Macca
-
Posts
16,307 -
Joined
-
Days Won
54
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Everything posted by Macca
-
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....
-
The Petty high contact that happened yesterday was interesting and related here in terms of head-high contact ... yet no report Sure, Petty ducked his head so he wasn't going to win a high contact free but the tackler gave him plenty of '"After's" to a point where it became purposeful high contact and quite dangerous The outcome was 'play on'? My point is that if intent is going to be clamped down and highlighted then incidents where a player like Petty having his neck wrenched has to be cited The law of inintended consequences comes into play if the duckers get singled out ... it can't be a licence for the tackler to go willy-nilly on the neck area
-
So surely bad outcomes (resulting in concussion) are more important than intent (resulting in zero concussion) So if we compare the Buddy one to Kozzie in terms of intent/outcome, it's 1 tick for Kozzie but 2 ticks for Buddy Yet Kozzie gets 2 weeks and Buddy 1 week
-
The Buddy one falls into the protected species category. Happens all too frequently to be some sort of conspiracy theory What do they say in law enforcement? There's no such thing as a coincidence
-
Playing too many kids is fraught with danger. Especially so these days Need to surround kids with experienced talent. That's the tried and true method (and template) Even the much vaunted '93 baby bombers had quite a number of experienced players in the team So did the Hawks bring in players like Vince & Cross as we did? Later on we brought in players with 3-5 years experience like Melksham & Hibberd, Lever etc In fact, our recruitment of experienced talent goes a little unnoticed as compared to the gun young talent we recruited from the various draft's
-
Oh I see what you mean now Good point so we could have had Toby & Salem
-
It is what it is ... Rugby League territory but GWS can operate and maybe prosper with the AFL's $Billions (Broadcast rights money) Money well spent? Time will tell but the broadcast rights money keeps flooding in
-
That's the point I'm making ... nothing is by the book so we don't know what to expect Where it's different to the umpiring of the sport (with all the grey areas and split-second decisions being made) the AFL has all the time in the world to get consistent outcomes via the MRO & Tribunal But they don't and the name players are protected species (a lot of the time) What I'm hoping for is that Kozzie falls into the above category (protected species) It's the AFL's version of fairness (not) And in the dog-eat-dog world of competitive sport, you push the envelope but don't cross the line
-
Put a hat on
-
The poor diddums Real supporters sit in the sun
-
Are they piping in the crowd noise as well? I've spotted 5 people (in total) in the lower deck in that outer stand *Official Crowd 12,000*
-
If Cotchin was just an average footballer he would have almost certainly been rubbed out at least a few times with all the incidents that he has been involved in And 11 fines? Shouldn't a player start copping weeks after a certain amount of fines? The AFL are like a mini version of FIFA
-
The Buddy incident can help us if there was a linear effect in effect. For instance, if Buddy gets 2 weeks then Kozzie 1? (or a fine?) Can't see Buddy getting 4 or even 3 and the outcome with the Buddy incident was far worse than the Kozzie/Smith incident But it's the AFL so who would know? And which incident gets held first? (if both incidents are referred to the tribunal)
