Kosi 2 weeks

[plugger66]

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.

So because I think that there is no reason appealing the decision and probably think bringing this rule even though I am not quite 100% sure, is the reason we will never eradicate violence. How silly of me I thought my thinking was the reason we couldnt 100% cure cancer.

That is one amazing post by you. And of course the result of your action should determine the penalty. If I punch a guy in the head and it hits him in the temple and he dies then I could be up for manslaughter. If I do the same thing with the same power and it misses his temple by a millimetre and he punches me back then we both likely to get $100 fine with no conviction recorded.

[stevie]

Ok I just watched the vids for the first time.

Corey one should be at least a week straight up, regardless of previous record. Its very dangerous and uncalled for.

Kosi one is similair but not as violent - the damage is caused by Duncan's head hitting the turf.

Hunt and Cokes - both weak as piss efforts.

The one by O'Keefe on Murphy is annoying too - I was watching that game live on telly and a split second before the bump, Murphy throws the ball ahead of himself to avoid a tackle - he should've been pinged for holding the ball before the incident. The knee to the head was more of an accident than anything and the weak prick deserved it.

[St DAC]

Like it or not, agree with the MRP's interpretation or not, Kosi's tackle was a clear sling tackle and was always going to get weeks. You just can't drag them from one side of your body to the other with force, as it increases the potential for damage dramatically.

Do I like it? No I don't; I like the opportunity to make the opposition feel the tackle. But it ain't 1985 (when I played) anymore. The AFL have made it very clear these tackles will be looked at. Any damage to the tackled player will result in weeks.

Corey was very lucky Jack was OK, as his tackle was the most forceful. But part of the criteria is damage done, not force used, and Jack was OK whereas Duncan was not. Simple as that.

No point in contesting the decision. Can't posibbly win. Kosi should take the 2 weeks, learn from it and move on.

[Mr Magic]

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.

So because I think that there is no reason appealing the decision and probably think bringing this rule even though I am not quite 100% sure, is the reason we will never eradicate violence. How silly of me I thought my thinking was the reason we couldnt 100% cure cancer.

That is one amazing post by you. And of course the result of your action should determine the penalty. If I punch a guy in the head and it hits him in the temple and he dies then I could be up for manslaughter. If I do the same thing with the same power and it misses his temple by a millimetre and he punches me back then we both likely to get $100 fine with no conviction recorded.

But in your analogy there is no doubt that in both cases an illegal act is being performed - a punch to the head.
In the case of the tackle, no illegtal act is being performed UNLESS (apparently) the tackled player is injured.
Does the rule book actually make mention of a tackle being illegal if the player tackled sustains an injury?
How is the rule written to cover a 'sling tackle'? What are the actual words used to describe it? Is there any mention of the word 'injury'?

What about if I deliberately push a player into another and he sustains a knee injury or a broken rib etc - am I responsible?
Afterall, my illegal actions caused the injury to happen.

[InkerSaint]

the AFL are not banning an action but punishing an outcome

This is the real problem.

The message it sends is "don't get caught". The message it could and should be sending is "play fair and have respect for others". And to that extent it is flagrantly misrepresented by Demetriou and co.

It's not so much a tribunal as a lynch mob.

Having said that, the club would be silly to contest Kosi's charge. Reprieves aren't won insisting the tribunal's criteria are wrong. They're won by convincing the tribunal their assessment was incorrect. You can beat the first argument to death all you like.

[Leo.J]

There is a chance for Kosi to have his charge reduced imo.

Part 1 - The guy he was tackling ran into Kosi's tackle, and the momentum caused them to fall backwards.

Kosi did sling him, but from what I could see most of the force was initiated by the Geelong players momentum.

If Kosi didn't swing the Geelong player he would have ended up on top of him, possibly injuring himself.

Then everyone would be saying Kosi's should have tackled him better.

With the other tackles the tacklers initiated the sling and controlled the force.

Part 2 - The guy was groggly, but not concussed. If the guy went from the field and didn't return, I can understand the serverity of the penalty.

At the end of the day, Joel Coreys tackle had the same impact, neither players was concussed.

If they can argue this successfully they may be able to have the impact reduced to low, which after all the maths would result in a week due to a previous record.

[Johnny Member]

Like it or not, agree with the MRP's interpretation or not, Kosi's tackle was a clear sling tackle and was always going to get weeks. You just can't drag them from one side of your body to the other with force, as it increases the potential for damage dramatically.

