Kosi 4 weeks from Match Review Panel

[Solar]

so people, explain how kennedy can break a guys jaw, hille charges can gets off.....

cue p66

Yep. I will come in. What has Kennedy got to do with Kosi. Tell me what they got wrong with the points?

team mate had the ball, kosi put on the shepard, ball within 5 metres, feet on ground and elbow down. Player comes back on within 10 minutes.....

kennedy shepards for teammate with ball, within 5 metres, feet on th ground and elbow down. Player leaves field with broken jaw....

kosi gets 4 weeks, kennedy gets NOTHING

explain to me how this is not the same? Only differences are that the swans player was in the contests and therefore would expect contact and was not injured. Melbourne player got taken from side and got a broken jaw....

do I need to say this any slower?

No you dont have to say it slower but as a grade 4 kid you should be able to read the rule book. As I said before Kennedy has nothing to do with Kosi. Kosi had an option of picking up the ball. He chose not to so any damage that happens is his fault. Again, if you are capable, tell me what is wrong with the points given. You clearly have no idea of the rule. I was going to say little idea but that wold be lying and I wouldnt want to do that.

please enlighten me, what were the points and explain to me why you can't shepard the space clear for a player to grab the ball yet you can do the same a split second later once the ball is picked up.

I just believe that the system is crap when a guy gets his jaw broken, a player is late and charges and gets off, yet a player creates space with a fair bump to relsease BJ gets 4 weeks.

BTW you seriously have a problem with your obsession with grade four kids, you know you can get help with that.....

[kosifantutti23]

According to the AFL site it is only 3 weeks with no chance of a discount.

Although if you read further they contradict themselves.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

The 27-year-old’s poor tribunal record means his sanction cannot be reduced with an early plea.

This increases the penalty to 476.02 points and a four-game ban but an early plea reduces the penalty back to 357.02 points and three games.

No mention of Mumford's hit on McQualter. Oh that's right, Channel 10 didn't show that 27 times.

[Saint Bev]

If his name was Goodes he would have got off

Exactly, Koz plays for St Kilda.

NOw for those that are unhappy with Koz and the way he plays, watch how much we will miss him.

Any news on Stanley?

[chook23]

Solar not my arguement ....but it was not a fair bump(Kosi) under the rules....

have not seen the Kennedy imcident so can not comment.

[plugger66]

so people, explain how kennedy can break a guys jaw, hille charges can gets off.....

cue p66

Yep. I will come in. What has Kennedy got to do with Kosi. Tell me what they got wrong with the points?

team mate had the ball, kosi put on the shepard, ball within 5 metres, feet on ground and elbow down. Player comes back on within 10 minutes.....

kennedy shepards for teammate with ball, within 5 metres, feet on th ground and elbow down. Player leaves field with broken jaw....

kosi gets 4 weeks, kennedy gets NOTHING

explain to me how this is not the same? Only differences are that the swans player was in the contests and therefore would expect contact and was not injured. Melbourne player got taken from side and got a broken jaw....

do I need to say this any slower?

No you dont have to say it slower but as a grade 4 kid you should be able to read the rule book. As I said before Kennedy has nothing to do with Kosi. Kosi had an option of picking up the ball. He chose not to so any damage that happens is his fault. Again, if you are capable, tell me what is wrong with the points given. You clearly have no idea of the rule. I was going to say little idea but that wold be lying and I wouldnt want to do that.

please enlighten me, what were the points and explain to me why you can't shepard the space clear for a player to grab the ball yet you can do the same a split second later once the ball is picked up.

I just believe that the system is crap when a guy gets his jaw broken, a player is late and charges and gets off, yet a player creates space with a fair bump to relsease BJ gets 4 weeks.

BTW you seriously have a problem with your obsession with grade four kids, you know you can get help with that.....

You need to read the rule book. I have no obsession with grade 4 kids but you must be about that age because your arguement lacks any skills learnt at high school.

[plugger66]

If his name was Goodes he would have got off

Exactly, Koz plays for St Kilda.

NOw for those that are unhappy with Koz and the way he plays, watch how much we will miss him.

Any news on Stanley?

Yes they are strong arguements. We are getting picked on again. My question is why? Did Essendon get picked on when Lloyd got 6 weeks last year?

[maverick]

If his name was Goodes he would have got off

Exactly, Koz plays for St Kilda.

NOw for those that are unhappy with Koz and the way he plays, watch how much we will miss him.

Any news on Stanley?

Yes they are strong arguements. We are getting picked on again. My question is why? Did Essendon get picked on when Lloyd got 6 weeks last year?

This is just pure gold for you P66....

[SainterK]

According to the herald sun, he only got three and it will not be reduced with an early plea

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/t ... 5846976207

Because of carry-over points and his poor previous record, Koschitzke cannot reduce the penalty with an early plea. If he takes the case to tribunal and loses, he risks a four-match ban.

[Stephen Theodore]

Not surprised. Was hoping for two, but three seems about right.

