I would have to totally agree with you on that one. I find our supporters to be quite embarassing at times, so quick to stick the boots into our players and jump off the band wagon when things arnt the way they would like.westy wrote:I am absolutely pissed that some pricks on here actually defending Giansirracusa's dog act. Call yourself f****** supporters eh?
Sad Kosi Story
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1224
- Joined: Mon 04 Oct 2010 11:34pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
+1.....that prick would get 4 weeks with the way the rules are today....and...should have got weeks at the time...imhfo....St Lenny wrote:I would have to totally agree with you on that one. I find our supporters to be quite embarassing at times, so quick to stick the boots into our players and jump off the band wagon when things arnt the way they would like.westy wrote:I am absolutely pissed that some pricks on here actually defending Giansirracusa's dog act. Call yourself f****** supporters eh?
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
Well worlds collide, I am in full agreement with Saintdooley and BernardS.
I was twenty metres away from the incident on Level 1 sitting with bigred and barks4eva.
Had a perfect view of the incident. Gia jumped into Kosi and the impact made them clash heads. Gia was actually stunned as well for about 30 seconds.
At the time it was perfectly legit. Nowdays considering the duty of care and the extent of Kosi's injuries, Giansiacrusa (or however its spelt) would get 3-4 weeks.
Times have changed and that type of bump is no unacceptable, but at the time it was fine.
I was twenty metres away from the incident on Level 1 sitting with bigred and barks4eva.
Had a perfect view of the incident. Gia jumped into Kosi and the impact made them clash heads. Gia was actually stunned as well for about 30 seconds.
At the time it was perfectly legit. Nowdays considering the duty of care and the extent of Kosi's injuries, Giansiacrusa (or however its spelt) would get 3-4 weeks.
Times have changed and that type of bump is no unacceptable, but at the time it was fine.
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
- saintdooley
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4571
- Joined: Mon 20 Feb 2006 2:32pm
the things i could say in response to thatCairnsman wrote: As far as Kosi goes who said he has got a brain injury. I have never heard Kosi or one official at the club state he has a brain injury.
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
yeah, maybe he would, but that happened about 6 years ago and the rules have changed since then. lets be honest, they change every f&%K!ng year. at the time, there was no issue with it. and to be honest i still dont see an issue with it. i dont know what the rules are with not being on the ground while bumping or whatever that crap is, to me thats just a great bump and i would like to see more of them in the game. players are too scared to bump now, or tackle.stinger wrote:+1.....that prick would get 4 weeks with the way the rules are today....and...should have got weeks at the time...imhfo....St Lenny wrote:I would have to totally agree with you on that one. I find our supporters to be quite embarassing at times, so quick to stick the boots into our players and jump off the band wagon when things arnt the way they would like.westy wrote:I am absolutely pissed that some pricks on here actually defending Giansirracusa's dog act. Call yourself f****** supporters eh?
"Another storied win in Robert Harvey's career. They say he is the embodiment of their motto of strength through loyalty, and on the day he became just the tenth man to play 350 league games the saints reward him with a seemingly impossible victory."
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4887
- Joined: Fri 05 Jun 2009 3:05pm
- Has thanked: 329 times
- Been thanked: 465 times
No Not good enough. According to St Lenny and westy you're an embarrassment and shouldn't call yourself a supporter. Apparently your also defending Gia against Kosi - merely b/c you don't believe that Gia's actions AT THE TIME were illegal, or at the very least malicious.joffaboy wrote:Well worlds collide, I am in full agreement with Saintdooley and BernardS.
I was twenty metres away from the incident on Level 1 sitting with bigred and barks4eva.
Had a perfect view of the incident. Gia jumped into Kosi and the impact made them clash heads. Gia was actually stunned as well for about 30 seconds.
At the time it was perfectly legit. Nowdays considering the duty of care and the extent of Kosi's injuries, Giansiacrusa (or however its spelt) would get 3-4 weeks.
