Kosi 4 weeks from Match Review Panel

[saintspremiers]

Some of you lot on here need to get glasses and remove your eye patches.

Kosi is guilty, no question.

YES it was reckless (it was definitely worse than negligent).

YES it was medium impact (the Swine player had a sore neck the next day - lucky it wasn't broken...)

YES it was high contact (derrrr.......he had a sore neck, his head hit the ground).

If you are too blind or ignorant not to understand how the points system works, you really have little idea IMO.

I'm comfortable with 3 with an early plea....it could've been worse.

Three is right given plea and points. No quibble. But when Hille gets nil in the same round you can stick your points, stick your MRP, stick your incomprehsibly ridiculous rules committee and I can spit venom justifiably thanks very much.

So Hille and Kosi's incidents were IDENTICAL.

Really?

Wow, that's amazing!

Every incident is different.

Stop comparing Apples to Oranges.

[SainterK]

There is one glaringly obvious similarity SP, they were all head high contact, which is supposed to be sacrosanct (spelling?)

[Thinline]

Some of you lot on here need to get glasses and remove your eye patches.

Kosi is guilty, no question.

YES it was reckless (it was definitely worse than negligent).

YES it was medium impact (the Swine player had a sore neck the next day - lucky it wasn't broken...)

YES it was high contact (derrrr.......he had a sore neck, his head hit the ground).

If you are too blind or ignorant not to understand how the points system works, you really have little idea IMO.

I'm comfortable with 3 with an early plea....it could've been worse.

Three is right given plea and points. No quibble. But when Hille gets nil in the same round you can stick your points, stick your MRP, stick your incomprehsibly ridiculous rules committee and I can spit venom justifiably thanks very much.

So Hille and Kosi's incidents were IDENTICAL.

Really?

Wow, that's amazing!

Every incident is different.

Stop comparing Apples to Oranges.

Come on. You wrote that just to get your 8000th post up. Admit it...

Kosi got what he deserved + or - a week. Fair enough.

Hille got nil. Not fair enough.

Both attacked the head apparently recklessly.

I reckon when there's two blokes in diff games recklessly attacking a players head, both should get a stint.

I also reckon when one (Hille) is off the ground and swinging his shoulder and arm to increase the impact to the head, then it's impossible for him to be making a legitimate attempt to mark as per the MRP finding.

Explain to me the controversy in that?

[gringo]

Ironic that the AFL looked stupid when they said there was no case to answer when Giansiracusa lined up Kosi and fractured his skull. The guy should have gone under the old system.
The kosi situation was that in sheppherding he got down low to hit the body and made minor contact with his head as Malcheski went low as well. There should be a lessening of the charge where it is deemed that a player made accidental head high contact. It seems that the current system doesn't allow any flexibility.

[Solar]

I'm with eastern, not happy ad think the whole system is buggered but moving on.

If anything this thread has shown that p66 is a clown

[matrix]

what bollocks
if he hadnt of slipped there wouldnt be a prob would there???
it wouldnt of been head high
so what message are they sending???....well if you hit the head whether the player slips or not you are gone...if you hit the head with a shirt front and its because the other player slips over then they are saying they want the bump gone.

soft
and no its not because its a saints player
ive seen less reported and more gotten away with in B grade country football
im starting to get sick of the softness and the inconsistency of the tribunal

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Are people seriously arguing that Kosi hasn't gotten a fair go?

Reading this thread, there seems to be a significant level of very glib complaint about consistency. Easy to disagree with MRP on Hille and Kennedy when it's our boy getting rubbed out...

A sheppard, a marking contest gone wrong, and an out and out bump. I'm struggling to take seriously the argument that these are the same, let alone that decisions made on Kennedy and Hille should have given Kosi a free pass.

Now we'll find out if there are the better options people were calling for in preseason - anyone want to lay odds that by selection time in round 5 Kosi has been elevated to the status of superstar?

[saintspremiers]

I'm with eastern, not happy ad think the whole system is buggered but moving on.

If anything this thread has shown that p66 is a clown

Oh come on Solar, admit your true love for him!

The system is not totally buggered, but could improve.

At least we have tangible things to argue on, unlike the old system whereby you had no idea how the tribunal got 2,3,4 weeks etc.

[saintsRrising]

Hille was perhaps lucky to get off.

But Kosi's case was pretty clear.

[Solar]

I'm with eastern, not happy ad think the whole system is buggered but moving on.

If anything this thread has shown that p66 is a clown

Oh come on Solar, admit your true love for him!

The system is not totally buggered, but could improve.

