How Many Weeks For Kozzy?

[Redleg 41,427]

18 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

and another thing ...

why was the delayed concussion leading to the high impact aspect not even questioned?

where was the proof it was related to this incident, surely it is open to questioning?

You would have thought so.

I  am prepared to have a little wager with myself,  that if the Pies were in an Elimination final the next week that maybe things might have been a little different.

Moore jumped up and took his kick and stayed on the ground.

Gus was knocked out cold and yet that wasn’t rough play but Kozzie’s is after a change in movement at the last second by Moore, give me a break.

[Superunknown 4,223]

Pert needs to demand Gleeson not sit our cases at all. our club must appeal and tear gleesons ruling to shreds and not use Anderson ever again. He is utterly inept.

 

If we don’t, I’m done

[Demonland 73,140]

 

[DistrACTION Jackson 9,224]

If we don't appeal this decision and get off I am done for the year and potentially for good.

I will not be watching one minute of this corrupt finals series.

[Monbon 1,840]

40 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

Just skimming the article, but one glaring aspect stands out: the so-called 'Tribunal' accepts that a player is within the rules to dive at the ball, even if the player diving takes out the legs of the opposition player who, in this case, was clearly 'going for the ball' in an upright position - um, the position I assume most 'football' rules are premised on. In other words, to dive at the feet of someone going for the ball seems to be okay by this 'Court of Law, especially if the diving player wears a black and white striped guernsey.

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,939]

Who did we hire that successfully got JVR off at the appeals board last year?

With all that said and done, 4 suspensions/7 matches lost through suspension over a 50 game period is a poor statistic irrespective of whether you blame the MRO and the tribunal rather than the player himself.

[ElDiablo14 5,002]

3 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Who did we hire that successfully got JVR off at the appeals board last year?

With all that said and done, 4 suspensions/7 matches lost through suspension over a 50 game period is a poor statistic irrespective of whether you blame the MRO and the tribunal rather than the player himself.

Kozzy is trending positively, he is much careful now than he was 2 years ago.

This latest situation is not on him whatsoever.

[OhMyDees 1,834]

Can we appeal again?

[Jaded No More 68,973]

18 minutes ago, OhMyDees said:

Can we appeal again?

We can, we can go to the appeals board, which we did with the JVR suspension.

I hope we do, but somehow I think the club is juggling so many burning balls, they will let this one drop.

Also does Adrian owe us a free session under the "lose 10 hearings, and the 11th is free" deal?

Edited August 28 by Jaded No More

[loges 6,767]

The rubbish they come out with to justify their decision is unbelievable.

[daisycutter 29,737]

14 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

We can, we can go to the appeals board, which we did with the JVR suspension.

I hope we do, but somehow I think the club is juggling so many burning balls, they will let this one drop.

Also does Adrian owe us a free session under the "lose 10 hearings, and the 11th is free" deal?

does he work on a no-win no-fee basis?

[Jaded No More 68,973]

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

does he work on a no-win no-fee basis?

I sure hope so! 

I can't see any other reason why we insist to keep using him. I have zero background in law, and I reckon I could have done better defending both Gus and Kosi.

[Biffen 12,946]

3 weeks for handbagging.

I've seen tougher blokes than Darcy Moore at the Flower show.

Jamie Elliot is probably ashamed.

 

[OhMyDees 1,834]

Get Crippa’s legal team. 

[DubDee 26,117]

43 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

We can, we can go to the appeals board, which we did with the JVR suspension.

I hope we do, but somehow I think the club is juggling so many burning balls, they will let this one drop.

Also does Adrian owe us a free session under the "lose 10 hearings, and the 11th is free" deal?

Maybe we forgot our 'got [censored] over by the MRO' stamp card

[Redleg 41,427]

3 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

I have 4 comments here.

First The Tribunal  has found that it was reasonably foreseeable that Moore running towards the ball, would drop to the ground and that Kozzie should have known that and foreseen that as he ran in at speed and that therefore any bump at all could hit Moore in the head. That imo is errant rubbish.

Second that The Tribunal  allowed an amendment to the charge during the hearing, yet on other hearings refused to allow amendments, like for example Hewett, who was found to have struck a player to the head with his hand, but vision showing they had alleged the wrong hand,  but clearly a strike with the other hand. Why was a proven strike simply not just amended to the correct hand. Instead they let him off.

Third, how long did The Tribunal take to decide the case and write down the reasons. The findings are lengthy and written down as shown above. It takes time to weigh the evidence and decide on each issue and then more time to write it all down. I am bemused this could be done as quickly as appears, in the time spent on deliberations. Doesn’t sound like a lot of discussion on the issues.

