Kosi 2 weeks

[dragit]

If Judd ,Bartel,Swan etc lay same tackles in prelim final ,will they miss GF doubt it would even be looked at

Judd gets canonised for shite like this every week, such a fearless inspirational leader.

[plugger66]

So because I think that there is no reason appealing the decision and probably think bringing this rule even though I am not quite 100% sure, is the reason we will never eradicate violence.

No - because you are a prize flog!
You are the most deliberately antagonistic persona I have ever encountered.
You doggedly refuse to give up your "the AFL, umpires, MRP is always right" mantra, so much so, that it defies any logic. That in itself, over a long enough period, is enough to drive the biggest pacifist to violence out of sheer frustration. You are either on the AFL payroll, or mentally impaired. I don't give a f*** which, but stop trying to pretend you believe the s*** you spout ad nauseum.
The difference between Corey's tackle, and Kosi's tackle was that Corey's was dangerous, but he got lucky. So now suspensions are based on pure luck!! Great system............
How does Dimwit's sphincter taste Plunger ???

I must say you come across as a really good bloke. Why am I mentally impaired by the way? Is is because I can look through both eyes. Maybe you should look in your mirror with the one eye you have left and see if you have some issues because I know I certainly dont.

[bergsone]

If Judd ,Bartel,Swan etc lay same tackles in prelim final ,will they miss GF doubt it would even be looked at

Judd gets canonised for shite like this every week, such a fearless inspirational leader.

Nothing against Judd although pressure points,flinging elbows etc dont seem to count,my point is there can be any number of tackles laid and not even looked at.Can you imagine the carry on if players missed a GF because of this.Headlines,6 players to miss GF because of sling tackles...No injuries

[Johnny Member]

To me, it's the same as a marking contest.

If a player purposely jumps into the back or head of an opponent with his knees, then he should get weeks.
But if you're all flying for the ball, and someone gets knocked out then surely there is no reason to suspend anyone.

If a player purposely smashes a blokes head on the ground in a tackl (although I still it's part of the game) then suspend him.
But surely if there's a good, strong tackle laid that doesn't intentionally ram the guy's head into the turf, then clearly no one should be suspended.


It's just getting so ridiculous.

[Thinline]

To me, it's the same as a marking contest.

If a player purposely jumps into the back or head of an opponent with his knees, then he should get weeks.
But if you're all flying for the ball, and someone gets knocked out then surely there is no reason to suspend anyone.

If a player purposely smashes a blokes head on the ground in a tackl (although I still it's part of the game) then suspend him.
But surely if there's a good, strong tackle laid that doesn't intentionally ram the guy's head into the turf, then clearly no one should be suspended.


It's just getting so ridiculous.

Absolutely.

And not that I'd know for sure, I wasn't the tackler or tacklee, but I reckon Koz made a second movement to try slow impact. Subtle but there.

This is a ridiculous rule made even more ridiculous by a black and white punitive system.

It doesn't work.

Fix it.

Again.

[Solar]

final comment before I f&*k off and care about something else.

By the logic of this decision if you create a tackle, a bump or a contest and the secondary impact causes a injury then you will no play for weeks.

If you do something dangerou and somehow get away with not breaking their neck then you will get one at the worst.

Imagine if that was what happened in ral life. I can drink and drive at 150 km's an hour, as long as I don't injure anyone

Stupid!

[plugger66]

final comment before I f&*k off and care about something else.

By the logic of this decision if you create a tackle, a bump or a contest and the secondary impact causes a injury then you will no play for weeks.

If you do something dangerou and somehow get away with not breaking their neck then you will get one at the worst.

Imagine if that was what happened in ral life. I can drink and drive at 150 km's an hour, as long as I don't injure anyone

Stupid!

Well you actually can if you dont get caught. And if you do drink and drive and kill someone you will get a bigger penalty than if you get caught but dont hurt anyone.

[fingers]

To me, it's the same as a marking contest.

If a player purposely jumps into the back or head of an opponent with his knees, then he should get weeks.
But if you're all flying for the ball, and someone gets knocked out then surely there is no reason to suspend anyone.

If a player purposely smashes a blokes head on the ground in a tackl (although I still it's part of the game) then suspend him.
But surely if there's a good, strong tackle laid that doesn't intentionally ram the guy's head into the turf, then clearly no one should be suspended.


It's just getting so ridiculous.

Pods should get weeks for negligence in knocking Bartel out

[Dis Believer]

I must say you come across as a really good bloke. Why am I mentally impaired by the way? Is is because I can look through both eyes. Maybe you should look in your mirror with the one eye you have left and see if you have some issues because I know I certainly dont.

Thanks, I am a good bloke, although as you can attest, I don't suffer fools easily.
Why you are mentally impaired? I have no idea, genetics, accident, being squeezed through the hole at the end of a condom, who knows. I have no information as to the cause, I only know that the poor unfortunates here have to endure the effects.

