Why did we not clallenge....

[BringBackLuke]

What are the odds of this being another case of a St Kilda player getting a ridiculous suspension (i.e. all suspensions Fraser Gehrig received) only for the tribunal to turn around admit that "we probably got it wrong" in order for someone from Carlton of Collingwood to get off

Joel Corey tackle was far worse - in rugby he would've received a six match ban - but the AFL punish the impact rather than intent/action... it's a physical game and these things will happen from time to time - but you can't start with impact and work backwards because then all you are doing is punishing those unfortunate enough to have their otherwise legitimate tackles cause some collateral damage

Punish the dodgy tackles... not the legitimate ones... that's what I say!

[Bernard Shakey]

Should have challenged, any week without the temptation to play Kosi is a bonus.

[kosifantutti23]

Bottom line,its a BS decision

Great game their turning this into,absolute bulls***

no, it was the correct decision under the current rules.

I feel sorry for all of those that don't understand that point.

Sad really.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to post an extract from the current rules of the games, in particular, the part that explains what it is that Kosi did wrong, detailing specifically which rule he broke.

Dangerous Tackles
Introduce a new guideline under Rough Conduct for dangerous
tackles, given their potential to cause serious injury. The following
wording is to be added in determining a dangerous tackle:
The application of a tackle may be considered rough conduct, which
is unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the
application of a tackle constitutes a Reportable Offence, without
limitation, regard may be had to:
■■ whether the tackle consists of more than one action, regardless
of whether the player being tackled is in possession of the ball;
■■ whether the tackle is of an inherently dangerous kind, such as
a spear tackle;
■■ whether an opponent is slung or driven into the ground with
excessive force

I guess he was reported on the basis that he was driven into the ground with excessive force.

And for those complaining about the contact being "high"

Contact shall be classified as high or to the groin where a player's
head or groin makes contact with another player or object such as
the fence or the ground as a result of the actions of the offending
player. By way of example, should a player tackle another player
around the waist and as a result of the tackle, the tackled player's
head made forceful contact with the fence or the ground the contact
in these circumstances would be classified as high, even though the
tackle was to the body.

Any other questions?

http://www.afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_doc ... t_2010.pdf

[kosifantutti23]

Geelong, melbourne, collingwood, hawthorn have all recently did this....with far more blatent cases....lost....but showed their supporters that they would not bow down and take it in the arse by these embarrasing cowboys trying to run a flawed system...

What did they win....the player in questions respect, and their supporters...

Many of them challenge (eg Thomas) because they had nothing to lose. Not out of respect for players.

You do realise that Geelong and Sydney both had similar cases up this week and both took the penalty. Have Geelong suddenly lost the respect for their players?

[Dis Believer]

Bottom line,its a BS decision

Great game their turning this into,absolute bulls***

no, it was the correct decision under the current rules.

I feel sorry for all of those that don't understand that point.

Sad really.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to post an extract from the current rules of the games, in particular, the part that explains what it is that Kosi did wrong, detailing specifically which rule he broke.

Dangerous Tackles
Introduce a new guideline under Rough Conduct for dangerous
tackles, given their potential to cause serious injury. The following
wording is to be added in determining a dangerous tackle:
The application of a tackle may be considered rough conduct, which
is unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the
application of a tackle constitutes a Reportable Offence, without
limitation, regard may be had to:
■■ whether the tackle consists of more than one action, regardless
of whether the player being tackled is in possession of the ball;
■■ whether the tackle is of an inherently dangerous kind, such as
a spear tackle;
■■ whether an opponent is slung or driven into the ground with
excessive force

I guess he was reported on the basis that he was driven into the ground with excessive force.

And for those complaining about the contact being "high"

Contact shall be classified as high or to the groin where a player's
head or groin makes contact with another player or object such as
the fence or the ground as a result of the actions of the offending
player. By way of example, should a player tackle another player
around the waist and as a result of the tackle, the tackled player's
head made forceful contact with the fence or the ground the contact
in these circumstances would be classified as high, even though the
tackle was to the body.

Any other questions?

http://www.afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_doc ... t_2010.pdf

The only problem there is that it is not the rules of the game. It is a tribunal document. And it is from 2010, so why was no-one rubbed out last year under these rule "interpretations". And I have posted in a link in the other Kosi thread to the 2011 Rules of the Game, and thes interpretations are still not listed, so what, the AFL just creates spurious extra documents whenever it feels like it and they override the rules of the game???

You're being conned people, and it's about time that Joe Public called for the sacking of Dimwit and his pet lawyer while there is still a chance to undo the legalese. corporatized takeover and destruction of our game.