At least we have tangible things to argue on, unlike the old system whereby you had no idea how the tribunal got 2,3,4 weeks etc.

he iratates me t hell because he not only sticks his nose in with annoying responses, has a go at other posters etc. but when asked to debate an issue he just goes back to his boring "grade 4" taunts.... the fact that he says kosi's bump was more simila o llyods sums up his lack of feel and knowledge for the game

[Solar]

I'm with eastern, not happy ad think the whole system is buggered but moving on.

If anything this thread has shown that p66 is a clown

Oh come on Solar, admit your true love for him!

The system is not totally buggered, but could improve.

At least we have tangible things to argue on, unlike the old system whereby you had no idea how the tribunal got 2,3,4 weeks etc.

But the problem is that he points only become an issue when theyare cited. Mybiggest beef is that kennedy and hille were not cited. Hard to argue thepoints when they have not cited them....

[plugger66]

I'm with eastern, not happy ad think the whole system is buggered but moving on.

If anything this thread has shown that p66 is a clown

You cant help yourself can you. It is obvious who the clown is and it isnt me. You start by sooking about kosi getting weeks and the say he should have got 2-3. You have issues that you need to deal with.

Try this site.

www.ihavenocluesatallaboutfootysubjects.com

or www.icontinuetoembarresmyself.com

[bigcarl]

Try this site.

www.ihavenocluesatallaboutfootysubjects.com

or www.icontinuetoembarresmyself.com

it's coming up address not known

[plugger66]

Try this site.

www.ihavenocluesatallaboutfootysubjects.com

or www.icontinuetoembarresmyself.com

it's coming up address not known

the sites are only for Solor. i set them up especially so he can learn a thing or two.

[Solar]

I'm with eastern, not happy ad think the whole system is buggered but moving on.

If anything this thread has shown that p66 is a clown

You cant help yourself can you. It is obvious who the clown is and it isnt me. You start by sooking about kosi getting weeks and the say he should have got 2-3. You have issues that you need to deal with.

Try this site.

www.ihavenocluesatallaboutfootysubjects.com

or www.icontinuetoembarresmyself.com

another great answer but the clown! oooo I can post made up websites too if you want to continue to stupidity.... no-one is laughing...

yes I bitch about the kosi incident when the AFL chop and change every week. I have no issues, I just believe that the system needs to say whats allowed and stick to it. You flip flop evry week depending on what the AF feed you. Then you throw in a stupid example of lloyd and think your mr expert. Then when question about this you revert back to childish retorts....

BTW at least quote me in context when having a go at me. Otherwise it highlights the light weight bulls*** you make us all put up with.

[plugger66]

I'm with eastern, not happy ad think the whole system is buggered but moving on.

If anything this thread has shown that p66 is a clown

You cant help yourself can you. It is obvious who the clown is and it isnt me. You start by sooking about kosi getting weeks and the say he should have got 2-3. You have issues that you need to deal with.

Try this site.

www.ihavenocluesatallaboutfootysubjects.com

or www.icontinuetoembarresmyself.com

another great answer but the clown! oooo I can post made up websites too if you want to continue to stupidity.... no-one is laughing...

yes I bitch about the kosi incident when the AFL chop and change every week. I have no issues, I just believe that the system needs to say whats allowed and stick to it. You flip flop evry week depending on what the AF feed you. Then you throw in a stupid example of lloyd and think your mr expert. Then when question about this you revert back to childish retorts....

BTW at least quote me in context when having a go at me. Otherwise it highlights the light weight bulls*** you make us all put up with.

You said the kennedy incident was closer to Kosi's and I said that the Lloyd incident was closer. I stick to that especially after seeing the Kennedy incident. How is that even remotely like Kosi incident. Just explain to me where there is any similarity at all? I am no expert but compared to you I am Gerard Healy, Danny Frawley, Gary Lyon and anyone else with an idea on footy all rolled into one.

[SainterK]

The MRP deemed that contact to the head was simply a no-go zone, however accidental. The MRP is also supposed to take into consideration medical reports (if any) that resulted from the contact.

Kosi should of copped his ban based on the rules, as should of Hille and Kennedy.

Simple really

[Solar]

I'm with eastern, not happy ad think the whole system is buggered but moving on.

If anything this thread has shown that p66 is a clown

You cant help yourself can you. It is obvious who the clown is and it isnt me. You start by sooking about kosi getting weeks and the say he should have got 2-3. You have issues that you need to deal with.

Try this site.

www.ihavenocluesatallaboutfootysubjects.com

or www.icontinuetoembarresmyself.com

another great answer but the clown! oooo I can post made up websites too if you want to continue to stupidity.... no-one is laughing...

yes I bitch about the kosi incident when the AFL chop and change every week. I have no issues, I just believe that the system needs to say whats allowed and stick to it. You flip flop evry week depending on what the AF feed you. Then you throw in a stupid example of lloyd and think your mr expert. Then when question about this you revert back to childish retorts....