Now just so it's clear that your line of bulls*** is not all pervasive, you clearly don't have two eyes, you have only one. The official AFL sanitized and annointed one that sees only the that AFL and all it's manipulative mechanisms are always correct. I believe your one eye is on loan and is normally Dimwit's browneye.

For the record, the AFL have just OFFICIALLY reduced tribunal sanctions to a lottery. If a bloke hits his head on the ground when you tackle him and gets dazed, then you're gone. If he doesn't get momentarily dazed then you're good to go. Wonderful system. And you endorse it, you prize flog.

[SainterK]

Not happy, but really given we have the Eagles in three weeks and could use him for that match...it probably wasn't worth the risk.

[SinCitySaint]

The problem here is not just a single issue.

Firstly, we have a system of judgement which may not bring into account precedent when assessing guilt but does when assessing penalties. For example Kosi could not go to the tribunal and argue why this one event was considered punishable by suspension but the exact same action 60 seconds later on Ling is not. However when calculating punishment they use prior bad acts by Kosi to define the length of penalty he receives.

The next problem is the points system where each part of an offense is considered separately to produce a penalty. This has created the farcical situation whereby from one game you have an incident where a player deliberately tries to punch another player in the testicles is penalized less than a tackle where a players head hits the ground with no obvious intention to cause damage. The act must be viewed holistically and not simply as sum of its parts as is currently happening with the MRP.

The points system as it stands creates a form of mandatory sentencing. There is a great deal of debate regarding mandatory sentencing at the moment but the judiciary is reluctant to go down this path because it means that only the charge is considered rather than the whole nature of the act. A rather extreme example would be the man who sleeps with a 15 year old girl who he thought was older but is therefore charged with rape being sentenced exactly the same as the man who rapes a woman in a dark alley. To say this charge carries 220 points therefore you must miss 2 matches does not take into account any extenuating circumstances.

Finally, there is the blatant inconsistency of the MRP. I challenge anyone to argue that all players are treated equally at the MRP or the tribunal. I hear it argued that that is because of their good record or bad record depending on who we are talking about. However, I would argue that it is very easy to keep a good record when no matter what you do you are found to have little or no case to answer. Alternatively, it is very hard to improve a bad record if no matter what you do you are pilloried by the judiciary. Judd and Goodes are the obvious examples, Judd has elbowed, eye-gouged and pressure-pointed (poor wording I know) and yet seemingly can get away with anything. Kosi on the other hand can perform a tackle which at the worst could be accused of being robust and he is suspended for two weeks.

[gringo]

The system should just get back to basics. Buy a monkey get a barrel full of numbered balls, monkey pulls one out with the length of suspension the number on the ball. Simple but a lot more effective than the idiot squad that makes decisions at the moment and just as fair.

The media still get to make the moral judgement (if any s*** journos are reading) just like in the Steve Johnson and Baker stoush or the fact that uncle monotone Robert Walls didn't get excited by the dog act of knacker punching so it wasn't deemed that bad.

We all know that the main point of the tribunal MRP system is to achieve the kind of kangaroo court system that finds players guilty by special comment. If a commentator doesn't respond or an umpire misses it it goes away.

[stevie]

Without sounding flippant or trying to be funny, but what happens if Kosi develops problems with his groin later in life, from Cokes punch?

Remember Peter Crimmins? I know it wasnt from infield play but knows?

Will there be retrospective legal action against Cokes? Of course, by then he might be a junkie in a Corio alley...

[Johnny Member]

Pods should get weeks for negligence in knocking Bartel out

That isn't as ridiculous as it sounds.

This rule, and plenty of other recently, are designed for safety.

They've included reckless, and negligent as situations where you get weeks.

So why don't you get done for hurting your own teammate? There is absolutely no doubt that flying in to a pack is reckless and there's a big chance someone will get hurt.


See how ridiculous this now is?

[stevie]

Yep good point.

I'm still wondering why Hawkins didnt a free when the dope Toovey ran into his knee.

By the rules, it was front on interference.

[plugger66]

Yep good point.

I'm still wondering why Hawkins didnt a free when the dope Toovey ran into his knee.

By the rules, it was front on interference.

Good point that you should be reported for hitting your own player. No it is a silly point. It was incidental contact. You can still have that unless you think Goose and I think Polo should have both been reported a few years ago when they ran into each other when trying to mark the ball and also Ray should have been suspended to running into Selwood. He wasnt because it was incidental contact.

[gringo]

It is the people in charge of governance of the game losing sight of the game. It is so corporatised and commodotised it has lost the point of what it is about, selling the entertainment shouldn't be the only thing. They need to get someone with a bit of direction other than a bunch of guys like Bartlett who played in the 1920s. Someone needs to oversee the development of the game. When they are penalised for being first to the ball and incidental injuries receive large suspensions things are out of control.