[kosifantutti23]

The only problem there is that it is not the rules of the game. It is a tribunal document. And it is from 2010, so why was no-one rubbed out last year under these rule "interpretations". And I have posted in a link in the other Kosi thread to the 2011 Rules of the Game, and thes interpretations are still not listed, so what, the AFL just creates spurious extra documents whenever it feels like it and they override the rules of the game???

You're being conned people, and it's about time that Joe Public called for the sacking of Dimwit and his pet lawyer while there is still a chance to undo the legalese. corporatized takeover and destruction of our game.

The laws of the game is mostly about the payment of free kicks. The tribunal booklet deals specifically with the MRP and tribunal. I can't say for sure if there were any of these tackles penalised last year but there's certainly been a lot this year including three this week so I don't see why people are getting upset.

[Thinline]

The only problem there is that it is not the rules of the game. It is a tribunal document. And it is from 2010, so why was no-one rubbed out last year under these rule "interpretations". And I have posted in a link in the other Kosi thread to the 2011 Rules of the Game, and thes interpretations are still not listed, so what, the AFL just creates spurious extra documents whenever it feels like it and they override the rules of the game???

You're being conned people, and it's about time that Joe Public called for the sacking of Dimwit and his pet lawyer while there is still a chance to undo the legalese. corporatized takeover and destruction of our game.

The laws of the game is mostly about the payment of free kicks. The tribunal booklet deals specifically with the MRP and tribunal. I can't say for sure if there were any of these tackles penalised last year but there's certainly been a lot this year including three this week so I don't see why people are getting upset.

Because the rules as they stand require a tackler caught in the split second heat of the moment cauldron of elite level footy to acquire the foresight of a freakin' medium, the forensic skills of a QC to analyse risk and consequence of actions, and the ability to deny themselves of an ingrained instinct drummed in since they were five years old.

I don't care what jumper they're wearing. This particular rule is an abomination and I really wish the AFL had the ticker to admit it's a f*** up.

[CURLY]

Bottom line,its a BS decision

Great game their turning this into,absolute bulls***

no, it was the correct decision under the current rules.

I feel sorry for all of those that don't understand that point.

Sad really.

What are these current rules you speak of? Please dont tell me the head is prorected at all times.

[St Nick]

I'm glad we didn't challenge. We now have the luxury of a Kosi-less team for the next 2 weeks. Maybe now R. Stanley will get a run

[CURLY]

I'm glad we didn't challenge. We now have the luxury of a Kosi-less team for the next 2 weeks. Maybe now R. Stanley will get a run

PISS OFF YOU TROLL CLOWN

[Life Long Saint]

To make a point of supporting a club player???

Regardless of outcome, make a stand, and a public statement about this ludicrous rubbish...cop the fine also....

Thats right, i forgot, we are as weak as piss and incompetant to boot.....we have cruelled steve bakers career, because of being inept.

Geelong, melbourne, collingwood, hawthorn have all recently did this....with far more blatent cases....lost....but showed their supporters that they would not bow down and take it in the arse by these embarrasing cowboys trying to run a flawed system...

What did they win....the player in questions respect, and their supporters...

The suspension was a joke.....next time he should do exactly the same in a tackle

Had a risk of getting another extra week if challenged. The other cases you mentioned had nothing to lose with the amount of points received. Don't forget Kosi tackle was only equal to a week and half it was his bad record that added the extra week

Melbourne and Geelong both did with Trengove and Selwood.

You fight the fights that are worth fighting. The outcome is sometimes not as important as the battle itself.
We all know that Kosi's tackle was not a sling that the AFL are desperately trying to crack down on. It was a legitimate tackle and, if Duncan had prior opportunity, would have been rewarded with a free kick.

It is a laughable situation where an incident is rewarded on the field but results in the player committing an offence that draws 225 demerit points. Only a lawyer could come up with that!

[Thinline]

The rule is flawed. I'll give you that. But wasting money on a pointless appeal does nothing but draw attention to the fact that the club wasted money on a useless appeal.

You may think Geelong showed admirable support of Selwood.

Personally I think they were made to look completely ridiculous for arguing the inarguable.

Same goes for Collingwood and Daisy whats-his-name.

The system is specifically designed to STOP people appealing.

Kosi slung a bloke to ground. Personally I think there may have been an argument that he softened the fall a bit by releasing his grip, but on the basis of the rule (quoted in a nother thread) it was always going to attract scrutiny.

I don't agree with the rule and how it's applied, but it's there.

That's how it is.

[Johnny Member]

I'm puzzled as to why they didn't contest it.

Same as I was with the Baker nonsense last year.


But, I can see there are only 4 reasons why we wouldn't contest such stuff...

1) Kosi needs 3 weeks to get over his niggles, so they're happy they had their hand forced.

2) Ross Lyon doesn't like distractions. Take it, and move on. Don't drag it out into the week if we don't have to.

3) They actually agree with the MRP rulings.

