Kosi 2 weeks

[plugger66]

I hope we challenge.

On what grounds? (serious question). Don't get me wrong. If we have a serious chance we should go for it but I don't see that we can put up a good enough arguement !!

Hes being a smart arse. Waiting for the big punchline from the clown. So Kosi gets 3 and we have a chance.

The irony is that Kosi played pretty well on Saturday and had he been paid the free kicks he so thoroughly deserved from the molestation he received at the hands of Scarlett, he would've kicked five.

Poor old Kosi - boned on Saturday night by Scarlett and the umpires, boned on Monday by the MRP and the Geelong doctor. I'm really beginning to despise this game.

And boned for the last five years by a lot of people on here!

And I only thought everyone else was out to get us.

[plugger66]

I hope we challenge.

On what grounds? (serious question). Don't get me wrong. If we have a serious chance we should go for it but I don't see that we can put up a good enough arguement !!

The head didn't hit the surface first?

Yep but why does that matter?

[CURLY]

I hope we challenge.

On what grounds? (serious question). Don't get me wrong. If we have a serious chance we should go for it but I don't see that we can put up a good enough arguement !!

The head didn't hit the surface first?

Yep but why does that matter?

You seriously are a tool if you honestly believe the s*** you reel out.

[SainterK]

I hope we challenge.

On what grounds? (serious question). Don't get me wrong. If we have a serious chance we should go for it but I don't see that we can put up a good enough arguement !!

The head didn't hit the surface first?

Yep but why does that matter?

I don't know how to word it very well to be honest.

Did his head make contact with the turf after being slung to the ground as part of the one action?

[Eastern]

I hope we challenge.

On what grounds? (serious question). Don't get me wrong. If we have a serious chance we should go for it but I don't see that we can put up a good enough arguement !!

The head didn't hit the surface first?

Devil's advocate here. Could it be/was it argued by the MRP that the tackle caused the head to hit the surface, whether it was 1st or 2nd, the resultant injuries don't change and that it the main reason they gave Kosi 3 /2 weeks. We need to weigh up BOTH sides of the arguement and at the moment (unfortunately) its heavily weighted against going to the tribunal !!

[plugger66]

I hope we challenge.

On what grounds? (serious question). Don't get me wrong. If we have a serious chance we should go for it but I don't see that we can put up a good enough arguement !!

The head didn't hit the surface first?

Yep but why does that matter?

You seriously are a tool if you honestly believe the s*** you reel out.

Yes it is much better to whinge about everything and think the world is against us. Only a true Sainter would do that. people like me obviously hate our side because I can see why he would have been suspended. The funny thing is that had Jack Steven been dazed like the Geelong guy on Saturday night there would have been a 5 page thread saying Corey should get 2 weeks.

Anyway attack me. That is a great way to have a discussion. At least you know you will get plenty of others on board. Easy to play the safe way.

Did I want Kosi suspended. No. Did I think he would. Yes. Do I agree with the rule. Not sure but the way tackling is getting it may be a safe rule because if they didnt have it there may be many concussions with how tackling has become.

[MCG-Unit]

Nothing will change so all we can do, which is what we always do, just bend over, touch the toes and unclentch!

Lol, take one for the team you reckon

[SainterK]

I hope we challenge.

On what grounds? (serious question). Don't get me wrong. If we have a serious chance we should go for it but I don't see that we can put up a good enough arguement !!

The head didn't hit the surface first?

Devil's advocate here. Could it be/was it argued by the MRP that the tackle caused the head to hit the surface, whether it was 1st or 2nd, the resultant injuries don't change and that it the main reason they gave Kosi 3 /2 weeks !!

It was the third, Kosi put his body under the player first, then the shoulder, then the head.

Depends on the wording of the sling tackle according to the MRP.

Does it differ if it's your head or shoulder driven into the ground?

[SaintSimmo]

I must be mistaken, I thought I went to an AFL game on saturday night not friggin netball match!!