Times have changed and that type of bump is no unacceptable, but at the time it was fine.
Anyone who touches one of our players is a mongrel dog - HOWEVER if Bakes takes the opportunity to take an opponent out 100 metres off the ball and gets suspended for it, he is victimised and the AFL are involved in a giant conspiracy to stitch up the saints.
I think I understand how it works now
- saintdooley
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4571
- Joined: Mon 20 Feb 2006 2:32pm
no fcuking way?????? JB is taken my side? what has the world come to.joffaboy wrote:Well worlds collide, I am in full agreement with Saintdooley and BernardS.
I was twenty metres away from the incident on Level 1 sitting with bigred and barks4eva.
Had a perfect view of the incident. Gia jumped into Kosi and the impact made them clash heads. Gia was actually stunned as well for about 30 seconds.
At the time it was perfectly legit. Nowdays considering the duty of care and the extent of Kosi's injuries, Giansiacrusa (or however its spelt) would get 3-4 weeks.
Times have changed and that type of bump is no unacceptable, but at the time it was fine.
"Another storied win in Robert Harvey's career. They say he is the embodiment of their motto of strength through loyalty, and on the day he became just the tenth man to play 350 league games the saints reward him with a seemingly impossible victory."
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1224
- Joined: Mon 04 Oct 2010 11:34pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
Moods wrote:No Not good enough. According to St Lenny and westy you're an embarrassment and shouldn't call yourself a supporter. Apparently your also defending Gia against Kosi - merely b/c you don't believe that Gia's actions AT THE TIME were illegal, or at the very least malicious.joffaboy wrote:Well worlds collide, I am in full agreement with Saintdooley and BernardS.
I was twenty metres away from the incident on Level 1 sitting with bigred and barks4eva.
Had a perfect view of the incident. Gia jumped into Kosi and the impact made them clash heads. Gia was actually stunned as well for about 30 seconds.
At the time it was perfectly legit. Nowdays considering the duty of care and the extent of Kosi's injuries, Giansiacrusa (or however its spelt) would get 3-4 weeks.
Times have changed and that type of bump is no unacceptable, but at the time it was fine.
Anyone who touches one of our players is a mongrel dog - HOWEVER if Bakes takes the opportunity to take an opponent out 100 metres off the ball and gets suspended for it, he is victimised and the AFL are involved in a giant conspiracy to stitch up the saints.
I think I understand how it works now
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
- Cairnsman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7377
- Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2005 10:38pm
- Location: Everywhere
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 276 times
My eyes welled up a little.saintdooley wrote:no fcuking way?????? JB is taken my side? what has the world come to.joffaboy wrote:Well worlds collide, I am in full agreement with Saintdooley and BernardS.
I was twenty metres away from the incident on Level 1 sitting with bigred and barks4eva.
Had a perfect view of the incident. Gia jumped into Kosi and the impact made them clash heads. Gia was actually stunned as well for about 30 seconds.
At the time it was perfectly legit. Nowdays considering the duty of care and the extent of Kosi's injuries, Giansiacrusa (or however its spelt) would get 3-4 weeks.
Times have changed and that type of bump is no unacceptable, but at the time it was fine.
That bump was legal as you say. Also people saying you can leave the ground to bump. No such rule. You cant hit them in the head. If Milney left the ground to bump Sandilands and got him in the shin it would be legal.joffaboy wrote:Well worlds collide, I am in full agreement with Saintdooley and BernardS.
I was twenty metres away from the incident on Level 1 sitting with bigred and barks4eva.
Had a perfect view of the incident. Gia jumped into Kosi and the impact made them clash heads. Gia was actually stunned as well for about 30 seconds.
At the time it was perfectly legit. Nowdays considering the duty of care and the extent of Kosi's injuries, Giansiacrusa (or however its spelt) would get 3-4 weeks.