[Sainternist]

I thought it was a pretty well established fact you can't be too rough on Geelong players? Afterall they are the Pussies.

Didn't Mumford for the Swans get 2 weeks last year for laying a perfect tackle on that petal called Gary Ablett Jr?

[bergsone]

This is not the game I grew up with anymore. It has been spoiled. I now feel as though I don't know the rules anymore. Bring back the good old days. Kosi made a great tackle.

Read the rule book or follow a different sport.

Ours has changed.

Why should they have to follow a different sport,as for sayingours has changed ,who gave you ownership of the game

[Dis Believer]

Ok, so for all the AFL apologists and sycophants amongst us, I've saved you the trouble, and following is an extract from the laws of the game. So that you can verify the accuracy for yourselves there is also a link to the AFL site and the public copy of the rules of the game:

Relating to tackling: ( I have taken the liberty of removing the irrelevant clauses)
15.4.1 C orrect Tackle or Correctly Tackled
(a) For the purposes of these Laws, a Player executes a
tackle correctly if:
(i) the Player being held is in possession of the
football; and
(ii) that Player is held (either by the body or playing
uniform) below the shoulders and above the knees.
(b) For the avoidance of doubt, a tackle may be executed
correctly by holding a Player from the front, side or
behind, provided that a Player held from behind is not
pushed in the back.

So please detail where Kosi broke a rule?

Further to this:

15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where
they are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact
with an opposition Player.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if
the Player:
(l) engaging in rough conduct against an opponent which in
the circumstances is unreasonable;

This is what he has been charged under - the completely arbritrary and deliberately gray "unreasonable" circumstances.

The actual charge wording in the laws of the game:
19.2.2 S pecific Offences
Any of the following types of conduct is a Reportable Offence:
(vii) engaging in rough conduct against an opponent
which in the circumstances is unreasonable;

Was it unreasonable - how do you measure that?

Please define, within the above listed terms, using substatianing proof, where his specific motion of tackling contravened the laws of the game?

http://afl.com.au/portals/0/afl_docs/La ... l_2011.pdf

[Bernard Shakey]

Not happy, but really given we have the Eagles in three weeks and could use him for that match...it probably wasn't worth the risk.

He'll be jumping out of his skin and match fit by then.

[SainterK]

Not happy, but really given we have the Eagles in three weeks and could use him for that match...it probably wasn't worth the risk.

He'll be jumping out of his skin and match fit by then.

Yep

[kosifantutti23]

Ok, so for all the AFL apologists and sycophants amongst us, I've saved you the trouble, and following is an extract from the laws of the game. So that you can verify the accuracy for yourselves there is also a link to the AFL site and the public copy of the rules of the game:

Relating to tackling: ( I have taken the liberty of removing the irrelevant clauses)
15.4.1 C orrect Tackle or Correctly Tackled
(a) For the purposes of these Laws, a Player executes a
tackle correctly if:
(i) the Player being held is in possession of the
football; and
(ii) that Player is held (either by the body or playing
uniform) below the shoulders and above the knees.
(b) For the avoidance of doubt, a tackle may be executed
correctly by holding a Player from the front, side or
behind, provided that a Player held from behind is not
pushed in the back.

So please detail where Kosi broke a rule?

Further to this:

15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where
they are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact
with an opposition Player.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if
the Player:
(l) engaging in rough conduct against an opponent which in
the circumstances is unreasonable;

This is what he has been charged under - the completely arbritrary and deliberately gray "unreasonable" circumstances.

The actual charge wording in the laws of the game:
19.2.2 S pecific Offences
Any of the following types of conduct is a Reportable Offence:
(vii) engaging in rough conduct against an opponent
which in the circumstances is unreasonable;

Was it unreasonable - how do you measure that?

Please define, within the above listed terms, using substatianing proof, where his specific motion of tackling contravened the laws of the game?

http://afl.com.au/portals/0/afl_docs/La ... l_2011.pdf

Much more detail about reportable offences here.

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

Dangerous tackles
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.

[Dis Believer]

Yes Kosifan, but that is not the rules of the game. It is a policy document. You can churn those out a hundred a day, and the interpretations have NOT been written into the rules.

So now the rules of the game are secondary to whatever policy document Anderson wants to spew out ???

[kosifantutti23]

Yes Kosifan, but that is not the rules of the game. It is a policy document. You can churn those out a hundred a day, and the interpretations have NOT been written into the rules.

So now the rules of the game are secondary to whatever policy document Anderson wants to spew out ???

From the laws of the game:

Each Controlling Body shall adopt Rules which prescribe the
procedures for the hearing and determination of a report.
Laws of Australian Football 2011 6 7
Such Rules must prescribe that the person reported be given
a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Laws of the game are the general laws of the game but each body has there own provisions for dealing with reports.