Lastly why does the AFL allow a Pies supporting person to chair a Tribunal dealing with Collingwood players?

Edited August 28 by Redleg

[Brownie 5,986]

2 hours ago, Monbon said:

Just skimming the article, but one glaring aspect stands out: the so-called 'Tribunal' accepts that a player is within the rules to dive at the ball, even if the player diving takes out the legs of the opposition player who, in this case, was clearly 'going for the ball' in an upright position - um, the position I assume most 'football' rules are premised on. In other words, to dive at the feet of someone going for the ball seems to be okay by this 'Court of Law, especially if the diving player wears a black and white striped guernsey.

I love that "he dived at the ball" feet first.

Uneffenbelivable.

We must appeal

[Sydee 4,529]

Personally I just don’t need any more reasons to absolutely hate Collingwood but here we are yet another one 

 

[John Crow Batty 8,878]

18 minutes ago, Redleg said:

 

Second that The Tribunal  allowed an amendment to the charge during the hearing, yet on other hearings refused to allow amendments, like for example Hewett, who was found to have struck a player to the head with his hand, but vision showing they had alleged the wrong hand,  but clearly a strike with the other hand. Why was a proven strike simply not just amended to the correct hand. Instead they let him off.

 

 

As I said a few times in the past. For favoured players and clubs, I suspect errors in wording and structuring of the charge are deliberately introduced so later the charge can be dismissed on a technicality. The ‘wrong hand’ charge I have seen more than several times before.

Edited August 28 by John Crow Batty

[Red But Mostly Blue 4,547]

I know this will have been expressed here numerous times, and likely better, but this outcome has really got my goat. 

I appreciate Kozzy has been a little reckless from time to time - he plays at the edges etc, and honestly I think he has done well to reign it in a little.

But seriously, this punishment is BS!! You can't leave the ground, fine, but now you can't legitimately engage in a bump (which is what Kozzy tried to do, no question), because the other guy may slip/fall to the ground, causing an unintended concussion?? Are we just full outcome mode (depending on player, of course - I won't go into that), regardless of intent or context, because that's what it looks like.

What was Kozzy supposed to do? That move is performed dozens of times a week. A legitimate footy act. The chances of a concussion, or having regard to the possibility of a concussion while performing it, are so remote you can't possibly ask Kozzy to turn his mind to it while in the moment. 

Moore fell, Kozzy's legitimate bump accidentally caused injury - it's an unfortunate reality of a contact sport. If you punish this, there's nothing left. 

On a side note, it's bemusing that Moore/Maynard have both engaged in 'footy acts' and ended/possibly ended/impacted careers, and have received ZERO weeks COMBINED>

WHAT IS GOING ON?????

Edited August 28 by Red But Mostly Blue

[TassieDevil 144]

Moore dropped to his knees causing the collision and potentially injuring Kozzy.

Must appeal.

I'm still disappointed nobody skewered Maynard headfirst into the fence when he went at Kozzy - a legitimate football action

[Deemania since 56 6,716]

On 26/08/2024 at 10:12, 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

By reducing the unwarranted penalty on Kozzie, it reinforces the arrogance and bias of those so appointed to determine penalties in play against their favoured brethren onfield. This level of decision-making has gone on too far, too often, too obviously across recent years, much to the disadvantage and now, the consistency of contested football for those teams just outside the revenue-attracting influences of a mere handful of a few anointed teams with greater, silent influence. 

[monoccular 17,573]

1 hour ago, Red But Mostly Blue said:

WHAT IS GOING ON?????

Does the AFL wonder why some people suggest that they are an absolutely and totally corrupt body when the MRO and the Tribunal chair are both Collingwood people when there are such contradictory outcomes when Melbourne played Collingwood last week and in 2023 finals?

My guess is that they either don’t know or more likely just don’t care. 

[sue 9,142]

13 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Does the AFL wonder why some people suggest that they are an absolutely and totally corrupt body when the MRO and the Tribunal chair are both Collingwood people when there are such contradictory outcomes when Melbourne played Collingwood last week and in 2023 finals?

My guess is that they either don’t know or more likely just don’t care. 

They obviously don't care.  If they wanted to even bother with an appearance of justice, they'd ensure no one involved in any way with one of the clubs involved in the case was on the Tribunal.  One day a cashed up player may take them to court, denial of natural justice or somesuch.  I hope so.

Edited August 28 by sue

[daisycutter 29,737]

we're too soft ... we'll just roll over and cop it

3 whole damn weeks ffs ... great way to start a season