Times have changed and that type of bump is no unacceptable, but at the time it was fine.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4887
- Joined: Fri 05 Jun 2009 3:05pm
- Has thanked: 329 times
- Been thanked: 465 times
Really? How so? You totally agreed with Westy's post that he was pissed off with supporters who were defending Gia's dog act (supposedly) and then went on yourself to say that our supporters were embarrassing and jumped off the bandwagon when things weren't to their liking. If you were referring to something else then you shouldn't have totally agreed with his post.St Lenny wrote:Moods wrote:No Not good enough. According to St Lenny and westy you're an embarrassment and shouldn't call yourself a supporter. Apparently your also defending Gia against Kosi - merely b/c you don't believe that Gia's actions AT THE TIME were illegal, or at the very least malicious.joffaboy wrote:Well worlds collide, I am in full agreement with Saintdooley and BernardS.
I was twenty metres away from the incident on Level 1 sitting with bigred and barks4eva.
Had a perfect view of the incident. Gia jumped into Kosi and the impact made them clash heads. Gia was actually stunned as well for about 30 seconds.
At the time it was perfectly legit. Nowdays considering the duty of care and the extent of Kosi's injuries, Giansiacrusa (or however its spelt) would get 3-4 weeks.
Times have changed and that type of bump is no unacceptable, but at the time it was fine.
Anyone who touches one of our players is a mongrel dog - HOWEVER if Bakes takes the opportunity to take an opponent out 100 metres off the ball and gets suspended for it, he is victimised and the AFL are involved in a giant conspiracy to stitch up the saints.
I think I understand how it works nowAre you in the media? Talk about swist things...............
- IluvHarvey
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2621
- Joined: Fri 06 Jun 2008 4:51pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 34 times
- Been thanked: 257 times
Not sure wouldn't that be classed as taking his legs out?plugger66 wrote:That bump was legal as you say. Also people saying you can leave the ground to bump. No such rule. You cant hit them in the head. If Milney left the ground to bump Sandilands and got him in the shin it would be legal.joffaboy wrote:Well worlds collide, I am in full agreement with Saintdooley and BernardS.
I was twenty metres away from the incident on Level 1 sitting with bigred and barks4eva.
Had a perfect view of the incident. Gia jumped into Kosi and the impact made them clash heads. Gia was actually stunned as well for about 30 seconds.
At the time it was perfectly legit. Nowdays considering the duty of care and the extent of Kosi's injuries, Giansiacrusa (or however its spelt) would get 3-4 weeks.
Times have changed and that type of bump is no unacceptable, but at the time it was fine.
"It only ends once. Anything that happens before that is just progress."
Our supporters would want sandilands to go for kicking.IluvHarvey wrote:Not sure wouldn't that be classed as taking his legs out?plugger66 wrote:That bump was legal as you say. Also people saying you can leave the ground to bump. No such rule. You cant hit them in the head. If Milney left the ground to bump Sandilands and got him in the shin it would be legal.joffaboy wrote:Well worlds collide, I am in full agreement with Saintdooley and BernardS.
I was twenty metres away from the incident on Level 1 sitting with bigred and barks4eva.
Had a perfect view of the incident. Gia jumped into Kosi and the impact made them clash heads. Gia was actually stunned as well for about 30 seconds.
At the time it was perfectly legit. Nowdays considering the duty of care and the extent of Kosi's injuries, Giansiacrusa (or however its spelt) would get 3-4 weeks.
Times have changed and that type of bump is no unacceptable, but at the time it was fine.
- Johnny Member
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4157
- Joined: Thu 05 Oct 2006 12:27pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
The AFL made it illegal at the end of or during 2005 (under the Rough Conduct rule) to leave the ground when bumping someone.joffaboy wrote: At the time it was perfectly legit. Nowdays considering the duty of care and the extent of Kosi's injuries, Giansiacrusa (or however its spelt) would get 3-4 weeks.
