MRO is an inconsistent fool

[B.M]

Paddy Ryder got a week because somebody ran in to him and KOd themselves

Ryder was just standing still

[Scollop]

Paddy Ryder got a week because somebody ran in to him and KOd themselves

Ryder was just standing still

Exactly.

And that's what I mean about the inconsistency. You've mentioned it yourself.

How did Mitch Duncan get cleared by the MRO when he clearly lined up Robbie Fox?

https://7news.com.au/sport/afl/geelong- ... c-10429846

[magnifisaint]

What about Liam Jones!

[Devilhead]

What about Liam Jones!

How the hell did he get off?

Perfect example of the type of tackle they are trying to stamp out

[Nick DalSanto Claus]

Next time I'll just go with

MRO is an incompetent fool

I was trying to be humorous, Scollop. No offense meant. Play on. We're in furious agreement about the MRO. He is an incompetent fool.

[SaintPav]

King’s suspension round 2.

[Scollop]

At the tribunal hearing for Pickett, Kosi was represented by Adrian Anderson and the AFL by Sally Flynn

1. Flynn (AFL): It was not reasonable to elect to bump at any stage.

2. Sally Flynn (AFL): Pickett runs past the ball and has made the election to bump rather than attempting to take possession of the ball.

That's grounds for an appeal imo.

1: It's wrong to assume that players don't bump when they're running side by side towards a loose ground ball. It's unavoidable.

2: It's completely wrong to claim that Kosi ran past the ball...he never did that. The contact happened at the moment both players arrived at the ball

If you pause the video at the moment of the bump, the footy is in front of Kosi's right foot

https://7news.com.au/video/sport/darcy- ... 0880098112

[St Dave]

At the tribunal hearing for Pickett, Kosi was represented by Adrian Anderson and the AFL by Sally Flynn

1. Flynn (AFL): It was not reasonable to elect to bump at any stage.

2. Sally Flynn (AFL): Pickett runs past the ball and has made the election to bump rather than attempting to take possession of the ball.

That's grounds for an appeal imo.

1: It's wrong to assume that players don't bump when they're running side by side towards a loose ground ball. It's unavoidable.

2: It's completely wrong to claim that Kosi ran past the ball...he never did that. The contact happened at the moment both players arrived at the ball

If you pause the video at the moment of the bump, the footy is in front of Kosi's right foot

https://7news.com.au/video/sport/darcy- ... 0880098112

I think you are on the wrong axis for what was meant by past the ball. Looking from front on Kosi goes from the right of the screen (so left to right it is Moore-ball-Pickett) past the ball in the middle to bump Moore (ending left to right being Moore-Pickett-ball).

He clearly leans in to put body on Moore and is unlucky that Moore is low so he collects him high. Unlucky but fair, the price of risking unnecessary contact

[Yorkeys]

At the tribunal hearing for Pickett, Kosi was represented by Adrian Anderson and the AFL by Sally Flynn

1. Flynn (AFL): It was not reasonable to elect to bump at any stage.

2. Sally Flynn (AFL): Pickett runs past the ball and has made the election to bump rather than attempting to take possession of the ball.

That's grounds for an appeal imo.

1: It's wrong to assume that players don't bump when they're running side by side towards a loose ground ball. It's unavoidable.

2: It's completely wrong to claim that Kosi ran past the ball...he never did that. The contact happened at the moment both players arrived at the ball

If you pause the video at the moment of the bump, the footy is in front of Kosi's right foot

https://7news.com.au/video/sport/darcy- ... 0880098112

I think you are on the wrong axis for what was meant by past the ball. Looking from front on Kosi goes from the right of the screen (so left to right it is Moore-ball-Pickett) past the ball in the middle to bump Moore (ending left to right being Moore-Pickett-ball).

He clearly leans in to put body on Moore and is unlucky that Moore is low so he collects him high. Unlucky but fair, the price of risking unnecessary contact

There is no such thing as unnecessary contact with a Collingwood player, particularly Moore and Maynard. 3 weeks because Moore was given a little taste of his own medicine. but he is an AFL poster boy, thuggery notwithstanding. Good on Kosi. As far as Maynard and Moore go there should be more of it. Dogs.

