were to be established - even though it really appears that Kozzie was innocently playing the ball - you could bet your last sixpence that Moore (as a Filth player and thus above the law) would be exonerated whilst Kozzie, an intense small player whose speed and agility are strikingly superior, would be most harshly treated of the two, particularly if an ex-Filth operative was to bear judgment on the limited contact so ascertained. 

I read Mark Robinson’s description of Kozzie’s actions on Friday night in The Tackle in the HS with  some trepidation but to my surprise it was an extremely balanced & articulate statement. We absolutely must challenge this . 

3 minutes ago, Deestar9 said:

I read Mark Robinson’s description of Kozzie’s actions on Friday night in The Tackle in the HS with  some trepidation but to my surprise it was an extremely balanced & articulate statement. We absolutely must challenge this . 

If we don't challenge it I will be bitterly disappointed with the club and it will just add to my frustrations with the people running it. We seem to have absolutely no back bone and seem incompetent of late.

Surely we will challenge this ban. I don't think he gets off completely, but surely we can reduce the ban to 1 or 2 weeks only

6 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Surely we will challenge this ban. I don't think he gets off completely, but surely we can reduce the ban to 1 or 2 weeks only

The way the rules and tribunal are run it's either he gets off or it's 3 weeks, there is no middle ground.

You have to argue that is wasn't careless, as he was attempting to get the ball and braced for contact right at the time Moore slid in. This is a very strong argument and if the tribunal find he wasn't careless then he will get off.

By all means throw the kitchen sink at it but I'm not expecting much. I just don't have faith at all in any process, even if Moore electing to slide is a more plausible cause than Gus choosing the wrong running path.

 

Just now, layzie said:

By all means throw the kitchen sink at it but I'm not expecting much. I just don't have faith at all in any process, even if Moore electing to slide is a more plausible cause than Gus choosing the wrong running path.

 

That was one of the biggest jokes that that argument was accepted. Makes my blood boil every time I think about it. To lose Gus and potentially Trac because of two recent Collingwood games makes me hate them even more.

7 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

The way the rules and tribunal are run it's either he gets off or it's 3 weeks, there is no middle ground.

You have to argue that is wasn't careless, as he was attempting to get the ball and braced for contact right at the time Moore slid in. This is a very strong argument and if the tribunal find he wasn't careless then he will get off.

As it would be an appeal for the MRO sanction (rather than a Tribunal sanction) there is a bit more room eg if the classification is reduced from 'severe impact' to something lower (high, medium or low) then the penalty would come down accordingly.

Just now, DistrACTION Jackson said:

That was one of the biggest jokes that that argument was accepted. Makes my blood boil every time I think about it. To lose Gus and potentially Trac because of two recent Collingwood games makes me hate them even more.

It was ridiculous and the fact that the AFL could sign off and practically agree with Gus causing his own concussion was the most insulting part of all of this for me.

I just have no faith in anything they do now and don't want to waste energy over it.

12 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

As it would be an appeal for the MRO sanction (rather than a Tribunal sanction) there is a bit more room eg if the classification is reduced from 'severe impact' to something lower (high, medium or low) then the penalty would come down accordingly.

Would be hard to argue down the grading of severe given it he was 'concussed'... still debateable.

13 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

Would be hard to argue down the grading of severe given it he was 'concussed'... still debateable.

I was referring to the the rules allowing a reduction in the sanction rather than would we be successful.

 

Would we have a case on down grading from 'severe'?  I wold say so:  he bounced straight up and played on, no trainer even went to him.  Very different than when someone is knocked out cold and has to helped from the ground.  imv the latter is 'severe'. 

I reckon there is a Kozzie 'tax' in the MRO's 'severe' grading. 

Edited August 26, 20241 yr by Lucifers Hero

19 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

Would be hard to argue down the grading of severe given it he was 'concussed'... still debateable.

But was he concussed. Let's ask for test report. He was subbed out. Not taken off at the time?

if the club don’t appeal it will be an egregious betrayal of Kozzie and all the players by the club. The incident was purely accidental. The charge should be dropped in its entirety. 

Edited August 26, 20241 yr by John Crow Batty

Paging the Carlton Lawyer ...

 

Thank god. It's a disgrace.

let's just hope they don't put up the usual half baked appeal

and let's get a top professional friendly biomechanics expert

Please PLEASE get a decent lawyer this time Melbourne. Enough with this clown who I swear works for the AFL not our club!

 

Hey @Redleg are you free? 

Good news

27 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Please PLEASE get a decent lawyer this time Melbourne. Enough with this clown who I swear works for the AFL not our club!

 

Hey @Redleg are you free? 

Heading home from GC tomorrow.