Secondly, are you not allowed to tackle anymore?? this is an absolute joke!! If we dont challenge that is just piss weak.

[Eastern]

I hope we challenge.

On what grounds? (serious question). Don't get me wrong. If we have a serious chance we should go for it but I don't see that we can put up a good enough arguement !!

The head didn't hit the surface first?

Devil's advocate here. Could it be/was it argued by the MRP that the tackle caused the head to hit the surface, whether it was 1st or 2nd, the resultant injuries don't change and that it the main reason they gave Kosi 3 /2 weeks !!

It was the third, Kosi put his body under the player first, then the shoulder, then the head.

Depends on the wording of the sling tackle according to the MRP.

Does it differ if it's your head or shoulder driven into the ground?

The BIG differences between the Kosi tackle and the Corey tackle are;

The Kosi tackle caused more damage

The Corey tackle had the potential to cause much more damage as it was a spear tackle

The MRP are taking medical reports a lot more seriously nowadays !!

[plugger66]

I hope we challenge.

On what grounds? (serious question). Don't get me wrong. If we have a serious chance we should go for it but I don't see that we can put up a good enough arguement !!

The head didn't hit the surface first?

Devil's advocate here. Could it be/was it argued by the MRP that the tackle caused the head to hit the surface, whether it was 1st or 2nd, the resultant injuries don't change and that it the main reason they gave Kosi 3 /2 weeks !!

It was the third, Kosi put his body under the player first, then the shoulder, then the head.

Depends on the wording of the sling tackle according to the MRP.

Does it differ if it's your head or shoulder driven into the ground?

The BIG differences between the Kosi tackle and the Corey tackle are;

The Kosi tackle caused more damage

The Corey tackle had the potential to cause much more damage.

The MRP are taking medical reports a lot more seriously nowadays !!

That is exactly right. Had the Geelong guy not been injured slightly by the Kosi tackle it would not have gone anywhere where as the Corey one did because of it being more dangerous. Luckily for him Jack got straight up otherwise he was gone.

[CURLY]

I hope we challenge.

On what grounds? (serious question). Don't get me wrong. If we have a serious chance we should go for it but I don't see that we can put up a good enough arguement !!

The head didn't hit the surface first?

Yep but why does that matter?

You seriously are a tool if you honestly believe the s*** you reel out.

Yes it is much better to whinge about everything and think the world is against us. Only a true Sainter would do that. people like me obviously hate our side because I can see why he would have been suspended. The funny thing is that had Jack Steven been dazed like the Geelong guy on Saturday night there would have been a 5 page thread saying Corey should get 2 weeks.

Anyway attack me. That is a great way to have a discussion. At least you know you will get plenty of others on board. Easy to play the safe way.

Did I want Kosi suspended. No. Did I think he would. Yes. Do I agree with the rule. Not sure but the way tackling is getting it may be a safe rule because if they didnt have it there may be many concussions with how tackling has become.

If your post occasionaly werent all for the umpire or MRP then people may take you seriously. Now if you seriously believe that what Kosi did warranted two weeks I would like to know why. Try doing it without the bulls***. Kosi layed the perfect tackle he obeyed every rule that there is yet they found a way to suspend him.

[noreason41]

Yes, terrible tackle, could have led to lifelong injuries for Duncan.

A bit like the lifelong injuries Kosi received in 2006. Plugger66, can you please remind me how many weeks Gia got for that hit?

It's a crap decision. Kosi, of all people, should brief a barrister and threaten blow the whole crappy system wide open.

So we are now going to the Gia incident to talk about Kosi's tackle. That should work well if we take that to the tribunal. Thought you may be better than that.

All he asked was how many week did Gia get for fracturing Kosi's skull?

He did not ask to take that to the tribunal, but how many week a guy jumping and headbutting Kosi (and dont say that didn't happen, i was 20 metres from the incident with bigred and barks4eva), it was Gia's head that smashed into Kosi, so it was a headbutt.