[Scollop]

Also no such thing as unnecessary contact in a contact sport. It's how possession is gained 50% of the time.

The footy is between the 2 players when you look at the front on slo motion. Then, just as they are about to be within reach the ball bounces on its end and pivots towards Moore (not as bad a bounce as what Milney got in the 2010 granny but it went slightly towards Moore)

So the footy is going to favour Moore and Kozzy has no option but to bump/unbalance his opponent. He can't tackle Moore because Moore doesn't have possession. That is something no one can argue against

I freeze framed it again. Saying Kozzy ran past is the wrong word. He never runs past the ball. In the strictest sense of the word past or in any sense.

[St Dave]

Also no such thing as unnecessary contact in a contact sport. It's how possession is gained 50% of the time.

The footy is between the 2 players when you look at the front on slo motion. Then, just as they are about to be within reach the ball bounces on its end and pivots towards Moore (not as bad a bounce as what Milney got in the 2010 granny but it went slightly towards Moore)

So the footy is going to favour Moore and Kozzy has no option but to bump/unbalance his opponent. He can't tackle Moore because Moore doesn't have possession. That is something no one can argue against

I freeze framed it again. Saying Kozzy ran past is the wrong word. He never runs past the ball. In the strictest sense of the word past or in any sense.

Unnecessary contact is the difference between playing the man and playing the ball.

I know the screen is flat but the game exists in three dimensions. If the ball bounces towards Moore and Kosi still crosses the line of the ball he is clearly going past the ball. If something you want is 20cm to your right but step 50cm to your right you could say you went past it.

He clearly braces and leans towards Moore in the vision, but are you just ignoring that?

Saying he had no option is ridiculous. If he isn't quick enough to beat Moore to the ball he can wait until he is in the motion of grabbing it and tackle then, that happens dozens of times a game and players don't risk getting reported for it. He took the risk of a bump, he got unlucky to collect him high, he gets to sit out a few weeks

[Scollop]

Also no such thing as unnecessary contact in a contact sport. It's how possession is gained 50% of the time.

The footy is between the 2 players when you look at the front on slo motion. Then, just as they are about to be within reach the ball bounces on its end and pivots towards Moore (not as bad a bounce as what Milney got in the 2010 granny but it went slightly towards Moore)

So the footy is going to favour Moore and Kozzy has no option but to bump/unbalance his opponent. He can't tackle Moore because Moore doesn't have possession. That is something no one can argue against

I freeze framed it again. Saying Kozzy ran past is the wrong word. He never runs past the ball. In the strictest sense of the word past or in any sense.

Unnecessary contact is the difference between playing the man and playing the ball.

I know the screen is flat but the game exists in three dimensions. If the ball bounces towards Moore and Kosi still crosses the line of the ball he is clearly going past the ball. If something you want is 20cm to your right but step 50cm to your right you could say you went past it.

He clearly braces and leans towards Moore in the vision, but are you just ignoring that?

Saying he had no option is ridiculous. If he isn't quick enough to beat Moore to the ball he can wait until he is in the motion of grabbing it and tackle then, that happens dozens of times a game and players don't risk getting reported for it. He took the risk of a bump, he got unlucky to collect him high, he gets to sit out a few weeks

What intrigues me is that people will get on here and claim the MRO or tribunal made the correct decision. Everyone knows these decisions can go either way. It’s still a lottery.

Lachie Ash from GWS was rubbed out for a dangerous tackle and then a week later, Liam Jones is let off with a fine.

They ask some players what their intentions were and if they were going for the ball? What a load of horseshit. Kozzy had no intent to hurt Darcy Moore. He was going for the footy and needed to made contact with another player to contest a loose ground ball. He kept his on the ball at all times. He never went past the footy. Simple

It’s interesting that you’re talking about dimensions. The two dimensional vision could be clouding people’s judgement about what constitutes going past the footy.

I think your argument regarding distances is coming from some sort of ‘unknown’ dimension. Probably from someone near Uranus

[St Dave]

Also no such thing as unnecessary contact in a contact sport. It's how possession is gained 50% of the time.