[Solar]

If his name was Goodes he would have got off

Exactly, Koz plays for St Kilda.

NOw for those that are unhappy with Koz and the way he plays, watch how much we will miss him.

Any news on Stanley?

Yes they are strong arguements. We are getting picked on again. My question is why? Did Essendon get picked on when Lloyd got 6 weeks last year?

different circumstances..... player had ball and therefore lloyd had the option to tackle, kosi was sheparding for the player who was picking up the ball

YOU ARE OWNED !!!! Face it, kosi should have got 2-3, hille should have got a week and kennedy should have got 2-3 weeks (maybe 3 because of the injury). I never said the points system was wrong, I believe not citing kennedy WAS WRONG. Therefore in any other system it creates a basis for others to operate in. This system is wrong! Plain and simple.

Don't bothering replying p66 because between your lack of knowledge, obsession with arguing the opposite for fun and your pathetic jibes re: my age is wearing thin..... I'm sick of reading posts that you infect!

[St DAC]

One the face of what we know about the Kennedy incident (not much as no footage was released) he was lucky. It would be hard to argue with Kosi's 3 weeks under the rules as the are today. Although they seem similar, the MRB has consistently said each incident is assessed and judged independently.

My view is that precedent should be allowed, but if it were imagine the bunfights as comparisons are argued. Be like a butchers picnic.

[plugger66]

If his name was Goodes he would have got off

Exactly, Koz plays for St Kilda.

NOw for those that are unhappy with Koz and the way he plays, watch how much we will miss him.

Any news on Stanley?

Yes they are strong arguements. We are getting picked on again. My question is why? Did Essendon get picked on when Lloyd got 6 weeks last year?

different circumstances..... player had ball and therefore lloyd had the option to tackle, kosi was sheparding for the player who was picking up the ball

YOU ARE OWNED !!!! Face it, kosi should have got 2-3, hille should have got a week and kennedy should have got 2-3 weeks (maybe 3 because of the injury). I never said the points system was wrong, I believe not citing kennedy WAS WRONG. Therefore in any other system it creates a basis for others to operate in. This system is wrong! Plain and simple.

Don't bothering replying p66 because between your lack of knowledge, obsession with arguing the opposite for fun and your pathetic jibes re: my age is wearing thin..... I'm sick of reading posts that you infect!

So Lloyd's was different and so was Kennedy's. You like 99% of people havent seen Kennedy's but you seem to know what he should have got. The funny thing is that you are argueing and then say Kosi should have got what he did get. Now that is funny. Stuff that a person who has no knowledge would do. And you say I am argueing the opposite. Isnt it comedy week soon. You should see if you can get a show going.

[Solar]

One the face of what we know about the Kennedy incident (not much as no footage was released) he was lucky. It would be hard to argue with Kosi's 3 weeks under the rules as the are today. Although they seem similar, the MRB has consistently said each incident is assessed and judged independently.

My view is that precedent should be allowed, but if it were imagine the bunfights as comparisons are argued. Be like a butchers picnic.

yet they do that with umpiring rules. They send out a dvd with different examples. Why not do this with the tribunal? agree otherwise

[ace]

High contact definitely = 2 points
Was the rough conduct impact, that is the head impact, severe (4 points), high (3 points), medium (2 points), or low (1point). The first contact was to the body, the player was not concussed and able to resume shortly after. Medium if you want to be harsh = 2 points if you want to be harsh or low if you want to be generous. MRP decided to be harsh.

Was the rough conduct, conduct, that is contact to the head, intentional (3 points), reckless (2 points), negligent (1 points) or accidental (no charge).
Koschitzke got very low to avoid head contact, head contact was only made because the player slipped or collapsed his legs to avoid contact.
Koschitzke was NOT reckless, at worst it was negligent.

This yet another case of the AFL ignoring the facts to suit the publicity that was given.
Given by channel 10 commentators trying to manufacture a sensational news story by dishonestly comparing it to their own Matthew Lloyd's deliberate head shot.


I hope St Kilda will challenge this overcharging, by having Kosi plead guilty to negligent rather than reckless.
Negligent reduces the number of demerit points after the 30% loading by 130% and 97.5points after the guilty plea.
Resulting in 2 games suspension rather than 3 but at the same time risking 4.
Later in the year it would also reduce Kosi's future loadings from 50% to 40%.


But no doubt Plugger66 will tell us that Koschitzke is lucky not to be banned for life. Not for this incident, but for his head high contact on a jumping Giansiracusa for which neither were suspended despite Kosi suffering severe concussion.

[bigred]

Owned.

Should have gone the ball as well. Still could have ironed him out.

[SaintDippa]

My two cents.

How could anyone sanely see the Kennedy incident AND read the Review Panel's assessment of that incident POSSIBLY even think that Kosi could get weeks??????

What Anderson has put in place is the most bizzare and confusing system. One week its ok to run pass the ball and inflict a broken jaw, this week apparently it's not OK.

