Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
matrix wrote: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.
well you had to be tough to be able to get out there and know what ever was coming might knock you stupid, and that the guy doing has a decent chance of getting away with it
you dont really have that in todays game do you???
thought that was obvious?
i understand kozi has a history
but now there is debate whether the player was concussed or not
and either the tackle is dangerous or not
Mr Magic wrote: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.
Thats not true at all. You could slam someone on there back or shoulder apparently as hard you like. How can you say Coreys impact was less? I cant believe anyone whos played football cant see whats wrong with the Kosi decision.
Mr Magic wrote: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.
Apparently now the suspension equals the damage inflicted - which makes some sense to me - to a degree.
But of course let's not revisit the Campbell Brown decision where he got 2 weeks for belting the crap out of two Bulldog players in one game. Oh, and let's not revisit Steven Baker's 12 week suspension for inflicting no damage to Steven Johnston whatsoever.
No, the rule that's 'in' this week is 'let the suspension equal the damage'. It will of course be ditched at first moment of inconvenience...just wait for next Gold Coast Sun to smash the living crap out of a player who doesn't play for a team the AFL owns...
Mr Magic wrote: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.
Thats not true at all. You could slam someone on there back or shoulder apparently as hard you like. How can you say Coreys impact was less? I cant believe anyone whos played football cant see whats wrong with the Kosi decision.
What are you talking about? Do you get medical reports. Obviously the Geelong player was in more trouble after the tackle. I cant believe people with eyes cant see that. Anyway what we can see doesnt matter but the medical reports do. Can you tell us what they said?
matrix wrote: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.
Great! Can I watch when you tell them all that? Could probably raise 100k if we sold tickets.
matrix wrote: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.
Great! Can I watch when you tell them all that? Could probably raise 100k if we sold tickets.
Mr Magic wrote: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.
Thats not true at all. You could slam someone on there back or shoulder apparently as hard you like. How can you say Coreys impact was less? I cant believe anyone whos played football cant see whats wrong with the Kosi decision.
What are you talking about? Do you get medical reports. Obviously the Geelong player was in more trouble after the tackle. I cant believe people with eyes cant see that. Anyway what we can see doesnt matter but the medical reports do. Can you tell us what they said?
Hang on you said the degree of Coreys impact was less how the hell can anyone tell that. Is there some magic formula like weight *distance from ground by weight of tackler = impact. Kosi has laid a tackle that is repeated multiple times week after week with no penalty often even earning a free kick. To even suggest you can a suspension for the same tackle due to player being slightly more dazed than the other hundred is absurd.
Mr Magic wrote: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.
Thats not true at all. You could slam someone on there back or shoulder apparently as hard you like. How can you say Coreys impact was less? I cant believe anyone whos played football cant see whats wrong with the Kosi decision.
What are you talking about? Do you get medical reports. Obviously the Geelong player was in more trouble after the tackle. I cant believe people with eyes cant see that. Anyway what we can see doesnt matter but the medical reports do. Can you tell us what they said?
Oh Ok, so geelongs doctor decides ? Why not get the collingwood cheer squad to do it?
matrix wrote: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.
Great! Can I watch when you tell them all that? Could probably raise 100k if we sold tickets.
What am I telling them?
"I dont think it is tough to hit guys behind play or run through them when they arent looking. That is just gutless."
Mr Magic wrote: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.
Thats not true at all. You could slam someone on there back or shoulder apparently as hard you like. How can you say Coreys impact was less? I cant believe anyone whos played football cant see whats wrong with the Kosi decision.
What are you talking about? Do you get medical reports. Obviously the Geelong player was in more trouble after the tackle. I cant believe people with eyes cant see that. Anyway what we can see doesnt matter but the medical reports do. Can you tell us what they said?
Hang on you said the degree of Coreys impact was less how the hell can anyone tell that. Is there some magic formula like weight *distance from ground by weight of tackler = impact. Kosi has laid a tackle that is repeated multiple times week after week with no penalty often even earning a free kick. To even suggest you can a suspension for the same tackle due to player being slightly more dazed than the other hundred is absurd.
Firstly I cant tell who is injured more apart from TV or being there but the MRP get medical reports and secondly that is the rule and has been all year. If you hurt them with that sort of tackle you are in trouble and if you dont you get off. Same with the bump but you must hit them in the head. The tackle can be any part of the body if they think it is the sling.
matrix wrote: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.
Great! Can I watch when you tell them all that? Could probably raise 100k if we sold tickets.
What am I telling them?
"I dont think it is tough to hit guys behind play or run through them when they arent looking. That is just gutless."
That was 30 years ago. The tough footballers dont do that today so I have no need to tell them that and the guys who did it 30 years ago would realise how pathetic it was. Well at least Balmey does when he talks on radio.
