How Many Weeks For Kozzy?

[FreedFromDesire 910]

2 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

I really hope these are summations because if he actually called it a bump as part of his defense he's already lost.

Would be impossible to argue it's not a bump, perhaps they're trying to reduce the suspension length rather than attempt to get him completely exonerated? In saying that, Anderson doesn't seem to have a great record for us with appeals from memory.

[Jaded No More 68,835]

Bumping is not illegal in AFL. Yet. 
Bumping the head is. He’s within his rights to try and bump Moore side on in an effort to win the ball. We see this happen dozens of times a game. 
What we don’t see is a player dropping like a sack of [censored] for no apparent reason. 

[FreedFromDesire 910]

1 minute ago, Jaded No More said:

Bumping is not illegal in AFL. Yet. 
Bumping the head is. He’s within his rights to try and bump Moore side on in an effort to win the ball. We see this happen dozens of times a game. 
What we don’t see is a player dropping like a sack of [censored] for no apparent reason. 

I think the issue though is the AFL seem to have clearly mandated "If you elect to bump, you're responsible for the damage".

[Jaded No More 68,835]

2 minutes ago, FreedFromDesire said:

I think the issue though is the AFL seem to have clearly mandated "If you elect to bump, you're responsible for the damage".

Yep, which is why we are stuffed 

[Kiss of Death 745]

I just don’t get it.

AFL states he ran past the ball but both players are next to each other as they approach the ball and the only reason Moore ends up slightly behind Koz is the fact Moore elects to drop to his knees and slides, creating additional drag, is Anderson going to dispute that statement? 

Is Kozzy supposed to slow down his attack (on the ball, not the player) and not contest it on the off chance that an opponent decides to drop to their knees? 

[FreedFromDesire 910]

Just now, Jaded No More said:

Yep, which is why we are stuffed 

Definitely a long shot. I don't remember all the mechanics of the MRO matrix off hand, but my guess is we're trying to reduce the suspension length by introducing the circumstances to mitigate the impact. My problem is with the entire current system, clearly 3 weeks is over the top for this one, but they have very specific and limited lanes to put these things in.

[DistrACTION Jackson 8,406]

1 minute ago, FreedFromDesire said:

Definitely a long shot. I don't remember all the mechanics of the MRO matrix off hand, but my guess is we're trying to reduce the suspension length by introducing the circumstances to mitigate the impact. My problem is with the entire current system, clearly 3 weeks is over the top for this one, but they have very specific and limited lanes to put these things in.

I believe they are trying to argue that Kozzy was entitled to contest the ball in the manner he did and he couldn’t foresee Moore sliding in. This would essentially mean he didn’t act ‘careless’ and thus meaning he shouldn’t be suspensed

[SPC 3,532]

Not a fan of David Zitas updates. He is a smart [censored].. 

[FreedFromDesire 910]

Just now, DistrACTION Jackson said:

I believe they are trying to argue that Kozzy was entitled to contest the ball in the manner he did and he couldn’t foresee Moore sliding in. This would essentially mean he didn’t act ‘careless’ and thus meaning he shouldn’t be suspensed

Thank you. Appreciate the info! I do seem to recall there is something in the rules about 'unforeseen circumstances' or something along those lines. Makes sense.

[Demonland 71,096]

53 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

We are using the same biomechanist that gave evidence in the Maynard case

[Earl Hood 6,072]

3 minutes ago, FreedFromDesire said:

I think the issue though is the AFL seem to have clearly mandated "If you elect to bump, you're responsible for the damage".

But the elect to bump works where the opposition has possession of the ball, but when the ball is loose in front of a player what do you do? You can’t tackle, you can’t dive across the player as that would be a dangerous below the knees infringement. So what does a fast small forward do accelerating toward a 198 cm KPB running with the ball bouncing in front of him? And who would expect an experienced, giant key back man to flop at the knees at the last second, fearing physical contact? 

[No10 458]

17 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

I really hope these are summations because if he actually called it a bump as part of his defense he's already lost.

Agree. It was a collision. This is an inept defense.

Hasn’t raised the fact Moore slid illegally. Moore did not “bend down to collect the ball”.

Or that Kossie did not “run past the ball”.

[Jaded No More 68,835]

Does Adrian understand that he can raise a rebuttal?

[Demonland 71,096]

[No10 458]

2 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Does Adrian understand that he can raise a rebuttal?

What a complete failure.

I’m so disappointed as the incident had elements to build a good argument.

[Kiss of Death 745]

We just never seen to be prepared for these cases, but who knows - the ‘reporting’ was at the level you’d expect from a year 9 student, maybe between the nonsense there were some real discussions and questions asked

[Brownie 5,960]

5 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Does Adrian understand that he can raise a rebuttal?

Why oh why do we keep using him?

What is wrong with our football club?

Unforgivable to not argue the sliding in by Moore. 

This is like poo icing on the Tracca cake 

[Demonland 71,096]

[DiscoStu17 716]

9 minutes ago, Brownie said:

Why oh why do we keep using him?

What is wrong with our football club?

Unforgivable to not argue the sliding in by Moore. 

This is like poo icing on the Tracca cake 

Don’t think I’ll ever want to look up that recipe. Faux Chocolat?

[Demonland 71,096]

 

[FreedFromDesire 910]

30 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

But the elect to bump works where the opposition has possession of the ball, but when the ball is loose in front of a player what do you do? You can’t tackle, you can’t dive across the player as that would be a dangerous below the knees infringement. So what does a fast small forward do accelerating toward a 198 cm KPB running with the ball bouncing in front of him? And who would expect an experienced, giant key back man to flop at the knees at the last second, fearing physical contact? 

I agree with you, and that's a big part of why I don't like the current MRO matrix where they fit thousands of different incidents into a few tiny boxes.

[daisycutter 29,595]

over 3 hours now

hope it's a good sign

i still don't think it was a bump ... just an inevitable collision

[Demonland 71,096]

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

over 3 hours now

hope it's a good sign

i still don't think it was a bump ... just an inevitable collision

Still Deliberating and they still have the Owies Case.

[Jaded No More 68,835]

1 minute ago, Demonland said:

Still Deliberating and they still have the Owies Case.

Glad we went first. I’m too old to pull an all nighter. 

[daisycutter 29,595]

2 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Still Deliberating and they still have the Owies Case.

pity david zita is such a smartrs.   if it so bores him get someone else