The footy is between the 2 players when you look at the front on slo motion. Then, just as they are about to be within reach the ball bounces on its end and pivots towards Moore (not as bad a bounce as what Milney got in the 2010 granny but it went slightly towards Moore)

So the footy is going to favour Moore and Kozzy has no option but to bump/unbalance his opponent. He can't tackle Moore because Moore doesn't have possession. That is something no one can argue against

I freeze framed it again. Saying Kozzy ran past is the wrong word. He never runs past the ball. In the strictest sense of the word past or in any sense.

Unnecessary contact is the difference between playing the man and playing the ball.

I know the screen is flat but the game exists in three dimensions. If the ball bounces towards Moore and Kosi still crosses the line of the ball he is clearly going past the ball. If something you want is 20cm to your right but step 50cm to your right you could say you went past it.

He clearly braces and leans towards Moore in the vision, but are you just ignoring that?

Saying he had no option is ridiculous. If he isn't quick enough to beat Moore to the ball he can wait until he is in the motion of grabbing it and tackle then, that happens dozens of times a game and players don't risk getting reported for it. He took the risk of a bump, he got unlucky to collect him high, he gets to sit out a few weeks

What intrigues me is that people will get on here and claim the MRO or tribunal made the correct decision. Everyone knows these decisions can go either way. It’s still a lottery. Lachie Ash from GWS was rubbed out for a dangerous tackle and then a week later, Liam Jones is let with a fine.

It’s interesting that you’re talking about dimensions. The two dimensional vision could be clouding people’s judgement about what constitutes going past the footy. He never went past the footy. Simple

I think your argument regarding distances is coming from some sort of ‘unknown’ dimension. Probably from someone near Uranus

Lol 'Uranus' sounds like 'your anus'. Sounds like the kind of humour you would see from children who also don't understand three dimensions so this is all making sense now. Maybe get your mum or dad or another trusted adult to demonstrate, clearly seeing it on the screen is a bit too hard for you to comprehend, but there are more ways of motion than just forwards and backwards.

I agree that the tribunal can be a toss up and clearly some players get more leniency than others, but arguing this instance isn't one of them. Maybe 3 weeks was too harsh but a suspension was warranted. Or are you still refusing to acknowledge (for a third time) that Kosi had options other than bumping and clearly leaned in to do it.

[Scollop]

Good one Dave. ‘children who don’t understand’ ….Very good try mate

are you still refusing to acknowledge (for a third time) that Kosi had options other than bumping and clearly leaned in to do it.

Yes. And do you know why? We are talking about a contest for a ground ball. Every junior footy coach and every aussie rules footballer knows you have to unbalance your opponent if you want to win possession.

Kozzy’s eyes are on the ball at all times. He didn’t target Moore’s head

One player stays upright and one player slides …Moore slides way before acceptances to try and unbalance Kozzy. Is sliding something that the AFL wants when you want to contest a ground ball?

If Moore stays upright the way Kozzy did, he wouldn’t have slammed into Kozzy’s forearm. If Kozzy bumps Moore in the hips it’s normal footy contact and it happens 100 times per game.

[St Dave]

Good one Dave. ‘children who don’t understand’ ….Very good try mate

This is what you first wrote;

I think you are on the wrong axis for what was meant by past the ball. Looking from front on Kosi goes from the right of the screen (so left to right it is Moore-ball-Pickett) past the ball

We are talking about a contest for a ground ball. Every junior footy coach and every aussie rules footballer knows you have to unbalance your opponent if you want to win possession. It’s an oval ball that doesn’t bounce in a straight line and you’re arguing about a player that moves centimetres away from that straight line. That’s why he’s guilty. No worries. End of conversation

You are the one who had trouble with what the word past can mean. I tried to explain that past can be on not just the forward/backwards axis but also the left/right axis (or even the up/down axis), but you were still confused and tried to deflect with a childish joke.

You are getting in to relative motion (did Kosi move past the ball or did the ball move past Kosi?), but that is why I brought up Kosi leaning in and initiating contact. Or just keep ignoring that point I guess and stay stuck on what the word past can mean...

[Scollop]

I didn't have trouble Dave. I ignore arguments that are based on flawed logic.

