I'm sure they rewrote that today.A reference to any previous period of AFL years
shall be a reference to the period calculated retrospectively from the round in which a player has been found guilty of a reportable
offence or reportable offences. For instance, where a player has
been found guilty of a reportable offence or reportable offences in round 10 in 2007, the previous period of three-to-five AFL years
shall be the period commencing from and including Round 10 in
2004 and 2002 respectively.
Kosi reported
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- my les foote
- Club Player
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: Tue 12 Dec 2006 6:03pm
- Location: Beside the seaside
- Been thanked: 2 times
Win it for HIM!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7282
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 9:31am
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 142 times
Thanks for thatSaintPM wrote:The date of the offence is not the issue. By definition of the AFL rules, an AFL year is defined as
"The preceding number of AFL years is defined as the equivalent round in the relevant previous year of the pre-season competition or the home and away competition."
Now does this mean a year would run from start of Round 16 last year (when Kosi was reported) to start of round 16. A year runs from start of January 1 to start of January 1, not end of Jan 1.
Anyone who would like to read the mess they refer to as the Tribunal booklet can find it at
http://mm.afl.com.au/afl/docs/Tribunal-Booklet-07.pdf
won't know until they determine
saint4life
- perfectionist
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9022
- Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 3:06pm
- Has thanked: 60 times
- Been thanked: 347 times
There are two ways a player can be reported. First, on the day in question by any of the controlling umpires. Second, following a video review of all games by the MRP. That panel also determines what happens to reports made on the day. Some are dismissed, usually after the umpire looks at the tape and realises that the case is weak. Others are dealt with by the panel and others go straight to the Tribunal because of the number of activation points. In ALL of these matters, the MVP releases its report as soon as the review has concluded and the panel has arrived at its verdicts. Since when does the Match Review Panel selectively release details of players charged to SEN? Answer: NEVER.
So what has happened? Well, it's the old "Let's get some suckers hooked to the station, by guessing what might happen and portraying it as fact."
On the Kosi incident, the Emergency Umpire spoke to both players but appeared to more than warn them. However, nothing emerged after the game, at least in the press. What we saw on TV may not be all that happened, but from where I was sitting - right in front of it - I think that what we saw on the replay was all that there was. That being the case, the MRP is unlikely to take any action. But, let's wait for their report.
So what has happened? Well, it's the old "Let's get some suckers hooked to the station, by guessing what might happen and portraying it as fact."
On the Kosi incident, the Emergency Umpire spoke to both players but appeared to more than warn them. However, nothing emerged after the game, at least in the press. What we saw on TV may not be all that happened, but from where I was sitting - right in front of it - I think that what we saw on the replay was all that there was. That being the case, the MRP is unlikely to take any action. But, let's wait for their report.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7282
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 9:31am
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 142 times
My understanding umpire reported after gameperfectionist wrote:There are two ways a player can be reported. First, on the day in question by any of the controlling umpires. Second, following a video review of all games by the MRP. That panel also determines what happens to reports made on the day. Some are dismissed, usually after the umpire looks at the tape and realises that the case is weak. Others are dealt with by the panel and others go straight to the Tribunal because of the number of activation points. In ALL of these matters, the MVP releases its report as soon as the review has concluded and the panel has arrived at its verdicts. Since when does the Match Review Panel selectively release details of players charged to SEN? Answer: NEVER.
So what has happened? Well, it's the old "Let's get some suckers hooked to the station, by guessing what might happen and portraying it as fact."
On the Kosi incident, the Emergency Umpire spoke to both players but appeared to more than warn them. However, nothing emerged after the game, at least in the press. What we saw on TV may not be all that happened, but from where I was sitting - right in front of it - I think that what we saw on the replay was all that there was. That being the case, the MRP is unlikely to take any action. But, let's wait for their report.
saint4life
- RedWhiteBlack
- Club Player
- Posts: 234
- Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008 4:27pm
- Location: Melbourne
And in news just in:
Justin Koschitzke, St Kilda, has been charged with a Level Two striking offence against Michael Osborne, Hawthorn, during the second quarter of the Round 16 match between St Kilda and Hawthorn, played at Telstra Dome on Saturday July 19, 2008.
In summary, his previous poor record means that his one-game sanction cannot be reduced with an early plea.
The incident was assessed as reckless conduct (two points), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Two offence, drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match sanction. He has an existing poor record of one match suspended within the last three years, increasing the penalty by 10 per cent to 137.50 points. He also has 68.75 points carried over from within the last 12 months, increasing the penalty to 206.25 points and a two-match sanction. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 154.69 points and a one-match sanction.
Aaron Fiora, St Kilda, has been charged with a Level One striking offence against Michael Osborne, Hawthorn, during the second quarter of the Round 16 match between St Kilda and Hawthorn, played at Telstra Dome on Saturday July 19, 2008.
In summary, his previous good record means he can accept a reprimand and 40 points towards his future record.
The incident was assessed as reckless conduct (two points), low impact (one point) and body contact (one point). This is a total of four activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level One offence, drawing 80 demerit points and a reprimand. He has an existing five-year good record, which reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 60 demerit points and a reprimand. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to a reprimand and 40 points towards his future record.
- saintsRrising
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 30089
- Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 1233 times
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4432
- Joined: Sun 25 May 2008 5:39pm
- saintbrat
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 44575
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 4:11pm
- Location: saints zone
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 188 times
what was Osbourne saying or doing? that two saints- one quite mild mannered - felt the need to have a go?
I heard Micheal Roberts saying that the language being used toward Roo by the Hawks was non repeatable
I heard Micheal Roberts saying that the language being used toward Roo by the Hawks was non repeatable
StReNgTh ThRoUgH LoYaLtY
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
![Image](http://www.saintsmembership.com.au/theme/afl-stkilda/img/how-i-want-to-be.png)
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
![Image](http://www.saintsmembership.com.au/theme/afl-stkilda/img/how-i-want-to-be.png)
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
Saw it... knew it would come under scrutiny... but!..
GIVE US A FLOWERING BREAK, AFL!!!!!
Why is it we're the ones chosen to be bent over and made an example of??
Dimwit's got a thing for Saint's arses!!
![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
GIVE US A FLOWERING BREAK, AFL!!!!!
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Why is it we're the ones chosen to be bent over and made an example of??
Dimwit's got a thing for Saint's arses!!
![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.(Eleanor Roosevelt)
![Image](http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc92/BakesFan/31f9f69d-208d-42bb-a1f6-530d46f0660f.jpg)
![Image](http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc92/BakesFan/31f9f69d-208d-42bb-a1f6-530d46f0660f.jpg)
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7282
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 9:31am
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 142 times
he had carry over pointsBakesFan wrote:Saw it... knew it would come under scrutiny... but!..
GIVE US A FLOWERING BREAK, AFL!!!!!![]()
![]()
Why is it we're the ones chosen to be bent over and made an example of??
Dimwit's got a thing for Saint's arses!!![]()
if no points
plead guilty and would have got a reprimand.
that would have been a reasonable penalty
BUT HIS FAULT HAD CARRY OVER POINTS!!!!
saint4life