Judd gets canonised for shite like this every week, such a fearless inspirational leader.bergsone wrote:If Judd ,Bartel,Swan etc lay same tackles in prelim final ,will they miss GF doubt it would even be looked at
Kosi 2 weeks
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
True Believer wrote:No - because you are a prize flog!plugger66 wrote: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.
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.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2917
- Joined: Mon 28 Apr 2008 4:56pm
- Location: victoria
- Has thanked: 260 times
- Been thanked: 119 times
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 injuriesdragit wrote:Judd gets canonised for shite like this every week, such a fearless inspirational leader.bergsone wrote:If Judd ,Bartel,Swan etc lay same tackles in prelim final ,will they miss GF doubt it would even be looked at
- Johnny Member
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4157
- Joined: Thu 05 Oct 2006 12:27pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
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.
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.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6043
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 5:31pm
- Location: Currumbin, Quoinslairnd
Absolutely.Johnny Member wrote: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.
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.
"The inches we need are everywhere around us. They're in every break in the game. Every minute, every second. On this team we fight for that inch. On this team we tear ourselves and everyone around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch. Because we know when we add up all those inches that's gonna make the f***in' difference between winning and losing! Between living and dying!'
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![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Stupid!
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
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Stupid!
FQF
loyal in the good times and bad
In richo I trust
2013 trade/draft best ever?
Billings - future brownlow medallist Longer - future best ruck
Dunstan - future captain Eli - future cult hero
Acres - future norm smith
loyal in the good times and bad
In richo I trust
2013 trade/draft best ever?
Billings - future brownlow medallist Longer - future best ruck
Dunstan - future captain Eli - future cult hero
Acres - future norm smith
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.Solar wrote: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!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4642
- Joined: Thu 22 Sep 2005 11:17am
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
Pods should get weeks for negligence in knocking Bartel outJohnny Member wrote: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.
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
- Dis Believer
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5088
- Joined: Sun 28 Mar 2004 1:42pm
- Location: The terraces at Moorabbin, in the pouring rain.......
- Has thanked: 255 times
- Been thanked: 272 times
Thanks, I am a good bloke, although as you can attest, I don't suffer fools easily.plugger66 wrote: 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.
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.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 219
- Joined: Wed 24 Mar 2004 10:22am
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.
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.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12421
- Joined: Tue 24 Mar 2009 11:05pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 296 times
- Been thanked: 55 times
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.
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
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4898
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2010 9:09am
- Location: Gold Coast
- Has thanked: 194 times
- Been thanked: 144 times
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...
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
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4157
- Joined: Thu 05 Oct 2006 12:27pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
That isn't as ridiculous as it sounds.fingers wrote: Pods should get weeks for negligence in knocking Bartel out
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?
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.stevie wrote: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.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12421
- Joined: Tue 24 Mar 2009 11:05pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 296 times
- Been thanked: 55 times
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.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11322
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 12:57am
- Location: South of Heaven
- Has thanked: 1312 times
- Been thanked: 447 times
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2917
- Joined: Mon 28 Apr 2008 4:56pm
- Location: victoria
- Has thanked: 260 times
- Been thanked: 119 times
Why should they have to follow a different sport,as for sayingours has changed ,who gave you ownership of the gamesaintspremiers wrote:Read the rule book or follow a different sport.Saints Angel wrote: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.
Ours has changed.
- Dis Believer
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5088
- Joined: Sun 28 Mar 2004 1:42pm
- Location: The terraces at Moorabbin, in the pouring rain.......
- Has thanked: 255 times
- Been thanked: 272 times
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
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
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11236
- Joined: Sun 18 Mar 2007 11:22pm
- Location: Down By The River 1989, 2003, 2009 & 2013
- Has thanked: 119 times
- Been thanked: 137 times
- kosifantutti23
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Fri 26 Sep 2008 12:55am
- Location: Horgen
Much more detail about reportable offences here.True Believer wrote: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
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.
Furtius Quo Rdelious
- Dis Believer
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5088
- Joined: Sun 28 Mar 2004 1:42pm
- Location: The terraces at Moorabbin, in the pouring rain.......
- Has thanked: 255 times
- Been thanked: 272 times
- kosifantutti23
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Fri 26 Sep 2008 12:55am
- Location: Horgen
From the laws of the game:True Believer wrote: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 ???
The Laws of the game are the general laws of the game but each body has there own provisions for dealing with reports.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.
Furtius Quo Rdelious