Kosi was obviously hit high more than five metres off the ball and suffered a life threatening injury (or is a fracture skull no big deal?).

the AFL has let go Kosi's fractured skull, Lenny's broken arm (when A Scott threw him into a advertising board over the boundary line when the play had stopped, Riewoldt being attacked by rabid Lions players when he had a broken shoulder.

Name how many weeks ANY of these players got for these actions resulting in serious broken bones?

But a tackle is laid, the Geelong players shoulder hits the ground (and like Kosi his head then bounces), all the while holding the ball.

So from now on should a player touch an opposing players and say tag?

So answer the original question and then answer mine.

Then tell us why these incidents resulted in no penalty.

Honestly, all the incidents you named happened 5+ years ago. Way before the head became protected at all costs by the rules.

Regardless of what you think of the decision, the MRP has been pretty consistent this year (imo) - Can't ask for much more then that.

[matrix]

[CURLY]

I hope we challenge.

On what grounds? (serious question). Don't get me wrong. If we have a serious chance we should go for it but I don't see that we can put up a good enough arguement !!

The head didn't hit the surface first?

Devil's advocate here. Could it be/was it argued by the MRP that the tackle caused the head to hit the surface, whether it was 1st or 2nd, the resultant injuries don't change and that it the main reason they gave Kosi 3 /2 weeks !!

It was the third, Kosi put his body under the player first, then the shoulder, then the head.

Depends on the wording of the sling tackle according to the MRP.

Does it differ if it's your head or shoulder driven into the ground?

The BIG differences between the Kosi tackle and the Corey tackle are;

The Kosi tackle caused more damage

The Corey tackle had the potential to cause much more damage.

The MRP are taking medical reports a lot more seriously nowadays !!

That is exactly right. Had the Geelong guy not been injured slightly by the Kosi tackle it would not have gone anywhere where as the Corey one did because of it being more dangerous. Luckily for him Jack got straight up otherwise he was gone.

What rule did Kosi break does anyone know?

[plugger66]

I must be mistaken, I thought I went to an AFL game on saturday night not friggin netball match!!

Secondly, are you not allowed to tackle anymore?? this is an absolute joke!! If we dont challenge that is just piss weak.

Far from netabll. I would suggest the game is tougher than ever. You can tackle just done sling them and then hurt them. You can bump just dont hit them in the head. They are running faster and hitting harder than ever. If we do challenge we are doing the wrong think by Kosi. He doesnt need an extra week out of the game.

[CURLY]

Yes, terrible tackle, could have led to lifelong injuries for Duncan.

A bit like the lifelong injuries Kosi received in 2006. Plugger66, can you please remind me how many weeks Gia got for that hit?

It's a crap decision. Kosi, of all people, should brief a barrister and threaten blow the whole crappy system wide open.

So we are now going to the Gia incident to talk about Kosi's tackle. That should work well if we take that to the tribunal. Thought you may be better than that.

All he asked was how many week did Gia get for fracturing Kosi's skull?

He did not ask to take that to the tribunal, but how many week a guy jumping and headbutting Kosi (and dont say that didn't happen, i was 20 metres from the incident with bigred and barks4eva), it was Gia's head that smashed into Kosi, so it was a headbutt.

Kosi was obviously hit high more than five metres off the ball and suffered a life threatening injury (or is a fracture skull no big deal?).

the AFL has let go Kosi's fractured skull, Lenny's broken arm (when A Scott threw him into a advertising board over the boundary line when the play had stopped, Riewoldt being attacked by rabid Lions players when he had a broken shoulder.

Name how many weeks ANY of these players got for these actions resulting in serious broken bones?

But a tackle is laid, the Geelong players shoulder hits the ground (and like Kosi his head then bounces), all the while holding the ball.