4) We are sucking up to the AFL and copping it.



I really hope it isn't 4.

[Life Long Saint]

The rule is flawed. I'll give you that. But wasting money on a pointless appeal does nothing but draw attention to the fact that the club wasted money on a useless appeal.

You may think Geelong showed admirable support of Selwood.

Personally I think they were made to look completely ridiculous for arguing the inarguable.

Same goes for Collingwood and Daisy whats-his-name.

The system is specifically designed to STOP people appealing.

Kosi slung a bloke to ground. Personally I think there may have been an argument that he softened the fall a bit by releasing his grip, but on the basis of the rule (quoted in a nother thread) it was always going to attract scrutiny.

I don't agree with the rule and how it's applied, but it's there.

That's how it is.

IMHO, Only Collingwood looked ridiculous. Thomas took a cheap shot against a bloke that had the better of him...But they had nothing to lose. They were not arguing against the charge only the conduct aspect. Although their defence was foolish.

Geelong had a case on the Selwood charge. Given there was no footage of the incident they could, quite adequately, argue the conduct aspect of the charge. Selwood pleaded his case that his intent was not to strike Guerra. The tribunal didn't agree with him but that's how it goes.

Our case with Kosi was different again. His tackling action could easily been argued as he did not sling the player like Trengove, Mumford and Corey. The ball was still there and Kosi would have been able to feel that. It is perfectly legitimate to bring the player to the ground whilst he still has the ball.

Too often we bend over and take it from the AFL...I'd like to see us fight back once with a bit of passion.

[Life Long Saint]

* Deleted duplicate *

[Life Long Saint]

* Deleted duplicate *

[Life Long Saint]

* Deleted duplicate *

[Megsie]

Kosie only came into team after eing named as emergency.

Let him do his time & give a kid a go.

Couldn't do any worse than kosie. Why challenge the decision??

[stinger]

I'm glad we didn't challenge. We now have the luxury of a Kosi-less team for the next 2 weeks. Maybe now R. Stanley will get a run

17 f****** stupid posts....

[St Nick]

I'm glad we didn't challenge. We now have the luxury of a Kosi-less team for the next 2 weeks. Maybe now R. Stanley will get a run

17 f****** stupid posts....

Excuse me if my opinion differs to yours. I reckon it's a blessing in disguise. Hopefully Lyon plays Stanley and he stars for us.

[Moods]

I'm glad we didn't challenge. We now have the luxury of a Kosi-less team for the next 2 weeks. Maybe now R. Stanley will get a run

What are you Rhys Stanley's girlfriend or something?

[stinger]

I'm glad we didn't challenge. We now have the luxury of a Kosi-less team for the next 2 weeks. Maybe now R. Stanley will get a run

17 f****** stupid posts....

Excuse me if my opinion differs to yours. I reckon it's a blessing in disguise. Hopefully Lyon plays Stanley and he stars for us.

i'm willing to bet that your mum didn't find you a blessing.......in disguise or otherwise, troll....

[The_Merchant]

The decision not to go to the tribunal really highlights an inherent problem with the system. It reminds me of the plea bargain system in US law, where defendants are encouraged to take a plea bargain and admit guilt where none exists, simply because the risk of going to court is too great.

The 25% plea reduction is a farce. It really equates to a 25% penalty for having your case heard and having a right of reply. This would not have been an appeal, it would have been an initial hearing. Instead, the player is forced into taking a two week penalty, even though he (most likely) and 90% of the football world think that he did nothing wrong.

It is too big of a risk to go to the tribunal, even if you believe you are innocent, because they are also restrained by the same points system that the MRP is.

Perhaps the MRP should dish out a penalty based on points, and if you think that this is unfair, you may take it to the tribunal who has the right to penalise you with the number of weeks that they think the incident deserves, regardless of the number of points, be it more or less than that offered by the MRP. The risk is then only if you got off lightly with the MRP, the tribunal could give you a higher penalty, rather than a 25% across the board.

The AFL think that a fixed percentage is unfair when it comes to players salaries, why should it be okay when their ability to play footy the next week is concerned.

[St Nick]

I'm glad we didn't challenge. We now have the luxury of a Kosi-less team for the next 2 weeks. Maybe now R. Stanley will get a run

17 f****** stupid posts....

Excuse me if my opinion differs to yours. I reckon it's a blessing in disguise. Hopefully Lyon plays Stanley and he stars for us.

i'm willing to bet that your mum didn't find you a blessing.......in disguise or otherwise, troll....

I noticed that you are a Saintsational Legend yet you treat new people like garbage. What's the go??

[SainterK]

Excuse me if my opinion differs to yours. I reckon it's a blessing in disguise. Hopefully Lyon plays Stanley and he stars for us.

Pretty sure multiple posters have told you he is injured, hamstring.