Who gives a stuff if he leaned or went to bump. The MRO rubbed him out because he believed Kozzy had 'other' options. That's wrong. Bumping is part of contesting the ball

It isn't illegal to try and make contact with your opponent to contest a loose ground ball (f*ck this is getting tedious). That's the fifth time I needed to say that. The MRO changes the goal posts whenever the f*ck it suits him - see below*

As far as maths and physics are concerned I did physics and Advanced maths (that's what they called it back then) and got A's.. albeit 40 years ago

* How many players have bumped someone in the head this year while contesting a loose ground ball? Plenty. I can remember one incident where Zak Butters wasn't even cited or fined.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/let-pl ... 19f4137bc9

[Scollop]

Kozzy was contesting the ball. You aren't obligated to run directly at the footy when contesting a ground ball, just like you're not obligated to wait directly under a ball in flight in a marking contest.

As long as your eyes are always on that footy, you are allowed to initiate contact and unbalance your opponent. That's the art of winning contests

There will always be collision accidents. The main issue is identifying where a player like Moore contributes to the accident and if a player like Kozzy is genuinely contesting the footy.

Remember how Paddy Cripps was cited by the MRO for a head high bump on Callum Ah Chee. Ah Chee suffered concussion and the tribunal cleared Cripps because he was contesting the ball. Cripps always had his eyes on the footy.

The tribunal pretend to NOT take precedent into account but they treated Kozzy as a repeat offender who deliberately set out to target Moore's head

Now... they need to over compensate for their lack of urgency years ago.

[Scollop]

The AFL has created this confusion due to their reluctance to accept head trauma and CTE as a legitimate cause of health issues (especially mental health issues) for ex footballers.

They could have made these changes like 'dangerous tackle' ten years ago. They didn't. There is still some confusion as to what is acceptable, although we are seeing players change tackling techniques

They could have suspended more players for bumps and reckless collisions. They didn't.

The 'head is sacrosanct' they said but they actually promoted the shirt front as an integral part of aussie rules. The used footage of bumps to promote the game.

David Mackay smashed into Hunter Clark at full speed in a typical shirt front with his shoulder bone connecting with Clark's jaw.

Mackay crashed into a player who had already momentarily got both hands on the ball. Mackay's impact caused the instant release of that ball from Hunter's grasp. Would have been a miracle for Hunter to keep holding the ball after copping a hit like that...

How could you believe the AFL and their tribunal system took concussion seriously when Mackay was found to have 'fairly' given Clark multiple face fractures.

The dinosaurs and the people who didn't want the 'fabric of our game to change' were happy that Mackay wasn't suspended.

[St Dave]

I didn't have trouble Dave. I ignore arguments that are based on flawed logic.

Who gives a stuff if he leaned or went to bump. The MRO rubbed him out because he believed Kozzy had 'other' options. That's wrong. Bumping is part of contesting the ball

It isn't illegal to try and make contact with your opponent to contest a loose ground ball (f*ck this is getting tedious). That's the fifth time I needed to say that. The MRO changes the goal posts whenever the f*ck it suits him - see below*

As far as maths and physics are concerned I did physics and Advanced maths (that's what they called it back then) and got A's.. albeit 40 years ago

* How many players have bumped someone in the head this year while contesting a loose ground ball? Plenty. I can remember one incident where Zak Butters wasn't even cited or fined.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/let-pl ... 19f4137bc9

Talk about tedious. Multiple people have told you in this thread the exact reason Kosi got suspended (chose to bump, hit his head), but you can't seem to comprehend it.

I only jumped in to let you know you were misunderstanding the word past (because you were thinking only on a forward/backwards axis not a right/left axis) and it took way to many posts to sink in.

2: It's completely wrong to claim that Kosi ran past the ball...he never did that. The contact happened at the moment both players arrived at the ball

I freeze framed it again. Saying Kozzy ran past is the wrong word. He never runs past the ball. In the strictest sense of the word past or in any sense.

He never went past the footy. Simple

The two dimensional vision could be clouding people’s judgement about what constitutes going past the footy.

Glad we got there in the last one finally.

I agree on most of your other points, the tribunal is inconsistent, I just don't think the answer is making more wrong decisions. Kosi could have used his hands to push and unsettle his opponent that way, he could have just put an arm across him to slow him down, he could have waited to for Moore to get hands on the ball and then tackled him, etc. He chose to bump, he got his head, he gets a few weeks rest.