So from now on should a player touch an opposing players and say tag?

So answer the original question and then answer mine.

Then tell us why these incidents resulted in no penalty.

Honestly, all the incidents you named happened 5+ years ago. Way before the head became protected at all costs by the rules.

Regardless of what you think of the decision, the MRP has been pretty consistent this year (imo) - Can't ask for much more then that.

Johncock on Riewoldt no case to answer. Riewoldt was knocked out and didnt play the rest of the game. Dont give me the head is sacrsanct bulls***.

[plugger66]

I hope we challenge.

On what grounds? (serious question). Don't get me wrong. If we have a serious chance we should go for it but I don't see that we can put up a good enough arguement !!

The head didn't hit the surface first?

Yep but why does that matter?

You seriously are a tool if you honestly believe the s*** you reel out.

Yes it is much better to whinge about everything and think the world is against us. Only a true Sainter would do that. people like me obviously hate our side because I can see why he would have been suspended. The funny thing is that had Jack Steven been dazed like the Geelong guy on Saturday night there would have been a 5 page thread saying Corey should get 2 weeks.

Anyway attack me. That is a great way to have a discussion. At least you know you will get plenty of others on board. Easy to play the safe way.

Did I want Kosi suspended. No. Did I think he would. Yes. Do I agree with the rule. Not sure but the way tackling is getting it may be a safe rule because if they didnt have it there may be many concussions with how tackling has become.

If your post occasionaly werent all for the umpire or MRP then people may take you seriously. Now if you seriously believe that what Kosi did warranted two weeks I would like to know why. Try doing it without the bulls***. Kosi layed the perfect tackle he obeyed every rule that there is yet they found a way to suspend him.

How can I have a serious discussion when you say he laid the perfect tackle. He obviously didnt unless you think they are after us. Also I would love to know the posts in this thread that I have written that is s***. I expect the silly same comeback but i would appreciate you showing me them and then a reason why instead of just attacking me.

[suss]

I hope we challenge.

On what grounds? (serious question). Don't get me wrong. If we have a serious chance we should go for it but I don't see that we can put up a good enough arguement !!

The head didn't hit the surface first?

Devil's advocate here. Could it be/was it argued by the MRP that the tackle caused the head to hit the surface, whether it was 1st or 2nd, the resultant injuries don't change and that it the main reason they gave Kosi 3 /2 weeks !!

It was the third, Kosi put his body under the player first, then the shoulder, then the head.

Depends on the wording of the sling tackle according to the MRP.

Does it differ if it's your head or shoulder driven into the ground?

The BIG differences between the Kosi tackle and the Corey tackle are;

The Kosi tackle caused more damage

The Corey tackle had the potential to cause much more damage.

The MRP are taking medical reports a lot more seriously nowadays !!

That is exactly right. Had the Geelong guy not been injured slightly by the Kosi tackle it would not have gone anywhere where as the Corey one did because of it being more dangerous. Luckily for him Jack got straight up otherwise he was gone.

That's the most sense you've posted all night. If you only saw the stupidity and hypocrisy in the underlying logic of it all.

[hungry for a premiership]

THE AFL MATCH REVIEW PANEL AND THE UMPIRES DEPARTMENT HEADED BY JEFF GIESCHEN IS A COMPLETE AND UTTER DISGRACE!!!!

They, along with Demetriou at the helm, have absolutely bastardised our game to the point where complicated and badly written rules outweigh simple common sense. There is a severe and moronic lack of common sense being displayed in these areas in AFL footy and its becoming more and more degraded and degenerate as time goes by.

When virtually every member of the media and the general footy-loving public say one thing and offer one opinion about an incident, and then the MRP do something completely different, then there is something seriously wrong with the rules of the game. I'm not just talking about Kosi, I'm talking about a consistent appalling lack of consistency and use of common sense that is nothing less than reprehensible.