Times have changed and that type of bump is no unacceptable, but at the time it was fine.
So it was an illegal bump at the time.
No such rule as far as i know.Johnny Member wrote:The AFL made it illegal at the end of or during 2005 (under the Rough Conduct rule) to leave the ground when bumping someone.joffaboy wrote: At the time it was perfectly legit. Nowdays considering the duty of care and the extent of Kosi's injuries, Giansiacrusa (or however its spelt) would get 3-4 weeks.
Times have changed and that type of bump is no unacceptable, but at the time it was fine.
So it was an illegal bump at the time.
- Johnny Member
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4157
- Joined: Thu 05 Oct 2006 12:27pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
AFL Tribunal Guidelines – Rough Conduct
It is a Reportable Offence to intentionally, recklessly or negligently engage in rough conduct against an opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable.
Without limiting the above, a player will be guilty of Rough Conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) he causes forceful contact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck and instead of bumping, the player had a realistic alternative to:
a) contest the ball; or
b) tackle the opponent
Even if the player did not have any of these alternatives realistically open to him he may still be guilty of Rough Conduct if his conduct was unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether any bump was unreasonable in the circumstances regard will be had to:
- whether the degree of force applied by the person bumping was excessive for the situation;
- whether the player being bumped was actively involved in the passage of play;
- the distance the player applying the bump has run to make contact;
- whether an elbow is part of the contact;
- whether the player bumping jumps or leaves the ground to bump
The jumping whilst bumping part was introduced to stop Byron Pickett nailing guys every week!
It is a Reportable Offence to intentionally, recklessly or negligently engage in rough conduct against an opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable.
Without limiting the above, a player will be guilty of Rough Conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) he causes forceful contact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck and instead of bumping, the player had a realistic alternative to:
a) contest the ball; or
b) tackle the opponent
Even if the player did not have any of these alternatives realistically open to him he may still be guilty of Rough Conduct if his conduct was unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether any bump was unreasonable in the circumstances regard will be had to:
- whether the degree of force applied by the person bumping was excessive for the situation;
- whether the player being bumped was actively involved in the passage of play;
- the distance the player applying the bump has run to make contact;
- whether an elbow is part of the contact;
- whether the player bumping jumps or leaves the ground to bump
The jumping whilst bumping part was introduced to stop Byron Pickett nailing guys every week!
Johnny Member wrote:No such rule as far as i know.plugger66 wrote: The AFL made it illegal at the end of or during 2005 (under the Rough Conduct rule) to leave the ground when bumping someone.
So it was an illegal bump at the time.
AFL Tribunal Guidelines – Rough Conduct
It is a Reportable Offence to intentionally, recklessly or negligently engage in rough conduct against an opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable.
Without limiting the above, a player will be guilty of Rough Conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) he causes forceful contact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck and instead of bumping, the player had a realistic alternative to:
a) contest the ball; or
b) tackle the opponent
Even if the player did not have any of these alternatives realistically open to him he may still be guilty of Rough Conduct if his conduct was unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether any bump was unreasonable in the circumstances regard will be had to:
- whether the degree of force applied by the person bumping was excessive for the situation;
- whether the player being bumped was actively involved in the passage of play;
- the distance the player applying the bump has run to make contact;
- whether an elbow is part of the contact;
- whether the player bumping jumps or leaves the ground to bump
The jumping whilst bumping part was introduced to stop Byron Pickett nailing guys every week![/quote]
It is not illegal to leave the ground in bumping and what you have just quoted doesnt say it is. The Byron Pickett inciodent is completely different. He didnt leave the ground, he bumped front on to the head region.
It is illegal to leave the ground when bumping if the bump was unreasonable in the circumstances so you have just proven than leaving the ground when bumping isnt illegal. You can leave the ground in any bump, just dont hit the player in the head just like any bump. Thanks for proving what I said was right.
