sue

The AFL will weigh up the pros and cons of these 5 day breaks (3 games in 11 days!!). The AFL will balance the public's loss of interest in one-sided matches and the commercial loss that that causes  against  whatever commerical advantage the short breaks bring (Thurs night/Gather/whatever).  And then make a decision whether to continue it.  

What they won't do is consider making a fair competition.

56 minutes ago, ElDiablo14 said:

Did he really said that? Unbelievable, we have enemies inside our own ranks! Or perhaps he is just another puppet of the system.🤔

Could he do this to prove to the world that he is not biased in favour of his old club and is therefore the perfect commentator.   No, can't be that stupid.

1 minute ago, sue said:

Looks like it is self-perpetuating.  If they let you off in the past, then that is an argument for letting you off in future.  So you are safe forever.

It's blindingly obvious that the MRO is corrupt.  But what can you expect when we have an entertainment corporate business rather than a sporting body.

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

Cameron has never been suspended in his 207 career games though he had been fined five times, including three times for rough conduct.

Looks like it is self-perpetuating.  If they let you off in the past, then that is an argument for letting you off in future.

It's blindingly obvious that the MRO is corrupt.  But what can you expect when we have an entertainment corporate business rather than a sporting body.

11 minutes ago, Young Angus said:

That's the insane thing, insanely transparent too, there is no way you can know the intent of a player and I'm sure most players don't want to hurt someone they are just in the moment and running very fast and reacting just as fast.  Intent should have nothing to do with it, the only consistent thing to do is look at the action and the outcome.  

Make it consistent ffs!

There's no hope with the AFL and intent.  For years we had deliberate out of bounds (ie intent) which although difficult to know a players real intent, was usually interpreted by the umpires reasonably, taking into account pressue and the possibility of skills errors.  But now we have insufficient intent frees given when a player under pressure in a pack kicks it off the side of their boot and it goes out 50m away after bouncing at right angles.

Reviewfest yet again

2 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

on my stream meth coke is up 43 to 34

Sorry corrected typo. Wce Now up by 14

2 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

meth coke all over the tigs

Doesn’t seem so -wce  leads by 10 points 

27 minutes ago, Redleg said:

What and get suspended?

It seems you are more likely to get off if you knock them dead than if you brush against an opponent's head.

1 hour ago, binman said:

I see the low impact argument, but I'm OK with koz getting a week, not for the bump, but for raising his elbow.

Yes he only glanced his head, but I'm in the factor in the risk of injury camp. If his elbow had, say flushed his temple then some real damage could have been done.

But I'm not ok with the hypocrisy of the coverage of what was really an incidental incident compared to the can't miss a grand final for a 'football action' vibe that dominated the coverage of Maynard's hit on Gus.

And even more frustratingly, there is zero reflection by the media about that blatant hypocrisy.

For god's sake one action ended the football career of a bloke in his mid 20s (at all levels - and I presume Gus can no longer play ANY contact sport, eg basketball).

And the other caused NO injury, with the player 'hit' going on to be his team's best player, even getting coached votes.

And why? Because whilst koz was silly to put his elbow out, it was fleeting and he realised immediately wrong, and pulled it back. That's to say successfully tried to minimise impact.

Maynard did the opposite. No thought at at all to minimise the impact on Gus. His instinct was 100% solely to protect himself. 

The media should be ashamed of the coverage of the Maynard hit.

And ashamed about the white noise it is creating painting koz as a sniper with form.

I agree with all of that Binman except the sentence:

Quote

Maynard did the opposite. No thought at at all to minimise the impact on Gus. His instinct was 100% solely to protect himself. 

I don't think that was his sole aim.

Typical of the AFL. The goal umpires 'frustrated' by being mocked for the tsunami of reviews, had to lean on the AFL to admit it was an AFL policy.  Why couldn't they announce that upfront.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/goal-umpires-following-afl-directive-in-requesting-more-score-reviews-20240409-p5fihb.html

14 minutes ago, Winners at last said:

From Foxsports ... 

The AFL has tightened its rules around head-high contact for 2022, with more suspensions likely to be given out under tweaks for the Match Review and Tribunal.

Previously when a high bump or front-on contact occurred, “strong consideration” had to be given to the potential to cause injury. New for next season, the potential to cause injury must be factored into the impact grading.

It means, as with striking charges, any high contact with the potential to cause injury will “usually” be classified as either medium, high or severe impact - not low impact.

 

To those who keep banging on that the impact was minor. Yes, Soligo wasn't injured. However, potential to cause injury caused it to be classified as 'medium'.

Can't see Kozzy getting off with a fine.

Leaving aside the silly way they have tied it to “medium" rather than just stating it gets an immediate minum 1 week ban, what I wonder qualifies as not " usually" in the sentence above?

Since the club has challenged, maybe they know. 

12 minutes ago, BDA said:

...

In terms of the action itself my understanding is that once you leave the ground and make contact with the head it is automatically graded as medium impact. I guess we’ll find out tomorrow night if that’s a correct application of the rule or not.

...

A number of people have said this is the AFL's policy.  But seriously, how can they come up with such a patent absurdity.  If you want to make a rule that in circumstances A, B or C, an impact with the head is punishable with X, do so and I'd support it.  But don't torture the English language by calling clearly a low impact, medium.

54 minutes ago, hardtack said:

It is not unbelievable at all as I am in no way comparing the two incidents other than the fact that they were both attempted smothers that went wrong… the fact is that he (Maynard) attempted to smother, albeit a clumsy attempt, and when it became obvious he would collide with Gus, braced for the collision… once a player is airborne at speed, there is no way they can take effective evasive action. I’m really tired of reading comments from Dees supporters saying that Maynard never had the intention of smothering and that the collision was premeditated! Absolute nonsense!