BTW at least quote me in context when having a go at me. Otherwise it highlights the light weight bulls*** you make us all put up with.

You said the kennedy incident was closer to Kosi's and I said that the Lloyd incident was closer. I stick to that especially after seeing the Kennedy incident. How is that even remotely like Kosi incident. Just explain to me where there is any similarity at all? I am no expert but compared to you I am Gerard Healy, Danny Frawley, Gary Lyon and anyone else with an idea on footy all rolled into one.

I will humour you

reason 1

swans player did not have the ball, sylvia did not have the ball, hawks player did. Therefore llyod could tackle, the other two could not.

reason 2
kennedy was sheparding for is team mate who had the ball.
kosi was sheparding his team mate who was about to pick up the ball
llyod was not protecting a team mate

If you can't see that the only 3 differences between the kennedy and kosi incident was that kosi hit the guy a split second before BJ picked up the ball while kennedy's team mate had the ball. The other differences were the fact that the kosi hit was in a pack and the swans player slipped on the service, thus producing the head hit.

Oh yeah and the fact that the swans player was back on with 10 mins, kicking a goal and sylvia got a broken jaw and wont play for the next month.....

Strangly all those experts were agreeing that the kennedy decision was wrong. My beef as a saints supporter is that kosi went when kennedy's hit caused more damaged and was not cited.

In the context of earlier decisions the kosi one is a disgrace, suprising no but still a disgrace. Kosi should have got 2-3 but kennedy should have got 4 weeks. Hell gia should have got 4 weeks.....

But don't let facts get in the way of some highly amusing internet jokes by the one and only p66

[plugger66]

The MRP deemed that contact to the head was simply a no-go zone, however accidental. The MRP is also supposed to take into consideration medical reports (if any) that resulted from the contact.

Kosi should of copped his ban based on the rules, as should of Hille and Kennedy.

Simple really

Thats not quite right. If there is another option then it is a no go zone. If there is no other option then accidents can be ok. After seeing Kennedys he is very lucky to say the least. Dont mind Hille getting off and he was going for the mark and then turned his body at the last moment when he realised he couldnt mark it. If they are consistant with that I think that is a good decision.

[Mr Magic]

The visoin of the Kennedy/Sylvia incident as shown last night seems to cast the MRP's published reasons for their decision as nonsensical.

'Kennedy did not travel far' - at least 10-20 metres
'Kennedy had no oprion' - he could have shepherded instead of bumping

In light of the vision, it was a disgraceful decision by the MRP.


As for the Hille/Bartel decision, it was obviously made by the ex-umpire on the panel.
IMHO no ex-player could state, with a straight face, that at the point of Hille's contact to Bartel he (Hille) was attempting a chest mark.

I repeat that I think Kosi deserved to be rubbed out for his incident, but how on earth these other 2 also weren't rubbed out is what, again IMO, makes the MRP/Tribunal system a 'lottery'.

[plugger66]

The visoin of the Kennedy/Sylvia incident as shown last night seems to cast the MRP's published reasons for their decision as nonsensical.

'Kennedy did not travel far' - at least 10-20 metres
'Kennedy had no oprion' - he could have shepherded instead of bumping

In light of the vision, it was a disgraceful decision by the MRP.


As for the Hille/Bartel decision, it was obviously made by the ex-umpire on the panel.
IMHO no ex-player could state, with a straight face, that at the point of Hille's contact to Bartel he (Hille) was attempting a chest mark.

I repeat that I think Kosi deserved to be rubbed out for his incident, but how on earth these other 2 also weren't rubbed out is what, again IMO, makes the MRP/Tribunal system a 'lottery'.

Kennedy should have gone but Hille was definitely going for the mark and then realised he couldnt get there and turned his body so his face didnt hit the other players shoulder. having played footy and umpired heaps I would expect any player trying to save his face from smashing into the back of another to do the same thing.

There are mistakes with this system but like everything else we only remember the now. There were plenty more mistakes under the old system so I am unsure what system they should use. I'd rather this one because at least you see the reason why you get a certain amount of weeks.

[Mr Magic]

The visoin of the Kennedy/Sylvia incident as shown last night seems to cast the MRP's published reasons for their decision as nonsensical.

'Kennedy did not travel far' - at least 10-20 metres
'Kennedy had no oprion' - he could have shepherded instead of bumping

In light of the vision, it was a disgraceful decision by the MRP.


As for the Hille/Bartel decision, it was obviously made by the ex-umpire on the panel.
IMHO no ex-player could state, with a straight face, that at the point of Hille's contact to Bartel he (Hille) was attempting a chest mark.

I repeat that I think Kosi deserved to be rubbed out for his incident, but how on earth these other 2 also weren't rubbed out is what, again IMO, makes the MRP/Tribunal system a 'lottery'.