- Johnny Member
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4157
- Joined: Thu 05 Oct 2006 12:27pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
No, the rough conduct charge in relation to leaving the ground when bumping, was introduced after Byron Pickett was laying blokes out left, right and centre. The Krummell one in particular.
They also introduced the 'head on bump' rule in 2007 after he polaxed Begley in a praccy match and got 900 weeks for it. But that is a specific rule in relation to head high contact.
The rough conduct one, was done in an attempt to make it legal to bump but to try to stop players connecting with other players' heads.
If you make contact with a player's head and you've left the ground when making the bump - you get done for rough conduct.
It's not considered a strike, so they altered the rough conduct rule.
And obviously now, you've also got the negligence and recklessness part which pretty much means you're off your nut if you even bother trying to bump someone.
Giansiracusa left the ground, and made contact with Kosi's head - so he broke the rules. It was an illegal bump at the time.
They also introduced the 'head on bump' rule in 2007 after he polaxed Begley in a praccy match and got 900 weeks for it. But that is a specific rule in relation to head high contact.
The rough conduct one, was done in an attempt to make it legal to bump but to try to stop players connecting with other players' heads.
If you make contact with a player's head and you've left the ground when making the bump - you get done for rough conduct.
It's not considered a strike, so they altered the rough conduct rule.
And obviously now, you've also got the negligence and recklessness part which pretty much means you're off your nut if you even bother trying to bump someone.
Giansiracusa left the ground, and made contact with Kosi's head - so he broke the rules. It was an illegal bump at the time.
I have no idea when the law changed. My point is that leaving the ground when bumping isnt illegal. Never has been and hopefully never will be.Johnny Member wrote:No, the rough conduct charge in relation to leaving the ground when bumping, was introduced after Byron Pickett was laying blokes out left, right and centre. The Krummell one in particular.
They also introduced the 'head on bump' rule in 2007 after he polaxed Begley in a praccy match and got 900 weeks for it. But that is a specific rule in relation to head high contact.
The rough conduct one, was done in an attempt to make it legal to bump but to try to stop players connecting with other players' heads.
If you make contact with a player's head and you've left the ground when making the bump - you get done for rough conduct.
It's not considered a strike, so they altered the rough conduct rule.
And obviously now, you've also got the negligence and recklessness part which pretty much means you're off your nut if you even bother trying to bump someone.
Giansiracusa left the ground, and made contact with Kosi's head - so he broke the rules. It was an illegal bump at the time.
- Johnny Member
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4157
- Joined: Thu 05 Oct 2006 12:27pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Well maybe start up another thread about that if you're bored and are looking for an argument.plugger66 wrote:I have no idea when the law changed. My point is that leaving the ground when bumping isnt illegal. Never has been and hopefully never will be.Johnny Member wrote:No, the rough conduct charge in relation to leaving the ground when bumping, was introduced after Byron Pickett was laying blokes out left, right and centre. The Krummell one in particular.
They also introduced the 'head on bump' rule in 2007 after he polaxed Begley in a praccy match and got 900 weeks for it. But that is a specific rule in relation to head high contact.
The rough conduct one, was done in an attempt to make it legal to bump but to try to stop players connecting with other players' heads.
If you make contact with a player's head and you've left the ground when making the bump - you get done for rough conduct.
It's not considered a strike, so they altered the rough conduct rule.
And obviously now, you've also got the negligence and recklessness part which pretty much means you're off your nut if you even bother trying to bump someone.
Giansiracusa left the ground, and made contact with Kosi's head - so he broke the rules. It was an illegal bump at the time.
This is about the Kosi bump and whether or not it was illegal.
So f*** off and heckle someone else ya wanker.
