Macca

Did the club say it was a fair penalty? I must have missed that memo And as much as people were concerned about the brain-fade, Kozzie has taken his game to a new level by the looks of it with a greater edge to his game And I welcome that as the stars work to a different agenda. He's possibly going to cross the line occasionally with that mindset But for the most part, he can be a difference-maker

Time will tell IRW

I'm leaning towards him staying but it will cost the club a bundle. But Friday night he was electric Often players who get reported go quiet (and he must have known he was going to get cited) but Kozzie just kept going and was extremely influential A dynamic player and clubs always find the money when they want to for such a player Jackson wasn't worth the dollars (especially as compared to what Freo were guaranteeing) so the club made an executive decision So the common sense decision is to pay him a bundle much as what we've done for at least 6 other players

Cripps getting off was embarrassing and the stigma will stay forever ... top player and it's not his fault he was let off But an undeserving Brownlow winner ... the AFL buckled and were weak And so what if Demon supporters want Kozzie to stay. What do want us to do? Open the door for him? He's a gun and a matchwinner and we cannot afford to lose him

I reckon we need a conspiracy theory thread with a monthly winner 'Demonland's Conspiracy Theory of the Month' goes to ... You're in with a chance DS but not all conspiracy theories are bunkum so I won't rule out your theory #sinistermotives

You make a whole bunch of good points especially with the vagueness of the 'Potential to cause harm' bit. Impossible to correctly measure so get set for more inconsistent outcomes re suspensions

Shock jock (someone has to do it)

There lies the issue that so many here have highlighted Many can accept the 2 week penalty (myself included) but it's a joke that Buddy only gets 1 week

6 Kozzie 5 Gawn 4 Lever 3 Petracca 2 Oliver 1 McVee ( or at least 10 others)

Wasn't it a free throw at the stumps? You may well be right with regards to the media circus @Wells 11 in an above post also made a pertinent point about possibly consulting Kozzie

Haven't you seen enough evidence? And it's happened again already this season (Buddy) The MRO has been a standing joke for years as has the weak-kneed penalties handed out to the name players by the various tribunals (for decades) Not that any of this talk is going to make a skerrick of difference anyway ... expect more of the same ongoing

I knew what you meant

That's a very good point (less driving force without an anchored foot) ... so the action still 'looks' bad but optics can always be questioned, dc Smith not being on the move at any sort of pace is also a factor as well as Kozzie's stature I've read about the Roger Dean/Barassi incident late in '63 incident where 'Video evidence' was not allowed to be presented to the tribunal The widely held belief back then was that Barassi didn't connect when he swung at Dean but Dean staged as if hit. Barassi got 4 weeks and missed the finals (we lost a prelim final to Hawthorn by 9 points in '63) This time around Kozzie has connected (sorta kinda) yet not only did Smith not accentuate the contact, he's come out of it unscathed So looking ahead, does every bump that causes minimal contact or incidental contact to the head incur at least a 2 week penalty? If so, we're on the road to a non-contact sport

If we get a good run with injuries once Fritsch, Viney, Salem & May return, selection meetings could go long into the night! Have we got at least 28-30 to pick from? Not sure how the MC's operate these days but back in the day, the teams might have been picked on Tuesday's and then finalised on Thursday's I suspect the make-up of the team is probably done by Monday night's these days (players with niggles pencilled in)

Well Smith didn't overplay it that's for sure and kudos to him for getting on with it (in a split second) But what if the contact was negligible anyway which as it's turned out, seems to be the truth? He wasn't hurt or concussed which makes me think that Kossie pulled up on contact. Hard to prove or substantiate but nevertheless, the action would normally cause quite a bit of damage. And it didn't The other part to remember is that Smith wasn't travelling at high speed (not sure how quick Kozzie was traveling)

My gut feeling is that Kozzie has pulled up just before impact or not followed through with the action. And the camera can't pick that up I'm actually still quite stunned that Smith was not effected in the clash at all

And that's dangerous territory ... Nanny state stuff. Where does it end? Or does it end?

What you're not doing is looking at the big picture and casting the discussion and debate sideways and all ways Do that and you'll see the points that many here are trying to make I haven't seen one poster here saying that Pickett is innocent. Not one. The discussion is about intent, outcomes and consistent rulings I agree that Kozzie had a brain fade but if he gets 2 weeks (when the outcome is negligible) then Buddy should get 3 or 4 But Buddy got one week and that's not the end of it ... they might argue it down to a fine same as we might argue Kozzie's penalty down to 1 week

Well you've got a good memory but the point stands. In a general sense, attempting to strike was rarely seen through With the Pickett incident, the optics doesn't match up with the outcome. Looks bad but in the end, the contact was negligible if we look at the outcome

The Cripps incident and the resulting outcome will never go away. Loopholes? I don't think so. I'm not buying that BS The AFL and the tribunal could have stood firm but chose not to Now we have a situation where confusion reigns and unfairness rules Buddy's act had worse consequences than the Pickett act yet Pickett cops twice the penalty. Doesn't make sense

I reckon he lined him up and the optics kind of back that up but I'm arguing outcomes anyway. Smith was perfectly fine from the 'hit' ... but was it a hit? It looked like it was but not from Smith's reaction As he hit him I thought that's going to be 3 weeks but because Smith bounced back up (rapidly) I thought maybe 1 week. All in a split second The whole language and jargon from the MRO is vague and inconsistent. All the technical talk lacks common sense. Happens in other sports too. In cricket instead of concentrating on the correct adjudications 100% of the time it's now become a battle of 'reviews' for a lot of the time. Result - inconsistent outcomes

See I reckon it was deliberate but Smith bounced up like a Jack-in-the-box and was not hurt at all (seemingly) Hey DC, I remember the days when you could get reported for attempting to strike ... can't recall any player ever getting suspended though and often the charge was withdrawn This Kossie incident has similarities. No one got hurt but he has to sit for 2 games

Well from an overall perspective common sense should prevail with regards to what is deemed to be worse Barry Hall's king hit on Brent Staker is at one end of the scale and incidental contact to the head from a bump with no impacting injuries is at the other end of the scale (in terms of suspension outcomes) Hall got 7 but could have got 12+ whilst the incidental contact to the head maybe a week or a heavy fine Kossie's action was deliberate but the impact was negligible so a week is about right. If Smith was concussed/hurt maybe 3 or 4 weeks

Yes agreed but the right balance needs to be reached. In other words, one action can't carry a greater sentence than an action which is deemed worse (all things considered) See they bring in new rules/laws/adjudications which can often create more confusing outcomes Normally I wouldn't really care that much but it's one of our players and we're now a real contender. One extra loss when you're trying to win 16+ games is important Ok so he was almost certainly going to miss the Lions game (which will be tough to win) but if he misses the Sydney game and we lose a close one ......meanwhile Buddy* will be free to play against us. That's plus 2 in Sydney's favour in terms of game changing difference-making talent. Right now the Swans MC will be pleased *Buddy should have got a 2 game suspension

That's right ... most of us are arguing procedures*, fairness, context and consistencies We aren't bleating that he's innocent. And that's with reading all the posts carefully. Both sides of the argument are extremely close in fact with regards to the penalty For instance I'm saying 1 week (many others 2) for Kozzie with Buddy getting 2 (and Cripps 2 or 3) but that's not the outcome we're seeing *Probably the biggie (procedures) ... they (the AFL) gave got all the time in the world to create clear and concise guidelines but again, certain players get lesser penalties so it's a cluster....