Mr Magic wrote: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.
Thats not true at all. You could slam someone on there back or shoulder apparently as hard you like. How can you say Coreys impact was less? I cant believe anyone whos played football cant see whats wrong with the Kosi decision.
What are you talking about? Do you get medical reports. Obviously the Geelong player was in more trouble after the tackle. I cant believe people with eyes cant see that. Anyway what we can see doesnt matter but the medical reports do. Can you tell us what they said?
Hang on you said the degree of Coreys impact was less how the hell can anyone tell that. Is there some magic formula like weight *distance from ground by weight of tackler = impact. Kosi has laid a tackle that is repeated multiple times week after week with no penalty often even earning a free kick. To even suggest you can a suspension for the same tackle due to player being slightly more dazed than the other hundred is absurd.
Firstly I cant tell who is injured more apart from TV or being there but the MRP get medical reports and secondly that is the rule and has been all year. If you hurt them with that sort of tackle you are in trouble and if you dont you get off. Same with the bump but you must hit them in the head. The tackle can be any part of the body if they think it is the sling.
Did this rule come in after Johncock knocked out Riewoldt? Now Im not saying its a conspiracy but that is an example of the blatant bulls*** from the MRP Adrian Anderson and you.
Mr Magic wrote: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.
Thats not true at all. You could slam someone on there back or shoulder apparently as hard you like. How can you say Coreys impact was less? I cant believe anyone whos played football cant see whats wrong with the Kosi decision.
What are you talking about? Do you get medical reports. Obviously the Geelong player was in more trouble after the tackle. I cant believe people with eyes cant see that. Anyway what we can see doesnt matter but the medical reports do. Can you tell us what they said?
Hang on you said the degree of Coreys impact was less how the hell can anyone tell that. Is there some magic formula like weight *distance from ground by weight of tackler = impact. Kosi has laid a tackle that is repeated multiple times week after week with no penalty often even earning a free kick. To even suggest you can a suspension for the same tackle due to player being slightly more dazed than the other hundred is absurd.
The answer is luck. Corey was lucky he didn't do sever damage to Jack's neck - Kosi was unlucky that a very good tackle led to a short term injury.
As Paul Roos said on The Couch tonight - the MRP look at the injury first and work backwards from there.
The rule book will change of course when Steven Baker gets done for an attempted strike and Campbell Brown gets let off because someone accidentally head butted his fist.
matrix wrote: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.
Great! Can I watch when you tell them all that? Could probably raise 100k if we sold tickets.
Most of the blokes who played in the 70's would agree it's not tough. Those not living off their reputation that is. Leigh Matthews has admitted on more than one occasion that todays footy is far tougher than when he played. He also admitted that he was guilty of some cheap shots and that they definitely weren't tough. Taking out Cable in a state game was a classic example - stated the reason he did it was actually a bit soft - he took his eyes off the ball and ran past the ball to take him out. Something which they have legislated against these days.
I certainly think footy is still a tough game. However I'm pissed off with this interpretation of the supposed sling tackle. Almost every tackle you see, blokes try and throw the ball carrier to the ground. Whether they get injured or not is often pure luck, not negligent behaviour by the tackler. I actually reckon it's very hard to deliberately try and smash someone's head into the turf when tackling them. We are heading twds banning throwing someone to the ground when tackling them. All the ball carrier will do is hold onto the ball, and will make it far easier for them to raise their arms up to release a handpass.
Tackling has always been dangerous. If the player has the ball, I can't see how they can come up with this decision. Actually I can, I just don't understand why they have changed the rules to allow this decision to be made.
IMHO - The problem with this new apprach is that legal actions (tackles) , now become illegal in the event of an accidental head bump.
Now there is such a fine line in these tackles, guys are hitting the ground hard in 1 in 3 tackles, just depends on the angle and level of force applied that determines impact. But the tackle is not an illegal act ( eg elbow to head , punch to stomach - they are !).
I did not attend on Saturday...so am watching replay now. Thing I notice is that most of our tackles ( and Cats) , are around waist or chest, and involve drag down motion, sometimes sideways. If you have the time watch the first quarter - and see these tackles which in varying degrees involve the same motion;
19.04- BJ/Cj double team Ling - his head bounces on turf
18.20 - Big Mac on Stevie J
16.15 - Peake on ?
15.18 - Joey pulls down enright
2.55 - Milne on ?
1.16 - Sam Fisher on ?
Then in Second quarter
1.52 - Kosi on Duncan - the report
40 seconds later !!!
1.11 Kosi on Ling - almost identical tackle
I didnt review the rest of game, but what this tells me is that unless this decision is challenged it will have serious implications - ie. clubs will have to instruct players to fundamentally change their approach to tackling.