You clearly are very dumb. Very very dumb. I just pointed out it isnt illegal to jump in the air and bump and you were the one who said it was. I think you play with your member far to often. The thread wasnt about the bump anyway so maybe you need to have a clear think before you say such rubbish. The thread about an article and has gone in different directions. Had you not got it wrong and said it is illegal to jump in the air when bumping I would have stopped posting on the subject.Johnny Member wrote:Well maybe start up another thread about that if you're bored and are looking for an argument.plugger66 wrote:I have no idea when the law changed. My point is that leaving the ground when bumping isnt illegal. Never has been and hopefully never will be.Johnny Member wrote:No, the rough conduct charge in relation to leaving the ground when bumping, was introduced after Byron Pickett was laying blokes out left, right and centre. The Krummell one in particular.
They also introduced the 'head on bump' rule in 2007 after he polaxed Begley in a praccy match and got 900 weeks for it. But that is a specific rule in relation to head high contact.
The rough conduct one, was done in an attempt to make it legal to bump but to try to stop players connecting with other players' heads.
If you make contact with a player's head and you've left the ground when making the bump - you get done for rough conduct.
It's not considered a strike, so they altered the rough conduct rule.
And obviously now, you've also got the negligence and recklessness part which pretty much means you're off your nut if you even bother trying to bump someone.
Giansiracusa left the ground, and made contact with Kosi's head - so he broke the rules. It was an illegal bump at the time.
This is about the Kosi bump and whether or not it was illegal.
So f*** off and heckle someone else ya wanker.
- Johnny Member
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4157
- Joined: Thu 05 Oct 2006 12:27pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
I assumed it went without saying that laws in relation to the Kosi bump were being discussed.plugger66 wrote: You clearly are very dumb. Very very dumb. I just pointed out it isnt illegal to jump in the air and bump and you were the one who said it was. I think you play with your member far to often. The thread wasnt about the bump anyway so maybe you need to have a clear think before you say such rubbish. The thread about an article and has gone in different directions. Had you not got it wrong and said it is illegal to jump in the air when bumping I would have stopped posting on the subject.
As I said man, start up another topic if you're bored.
Go hassle and annoy someone else you f***wit.
I don't know how or why you find the energy to want to argue til your blue in the face with complete strangers over such trivial and petty matters and wordings of posts.
For someone who appears barely literate with your writing skills, you sure expect other posters to be incredibly precise when posting.
I expect people who claim a certain rule when arguing something to know the rule. The thread has been about many things so I chose to point out jumping when bumping isnt illegal. Hardly outrageous. You even went to the effort of looking it up. I didnt bother a I knew the rule and when I pointed out you were wrong then you decided to get on your high horse about this thread not being about the bump but only about the bump on Kosi. Why you would look up something if you didnt care really makes me wonder.Johnny Member wrote:I assumed it went without saying that laws in relation to the Kosi bump were being discussed.plugger66 wrote: You clearly are very dumb. Very very dumb. I just pointed out it isnt illegal to jump in the air and bump and you were the one who said it was. I think you play with your member far to often. The thread wasnt about the bump anyway so maybe you need to have a clear think before you say such rubbish. The thread about an article and has gone in different directions. Had you not got it wrong and said it is illegal to jump in the air when bumping I would have stopped posting on the subject.
As I said man, start up another topic if you're bored.
Go hassle and annoy someone else you f***wit.
I don't know how or why you find the energy to want to argue til your blue in the face with complete strangers over such trivial and petty matters and wordings of posts.
For someone who appears barely literate with your writing skills, you sure expect other posters to be incredibly precise when posting.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3266
- Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2007 4:05pm
- Been thanked: 390 times
As has been evidenced by the suspension Koschitzke is currently serving versus the suspension not being served for a similar tackle on Steven, the penalty is consistent with the injury.
So, if the hit on Koschitzke was an event from last weekend the guy delivering the bump would face a multiple week suspension.
Because of the injury - not because of the bump per se.
I repeat, Koschitzke appeared in fine form last Sunday, happy to engage in conversations, sign autographs, have photos taken and give hugs to some.
