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? 

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

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

53 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

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

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? 

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”.

Does Adrian understand that he can raise a rebuttal?

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.

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

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 

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?

 

over 3 hours now

hope it's a good sign

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

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.

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. 

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

Here we go

Surveys says .........

Upheld

Wrong jersey colour

Of course it was.