Oh - and my favourite bug bear - surely all these tackles must be treated as INTENTIONAL - they did deliberately set out to tackle - go figure.
Plunger you enormous f****** twat, I realise your AFL apologist piece is your source of entertainment, but if you can't see the basic flaw that the AFL are not banning an action but punishing an outcome that is based almost purely on luck , therefore reducing the tribunal to an official lottery, then you are thicker than even I believed.
36 different players execute exactly the same action in a game and only one is unlucky enough that the guy he tackles smacks his head into the turf and so he gets suspended.
This would have to be the only professional sport in the world where the exact same specific action can be either legal or illegal depending entirely on chance.
Yet still you defend it to the death. People like you are why we will never eradicate violence in our society.
The real problem I have is that it is the extent of the injury that dictates the term of the suspension.
So, by extension, if you swing a hay-maker and miss you do not have a problem because there is no injury.
But if you give a short jab, and the opposition team gives a report saying their player was inconvienced, you get suspended.
So what next?
If you are chasing a player, or trying to evade a player and wrench your knee costing you 12 months out of the game how long a suspension does the player contributing to the injury receive?
Given the hit Kosi took against Footscray - and there being no action despite the very severe injury he suffered - the guy must really wonder about AFL football and those who "control" it now.
He appears a marked man by the AFL - and a player they want out of the game.
It is not beyond the pale to suggest that reference to that injury to Kosi is a subject the self deluded, ego-maniacs at the AFL never want to see in the media - and the way to ensure that is to kill off the player's career.
You have to associate with these people to understand the the self deluding egos they have - and to recognise that they are not functional accordingly.
And never think that that is not the underlying consideration.
From there it is much the same as it is with Murdoch - it is never said, it is just conveyed.
And if you want to keep your job you adhere to what is being conveyed.
Everything we see from this limp and self-interested administration at the AFL is a re-action.
And now we have a re-action to an injury in a game which is a physical contest.
It is not the tackle - look at the penalty elsewhere where a far more dangerous tackle on Steven led only to a caution - it is the injury.
This is madness - and opens the game up to manipulation including because the opposition club reports on the severity of the injury.
One of my sons, who does not follow St Kilda and who plays at a very reasonable level, just rolled his eyes and commented "What are you supposed to do?"
So, if you swing a guy by the jumper, he loses balance and goes to ground causing himself an injury what happens then?
These decisions and more are the reasons the AFL is losing support and more and more are attending local league games here in Victoria - and particularly in the SANFL.
The supporter is becoming dis-enfranchised, including because of the draw handed to all clubs except Collingwood.
I have recently made the point that attending the football is a habit, with your family and mates - and that there is very great opportunity for clubs in other competitions the make serious in-roads into AFL football because local (tribal) football presents as it does - old fashioned, hard at it football.
And you can go and watch "your team" each and every Saturday afternoon - or weekend in the case of the SANFL except for the bye.
It then becomes a habit.
With this loss of market appeal comes a loss of television viewer (including because of delayed telecasts or no telecasts), a change in habit and ultimately a loss of revenue available from television rights.
Extend the ultimate outcome from that scenario recognising that the numbers watching television is in decline anyway - as acknowledged this week by the industry.
THe AFL might not recognise it, but it is in serious decline and is reliant on Collingwood and their rabid supporters getting a game at the MCG every week.
Look at the numbers St Kilda is attracting - and other clubs as well as per Cooney's comments.
And the standard of the AFL is in decline - evidenced by the number of mature aged recruits from State leagues starring from game 1 - and 18 year olds who have not played senior football in a football State debuting in the AFL upon being drafted.
Just saw the slomo replays of the three incidents on Talking Footy.
Kosi's was definitely one motion and legal.
We should definitely challenge this.
The rest of Australia can wander mask-free, socialise, eat out, no curfews, no zoning, no police rings of steel, no illogical inconsistent rules.
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
Laws of Australian Football 2011
19.2.2 Specific Offences
Any of the following types of conduct is a Reportable Offence:
(a) intentionally, recklessly or negligently making contact with or striking an Umpire;
(b) attempting to make contact with or strike an Umpire;
(c) using abusive, insulting, threatening or obscene language towards or in relation to an Umpire;
(d) behaving in an abusive, insulting, threatening or obscene manner towards or in relation to an umpire;
(e) disputing a decision of an Umpire;
(f) use of an obscene gesture;
(g) intentionally, recklessly or negligently:
(i) kicking another person;
(ii) striking another person;
(iii) tripping another person whether by hand, arm,foot or leg;
(iv) engaging in Time Wasting;
(v) Charging another person;
(vi) throwing or pushing another Player after that Player has taken a Mark, disposed of the football
or after the football is otherwise out of play;
(vii) engaging in rough conduct against an opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable;
(viii) engaging in a melee, except where a Player’s sole intention is to remove a teammate from the
incident;
(ix) kicking or otherwise causing the football to hit any part of a stadium roof’s structure;
(x) spitting at or on another person; or
(xi) bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from front-on when that Player has their
head down over the football.