All players watching Kennedy would have thought that precidence to what will be allowed in 2010. Surely.

[Little Dozer]

Kosi, just a dumb footballer, dives for marks that he isn't capable of taking, is slow as an ox, has no football smarts, crashes into his own players, gets himself suspended. Oh well, get someone in who has a future.

[plugger66]

My two cents.

How could anyone sanely see the Kennedy incident AND read the Review Panel's assessment of that incident POSSIBLY even think that Kosi could get weeks??????

What Anderson has put in place is the most bizzare and confusing system. One week its ok to run pass the ball and inflict a broken jaw, this week apparently it's not OK.

All players watching Kennedy would have thought that precidence to what will be allowed in 2010. Surely.

Did you see it? Kennedy and Kosi's are different. Kosi could have got the ball so he had an option. Kennedy couldnt have got the ball as someone else had it. Whether Kennedy should have got weeks has nothing to do with Kosi as they are totally different. Llody got 6 for an incident that was more similar to Kosi's.

[maverick]

Owned.

Should have gone the ball as well. Still could have ironed him out.

Just what i was thinking, so clearly must be correct

[SaintDippa]

Plugger {can't do the reposting of messages}

The last thing we wanted Kosi to do was go the ball as he would have cleaned up his team mate who was taking possession.

My point is the farcical and bizzare system where penalities and decisions vary depending on the mood of the reviewer.

IMO Kosi should get weeks but the system under which the review is performed is bizzare.

[kosifantutti23]

According to the herald sun, he only got three and it will not be reduced with an early plea

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/t ... 5846976207

Because of carry-over points and his poor previous record, Koschitzke cannot reduce the penalty with an early plea. If he takes the case to tribunal and loses, he risks a four-match ban.

It sounds like they have copied this from the AFL site. As I understand there are only two options. He takes an early plea or he goes to the tribunal.

If he loses at the tribunal he gets four weeks, if he takes an early plea he gets 3 weeks, so it will be reduced if he takes and early plea.

[plugger66]

Plugger {can't do the reposting of messages}

The last this we wanted Kosi to do was go the ball as he would have cleaned up his team mate who was taking possession.

My point is the farcical and bizzare system where penalities and decisions vary depending on the mood of the reviewer.

IMO Kosi should get weeks but the system under which the review is performed is bizzare.

Yes there are inconsistencies but under the old system it was even worse IMO. If someone could come up with a perfect system it would have been done by now.

[Sainterman]

Plugger {can't do the reposting of messages}

The last this we wanted Kosi to do was go the ball as he would have cleaned up his team mate who was taking possession.

My point is the farcical and bizzare system where penalities and decisions vary depending on the mood of the reviewer.

IMO Kosi should get weeks but the system under which the review is performed is bizzare.

Yes there are inconsistencies but under the old system it was even worse IMO. If someone could come up with a perfect system it would have been done by now.

So going to something that was bad before, to a new "less" bad system is good enough then?

The system is flawed as it is, and confusing, for players and spectators.

I think he probably deserved weeks, although I don't agree with reckless, but would rather think it was negligent. To me this would have been a fair outcome.

For the record, the carry over of points is also a poor aspect of this system. It is especially bad when you cop carry over points on the back of an inconsistent ruling on your previous offence, but then have to cop it again on your next offence too.

But yes Plugger, the AFL do everything so well...I know, let's give them a pay rise.

[Saintsfan]

As soon I saw this among the Brisbane faithful i knew he would be gone. Why? Because I am correct about almost everything.

But that stunning revelation aside, 3 weeks looks about right. He nailed him and made contact with his head. Unfortunate for Kosi however he had a choice of getting the ball or nailing someone and he chose the latter.

We have not seen this collective aggression since the days of Hamill. So his hit and Zac's should be applauded despite the penalty. Kosi does not have the best record either so i'm sure that didnt exactly assist his case.

[plugger66]

Plugger {can't do the reposting of messages}

The last this we wanted Kosi to do was go the ball as he would have cleaned up his team mate who was taking possession.

My point is the farcical and bizzare system where penalities and decisions vary depending on the mood of the reviewer.

IMO Kosi should get weeks but the system under which the review is performed is bizzare.

Yes there are inconsistencies but under the old system it was even worse IMO. If someone could come up with a perfect system it would have been done by now.

So going to something that was bad before, to a new "less" bad system is good enough then?

The system is flawed as it is, and confusing, for players and spectators.

I think he probably deserved weeks, although I don't agree with reckless, but would rather think it was negligent. To me this would have been a fair outcome.

For the record, the carry over of points is also a poor aspect of this system. It is especially bad when you cop carry over points on the back of an inconsistent ruling on your previous offence, but then have to cop it again on your next offence too.

But yes Plugger, the AFL do everything so well...I know, let's give them a pay rise.

Well if there is a better system lets hear about ti. Im pretty sure they dont want a bad system but hey in some peoples eyes everything the AFL do is wrong. Maybe we should go back to that bankrupt competition of 20 years ago called the VFL.