The rules regarding these things need to be re-written, because right now, it stinks to high heaven, and the AFL are ruining the game.

[matrix]

err the game is not tougher than ever
if it wasnt tougher and had more biffo and blokes getting lined up in the 70s and 80s compared to 2011, ill eat my jocks...on toast, unwashed

ffs

[Mr Magic]

If the MRP is correct with all these rulings then the system is completely farked.

Any system that would come up with a determination that Kosi's tackle was more dangerous than Corey's is just plain wrong (IMO).

One was eerily like the NRL Spear tackle that was 'banned' from their game becaue of its potential to cause serious damage to the unsuspecting victim of it.
The other wasn't.

Now if they are basing their assesment of Kosi's tackle on the medical report from Geelong that Duncan was concussed, then why was Duncan playing?
If he was concussed enough to cause concern to the MRP then why wasn't he concussed enough to be barred from taking any further part in the game?

You cannot have it both ways, IMO. Either he was concussed or he wasn't.

As for the Corey 'spear' on Steven, are the MRP seriously saying that because somehow Steven wasn't concussed that was a less dangerous 'tackle' then either Kosi or Mumford?

Surely nobody could state that with a straight face?
You just have to look at the vision to see which of the 3 tackles had the potential to do the most damage.

[plugger66]

err the game is not tougher than ever
if it wasnt tougher and had more biffo and blokes getting lined up in the 70s and 80s compared to 2011, ill eat my jocks...on toast, unwashed

ffs

Well I dont think it is tough to hit guys behind play or run through them when they arent looking. That is just gutless. Maybe that is how you fight. The pace the guys hit people at today makes it much tougher and hardly anyone pulls out of a contest anymore because it will be all over the media. It is a much tougher game today. It was much rougher 20 years ago.

[matrix]

If the MRP is correct with all these rulings then the system is completely farked.

Any system that would come up with a determination that Kosi's tackle was more dangerous than Corey's is just plain wrong (IMO).

One was eerily like the NRL Spear tackle that was 'banned' from their game becaue of its potential to cause serious damage to the unsuspecting victim of it.
The other wasn't.

Now if they are basing their assesment of Kosi's tackle on the medical report from Geelong that Duncan was concussed, then why was Duncan playing?
If he was concussed enough to cause concern to the MRP then why wasn't he concussed enough to be barred from taking any further part in the game?

You cannot have it both ways, IMO. Either he was concussed or he wasn't.

As for the Corey 'spear' on Steven, are the MRP seriously saying that because somehow Steven wasn't concussed that was a less dangerous 'tackle' then either Kosi or Mumford?

Surely nobody could state that with a straight face?
You just have to look at the vision to see which of the 3 tackles had the potential to do the most damage.

100% spot on imo
just because the injury to steven supposedly wasnt as bad makes it no less dangerous

[plugger66]

If the MRP is correct with all these rulings then the system is completely farked.

Any system that would come up with a determination that Kosi's tackle was more dangerous than Corey's is just plain wrong (IMO).

One was eerily like the NRL Spear tackle that was 'banned' from their game becaue of its potential to cause serious damage to the unsuspecting victim of it.
The other wasn't.

Now if they are basing their assesment of Kosi's tackle on the medical report from Geelong that Duncan was concussed, then why was Duncan playing?
If he was concussed enough to cause concern to the MRP then why wasn't he concussed enough to be barred from taking any further part in the game?

You cannot have it both ways, IMO. Either he was concussed or he wasn't.

As for the Corey 'spear' on Steven, are the MRP seriously saying that because somehow Steven wasn't concussed that was a less dangerous 'tackle' then either Kosi or Mumford?

Surely nobody could state that with a straight face?
You just have to look at the vision to see which of the 3 tackles had the potential to do the most damage.

100% spot on imo
just because the injury to steven supposedly wasnt as bad makes it no less dangerous

However the degree of impact is less hence 1 week compared to 2 weeks.