Note:
- a Player can bump an opponent’s body from side-on but any contact forward of side-on will be deemed to be front-on;
- a Player with their head down in anticipation of winning possession of the football or after contesting the football will be deemed to have their head down over the football for the purposes of this law.
(h) attempting to kick another person;
(i) attempting to strike another person;
(j) attempting to trip another person whether by hand, arm, foot or leg;
(k) intentionally shaking a goal or behind post when another Player is preparing to Kick or is Kicking for Goal or after the Player has Kicked for Goal and the football is in transit;
(l) wrestling another person;
(m) using abusive, insulting, threatening or obscene language;
(n) failing to leave the Playing Surface when directed to do so by a field Umpire;
(o) wearing boots, jewellery and equipment prohibited under Law 9;
(p) any act of misconduct.
I don't know how else he could have laid the tackle when they were stationary. So basically if there is no momentum when starting the tackle you might as well just have a mass group hug.
To the top wrote:The real problem I have is that it is the extent of the injury that dictates the term of the suspension.
So, by extension, if you swing a hay-maker and miss you do not have a problem because there is no injury.
But if you give a short jab, and the opposition team gives a report saying their player was inconvienced, you get suspended.
So what next?
If you are chasing a player, or trying to evade a player and wrench your knee costing you 12 months out of the game how long a suspension does the player contributing to the injury receive?
Given the hit Kosi took against Footscray - and there being no action despite the very severe injury he suffered - the guy must really wonder about AFL football and those who "control" it now.
He appears a marked man by the AFL - and a player they want out of the game.
It is not beyond the pale to suggest that reference to that injury to Kosi is a subject the self deluded, ego-maniacs at the AFL never want to see in the media - and the way to ensure that is to kill off the player's career.
You have to associate with these people to understand the the self deluding egos they have - and to recognise that they are not functional accordingly.
And never think that that is not the underlying consideration.
From there it is much the same as it is with Murdoch - it is never said, it is just conveyed.
And if you want to keep your job you adhere to what is being conveyed.
Everything we see from this limp and self-interested administration at the AFL is a re-action.
And now we have a re-action to an injury in a game which is a physical contest.
It is not the tackle - look at the penalty elsewhere where a far more dangerous tackle on Steven led only to a caution - it is the injury.
This is madness - and opens the game up to manipulation including because the opposition club reports on the severity of the injury.
One of my sons, who does not follow St Kilda and who plays at a very reasonable level, just rolled his eyes and commented "What are you supposed to do?"
So, if you swing a guy by the jumper, he loses balance and goes to ground causing himself an injury what happens then?
These decisions and more are the reasons the AFL is losing support and more and more are attending local league games here in Victoria - and particularly in the SANFL.
The supporter is becoming dis-enfranchised, including because of the draw handed to all clubs except Collingwood.
I have recently made the point that attending the football is a habit, with your family and mates - and that there is very great opportunity for clubs in other competitions the make serious in-roads into AFL football because local (tribal) football presents as it does - old fashioned, hard at it football.
And you can go and watch "your team" each and every Saturday afternoon - or weekend in the case of the SANFL except for the bye.
It then becomes a habit.
With this loss of market appeal comes a loss of television viewer (including because of delayed telecasts or no telecasts), a change in habit and ultimately a loss of revenue available from television rights.
Extend the ultimate outcome from that scenario recognising that the numbers watching television is in decline anyway - as acknowledged this week by the industry.
THe AFL might not recognise it, but it is in serious decline and is reliant on Collingwood and their rabid supporters getting a game at the MCG every week.
Look at the numbers St Kilda is attracting - and other clubs as well as per Cooney's comments.
And the standard of the AFL is in decline - evidenced by the number of mature aged recruits from State leagues starring from game 1 - and 18 year olds who have not played senior football in a football State debuting in the AFL upon being drafted.
Excellent post, totally agree. I'm of the same mind and so are many friends who were once avid AFL followers. Especially friends in SA who love their local footy for the way it is played.
Saints Angel wrote:This is not the game I grew up with anymore. It has been spoiled. I now feel as though I don't know the rules anymore. Bring back the good old days. Kosi made a great tackle.
Griggsy wrote:I don't know how else he could have laid the tackle when they were stationary. So basically if there is no momentum when starting the tackle you might as well just have a mass group hug.
Give me a break FFS!
Kosi could've bear hug tackled his opponent without slinging him to the ground.
Or, if he wanted to spin his opponent, he didn't need to do it using a downward motion thy caused high contact.