Kennedy should have gone but Hille was definitely going for the mark and then realised he couldnt get there and turned his body so his face didnt hit the other players shoulder. having played footy and umpired heaps I would expect any player trying to save his face from smashing into the back of another to do the same thing.

There are mistakes with this system but like everything else we only remember the now. There were plenty more mistakes under the old system so I am unsure what system they should use. I'd rather this one because at least you see the reason why you get a certain amount of weeks.

Any system that removes 'grey' and replaces it with black/white' has to be better.

My concerns with Monkey Boy's gee-whizz bang system is that whilst the penalties side has been gnerally 'cleaned up', the deliberations on what is/isn't a reportable offense has become a system more resembling chooklotto than an open judiciary.
Please explain, in light of the vision now shown publicly, how the MRP could publish their reasons for not charging Kennedy and even worse, Dimwit and Monkey Boy spoke publicly a number of times last week to reaffirm the correctness of the decision?

I'd really love to know how the decision, published reasons, and vision can be reconciled.

And given the outcry over it last week, I cannot in good faith accept 'a mistake' as a valid reason.
If it was just 'a mistake' then why not admit it instead of publicly trying to validate it?

[Solar]

so you admit that you were wrong when you said llyods hit was more similar (the only thing that was similar was the fact that they both happened in packs)?

Any system where they highlight a no no for players, then don't cite a player who not only breaks this rule but breaks a players jaw is a stuffed system. I actually believe that if the person bumping is trying to protect his team mate, keeps his feet and elbow down should not be held to account for any injury. Injuries happen in contact sport. But to come out last year and make a big go on about the head being a no go zone then to ignore it completely not only gets fans and coaches upset but eaves the players totally confused.

Game set and match.

(waits for you to ask me how grade 4 is going or some inane made up website....)

[plugger66]

so you admit that you were wrong when you said llyods hit was more similar (the only thing that was similar was the fact that they both happened in packs)?

Any system where they highlight a no no for players, then don't cite a player who not only breaks this rule but breaks a players jaw is a stuffed system. I actually believe that if the person bumping is trying to protect his team mate, keeps his feet and elbow down should not be held to account for any injury. Injuries happen in contact sport. But to come out last year and make a big go on about the head being a no go zone then to ignore it completely not only gets fans and coaches upset but eaves the players totally confused.

Game set and match.

(waits for you to ask me how grade 4 is going or some inane made up website....)

What are you actually on about. Why does it matter that I think Kennedy should have gone? How does that make it more similar to Kosi because of that. That is totaly stupid which I shouldnt be surprised at.

Game, set ,match. So you are good at tennis. Hopefully you understand that game better.

By the way do you remember the last system. That was even more flawed.

[plugger66]

The visoin of the Kennedy/Sylvia incident as shown last night seems to cast the MRP's published reasons for their decision as nonsensical.

'Kennedy did not travel far' - at least 10-20 metres
'Kennedy had no oprion' - he could have shepherded instead of bumping

In light of the vision, it was a disgraceful decision by the MRP.


As for the Hille/Bartel decision, it was obviously made by the ex-umpire on the panel.
IMHO no ex-player could state, with a straight face, that at the point of Hille's contact to Bartel he (Hille) was attempting a chest mark.

I repeat that I think Kosi deserved to be rubbed out for his incident, but how on earth these other 2 also weren't rubbed out is what, again IMO, makes the MRP/Tribunal system a 'lottery'.

Kennedy should have gone but Hille was definitely going for the mark and then realised he couldnt get there and turned his body so his face didnt hit the other players shoulder. having played footy and umpired heaps I would expect any player trying to save his face from smashing into the back of another to do the same thing.

There are mistakes with this system but like everything else we only remember the now. There were plenty more mistakes under the old system so I am unsure what system they should use. I'd rather this one because at least you see the reason why you get a certain amount of weeks.

Any system that removes 'grey' and replaces it with black/white' has to be better.

My concerns with Monkey Boy's gee-whizz bang system is that whilst the penalties side has been gnerally 'cleaned up', the deliberations on what is/isn't a reportable offense has become a system more resembling chooklotto than an open judiciary.
Please explain, in light of the vision now shown publicly, how the MRP could publish their reasons for not charging Kennedy and even worse, Dimwit and Monkey Boy spoke publicly a number of times last week to reaffirm the correctness of the decision?

I'd really love to know how the decision, published reasons, and vision can be reconciled.

And given the outcry over it last week, I cannot in good faith accept 'a mistake' as a valid reason.
If it was just 'a mistake' then why not admit it instead of publicly trying to validate it?

Well have you got a better system. The NRL use this sytem as well. Even though you like using those really funny names I am sure Anderson and AD would have a better sytem if there was one available. By the way you better ask those 2 why they said those things. I dont see how I would know. I am just a Saints supporter.