And he was running up and down the stairs with no hint of inconvenience to engage as described and to engage with Gardiner who was standing in the back row and similarly interacting with whoever took the time to say "gidday" and make a request.
Most of the others not playing were there, but it was these 2 who attracted the attention.
So, if the hit on Koschitzke was an event from last weekend the guy delivering the bump would face a multiple week suspension.
Because of the injury - not because of the bump per se.
I repeat, Koschitzke appeared in fine form last Sunday, happy to engage in conversations, sign autographs, have photos taken and give hugs to some.
And he was running up and down the stairs with no hint of inconvenience to engage as described and to engage with Gardiner who was standing in the back row and similarly interacting with whoever took the time to say "gidday" and make a request.
Most of the others not playing were there, but it was these 2 who attracted the attention.
I knew this Yugoslav guy once, that was so argumentative he would argue that BLACK was white and WHITE was black. He would keep going until he was blue in the face. only when no one agreed with him did he get RED in the face! After a while I discovered that I didn't give a flying fcuk what he thought because I was only interested in RED, WHITE and BLACK.
Put another way, I do not care at all if Gianshicklegruber's bump was legit( according to the experts), he is still a sniper. And in addition to that, yes our boys can belt the tripe out of the opposition and no, the opposition cannot belt us. That is my new rule and if Geischen or Anderson don't like it they can go and get stuffed!
Put another way, I do not care at all if Gianshicklegruber's bump was legit( according to the experts), he is still a sniper. And in addition to that, yes our boys can belt the tripe out of the opposition and no, the opposition cannot belt us. That is my new rule and if Geischen or Anderson don't like it they can go and get stuffed!
I'm livin' in a madhouse
- Devilhead
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8375
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 137 times
- Been thanked: 1169 times
Unfortunately with the Kosi/Duncan v Corey/Steven interpretations the AFL have now put themselves in situation whereby players can falsely act out being knocked unconscious knowing in doing so their opponent is likely to get weeks
Scenario - In the first week of the Finals - Player A tackles Player B with slight contact to the head region (worthy of a free kick) and Player B goes to ground pretending to be knocked out (maybe shakes a little and stiffens his arms out) eventually getting to his feet before falling over a few times back down to his knees - ultimately Player B is still able to finish the game because in effect he was always ok but Player A is cited and gets weeks missing important finals games due to some simple but impressive playacting from Player B
A precedent has been set and it is only time before the above scenario will happen
It has happened before (although this was not in a final) - Lockett vs McKenna incident - Rd 9 in 1989 at Moorabbin - the game where the big fella kicked 12 but got suspended for 4 weeks for apparently knocking out McKenna after throwing his arm back to shrug him aside - McKenna lay there in front of the GG Huggins stand pretending to be knocked out with his teammates even telling him to stay down in earshot of supporters sitting on the fence - I know I was there - verdict - Big Tony gets a spell on the sidelines unfortunately giving him more time to perfect his elbowing aim
Scenario - In the first week of the Finals - Player A tackles Player B with slight contact to the head region (worthy of a free kick) and Player B goes to ground pretending to be knocked out (maybe shakes a little and stiffens his arms out) eventually getting to his feet before falling over a few times back down to his knees - ultimately Player B is still able to finish the game because in effect he was always ok but Player A is cited and gets weeks missing important finals games due to some simple but impressive playacting from Player B
A precedent has been set and it is only time before the above scenario will happen
It has happened before (although this was not in a final) - Lockett vs McKenna incident - Rd 9 in 1989 at Moorabbin - the game where the big fella kicked 12 but got suspended for 4 weeks for apparently knocking out McKenna after throwing his arm back to shrug him aside - McKenna lay there in front of the GG Huggins stand pretending to be knocked out with his teammates even telling him to stay down in earshot of supporters sitting on the fence - I know I was there - verdict - Big Tony gets a spell on the sidelines unfortunately giving him more time to perfect his elbowing aim
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!