Kosi reported

[my les foote]

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.

I'm sure they rewrote that today.

[chook23]

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

Thanks for that

won't know until they determine

[SaintPM]

My Les Foote

I didn't see that box relating to round 10 in a previous year.

So looks like if found guilty, points from last year carry over plus loading for number of weeks found guilty over last 3 years

[chook23]

in trouble then

[perfectionist]

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.

[chook23]

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.

My understanding umpire reported after game

[RedWhiteBlack]

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]

Bugga....

History always seems to count against our players..

But for Hall and Goodes etc it always seems that their "poor" records have just lapsed by a week or whatever.

[dalboy]

Fiora was charged with "low impact".....spare me, that tummy tap wouldn't have hurt a fly.....obviously his hard man reputation has cost him.

[Stillwaiting]

Bugga....

History always seems to count against our players..

But for Hall and Goodes etc it always seems that their "poor" records have just lapsed by a week or whatever.

Yep

If it was goodes he would get of with another reprimand

[saintbrat]

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

[BakesFan]

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!!

[chook23]

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!!

he had carry over points
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!!!!