As a result of the rule changes following Maynard’s crude effort, every player knows the consequences and that they risk getting time off curtesy of the review panel. If players choose to launch themselves off the ground, then they need to be certain that they can nail the smother and not the opponent’s head!

 

OK, as one having said in a recent post that he never intended to smother, I retract that.  That may be his original intention but once he'd gone past the ball he lined Gus up. He did not brace for the collision to protect himself as there were other ways to do that - he has arms for example. He decided to clobber Gus instead. 

And it's not just one-eyed Demons supporters who saw it that way.  A lot of supporters from each team that has played C'wood this year have booed him.

18 minutes ago, JTR said:

The optics of challenging the suspension is the problem in my view, as words to the effect of the above are exactly what the Filth used in their defense of Maynard.  

We all strongly disagreed with that at the time. To come out now and argue the opposite wouldnt be a good look.

First, MFC said nothing at the time as far as I can recall, so we're not in danger of appearing hypocritic in front of that bastion of integrity the MRO.  Second, I don't think we need make the same arguments about 'football act' etc that C'wood did.    Obviously we can compare to Fogarty and say impact was much lower.  Our only difficulty will be the contorted definition of impact the AFL has conjured up.  But worth a go in my view.

7 minutes ago, deegirl said:

We'd all like Koz in the side for Brisbane but if I were MFC I'd let this one go - there's no way he's getting off.   The AFL made clowns of themselves with Maynard and won't be letting any head high stuff slide (unless another Cripps Brownlow is on the line). 

They only made clowns of themselves in the eyes of MFC supporters.  No one in the media gave a stuff which is what counts (even though some supporters of other teams did as evidenced by the booing Maynard gets).

1 hour ago, hardtack said:

Would you say the same about those criticising Maynard? After all, he was attempting to smother the ball. Yes, I think he got off far too easy, but his action did bring about rule changes which unfortunately have seen Kossie receive a suspension.

I think that if the player chooses to launch himself with both feet off the ground and the smother is successful without making contact with the opponent’s head, then fair enough…but if the player mis-times the smother and in bracing himself, makes contact with the head, then he’s in trouble.
 

Regardless of one's view on what penalty Kozie should get (and I haven't seen anyone say he should get off scot free), I cannot let that pass.  Maynard's action was quite different.  He lined Gus up pretending to smother, had plenty of time to not clobber him.  Even if you take the most negative view of what Kossie did, it was nowhere near as bad as Maynard. 

1 hour ago, Watson11 said:

Agree Fogarty should have got 3 or 4.  Full speed hit. Eyes off ball etc etc

But for Kozzie we have zero chance of getting him off.  The rules changed this year and any front on contact (or contact forward of side on), which is high, is graded as a minimum of medium impact this year.  The only way he gets off is grading it low, which it was but because of the change it’s medium impact as a minimum.

Of course the afl can direct the tribunal to do whatever they want though and make an exception, but that only applies for Collingwood and Carlton. 

All very well, but how in this, or any universe, can Fogarty get the same penalty as Kozzie?   Irrational.

13 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

Fogarty got a week. Here comes the lawyers.

ah, the MRO, it never stops giving.

1 hour ago, djr said:

No field umpire would have called touched even when vision showed that the ball grazed a hairfollicle of the docker player. No umpire would have noticed that. 

Probably not. But I was just watching the GWS/Sun game and they had a video review after the umpire didn't pay a ball touched but several oppo players made a fuss..  Why not do that in every such case and maybe introduce penalties if it is clear the player claiming to have touched it is lying?

it was determined as touched

when will we know if they are appealing or not?

7 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

Awful, bloody awful punch out by Jackson back towards centre half forward for Carlton to  get the hacked touched kick away. Should have gone for the boundary side. Horrible game by him.

Unfortunately he learnt that stupid move from Max who does it at the wrong times too.

1 minute ago, SPC said:

Death, taxes and the MRO…

This may give the best hope for kozzie getting off 

Pleasing to see that although posters here have disagreed on the seriousness of Kozzie's action and the AFL's 'rules' and what should now happen etc., few (if any) think what he did was 100% OK.   I wonder what it was like on the C'wood site after Maynard KO'd Gus? 

2 minutes ago, loges said:

...As for those hoping Kozzie gets one week to teach him a lesson,get a grip you take whatever advantage you can get from this tainted system.

Too right.  The system is tainted, no matter what you think of Kossie's action. 

If it was 100% certain that him getting a week would make him a better team player (including not getting banned in future), then sure, teach him a lesson ASAP.  But I'd guess the % is more like 30-60%.

But I'll be surprised if we appeal.  Too long a history of rolling over dating from when we were a basket case in desperate need of AFL benificence.

I am confused.  Surely while 'potential to cause serious injury' and 'level of impact' are not unrelated, I do not see why his action has to be judged as 'medium impact' in order to invoke 'potential to cause'. 

Surely if an action has potential to cause injury, it doesn't need any particular level of impact to be applied.  The action is the sin.  So why this fake bar of 'medium' gets you into trouble, but 'low' doesn't? 

It looks like they had to absurdly say that an action which was clearly low impact was in fact medium just to punish the sin.  Ridiculous.   How could they revise the rules and not come up with coherent sensible rule that doesn't require such patent nonsense?    No wonder so many of us are cynical as to their motives.

The AFL lives in a corporate fantasy land where they make up the rules and interpretations as they go along to suit.