I don't agree.

Kosi dropped his knees, and appeared to attempt to pull himself to the ground and his opponent with him.
It didn't look like a slinging motion to me.

It looked like a powerful, very good tackle that was intented to hold the ball in and take the contest to the ground to force a stoppage.


So I disagree with the decision.


And I also disagree with the rule in the first place. Since when did it become such an abhorrent thing that players might get hurt playing AFL footy?
Every single player knows they can, and most likely will get hurt at some stage. Every supporter knows that players can, and will get hurt at some stage.

It is, and always has been an integral part of the game.

If you don't want to get hurt, don't play. If you don't want to see players get hurt, watch a different sport. Because it's part and parcel of Aussie Rules footy.


IF the AFL are so intent on preventing players fom getting hurt, put padding on them and make them wear helmets. But please, do not damage the very fabric of the game by removing the physicality.

[St. Luke]

I couldn't be any more disappointed in this decision. The poor bloke can't pull a trick! Now it's either in the back, or a sling!

[Leo.J]

Like it or not, agree with the MRP's interpretation or not, Kosi's tackle was a clear sling tackle and was always going to get weeks. You just can't drag them from one side of your body to the other with force, as it increases the potential for damage dramatically.

Do I like it? No I don't; I like the opportunity to make the opposition feel the tackle. But it ain't 1985 (when I played) anymore. The AFL have made it very clear these tackles will be looked at. Any damage to the tackled player will result in weeks.

Corey was very lucky Jack was OK, as his tackle was the most forceful. But part of the criteria is damage done, not force used, and Jack was OK whereas Duncan was not. Simple as that.

No point in contesting the decision. Can't posibbly win. Kosi should take the 2 weeks, learn from it and move on.

They showed footage, last night on 'On the Couch' and it clearly showed Duncan gaining possession of the ball on one side of the centre circle while charging towards his goals, Kosi was facing towards our goals and he was stationary.

IMO Duncans momentum contributed to the force of the tackle. Thats the point that they could have the impact reduced on, and with an early plea would give him a week.

[jonesy]

The game has become really easy to turn away from. My interest in fantasy footy comps are the only thing keeping me watching the game,and most of that is spent online keeping an eye on the stats.

They haven't recieved a cent from me this year,and I can't see that changing,which from me,is unbelievable.

The match review panel and tribunal needs to be completly thrown out before I can take it seriously again. Until then it's just Mickey Mouse stuff

[Johnny Member]

I can't believe Johncock didn't get weeks, or at the least a free kick against him for knocking out Reiwoldt with a shoulder to the head.

[Dis Believer]

So because I think that there is no reason appealing the decision and probably think bringing this rule even though I am not quite 100% sure, is the reason we will never eradicate violence.

No - because you are a prize flog!
You are the most deliberately antagonistic persona I have ever encountered.
You doggedly refuse to give up your "the AFL, umpires, MRP is always right" mantra, so much so, that it defies any logic. That in itself, over a long enough period, is enough to drive the biggest pacifist to violence out of sheer frustration. You are either on the AFL payroll, or mentally impaired. I don't give a f*** which, but stop trying to pretend you believe the s*** you spout ad nauseum.
The difference between Corey's tackle, and Kosi's tackle was that Corey's was dangerous, but he got lucky. So now suspensions are based on pure luck!! Great system............
How does Dimwit's sphincter taste Plunger ???

[dragit]

Maybe they should have suspended Dal for his tackle on Curnow?
It was a good regulation tackle, but Curnow popped his AC from the force from which he hit the ground…
Maybe Farren should have been suspended for attacking the ball and collecting Selwood? Duty of care?
I can understand wanting to get rid of dumping tackles, but suspending players based on medical reports is too reliant on the resilience of the victim, which a tackler can in no way determine before they perform tackle.
Intent still needs to be the key factor in determining punishment, which can also be ambiguous of course.

Mandatory helmets would go a lot further to reducing head injuries than suspending players that are intending to play the game legally and cause injury…

I don't think it's just StKilda supporters who think that the Joel Corey tackle was potentially more dangerous than the Kosi one. LUCK and the resilience of the victim is the only reason he did not receive a higher penalty, and LUCK should not be a prime indicator for the MRP.

[St DAC]

I don't agree.

Kosi dropped his knees, and appeared to attempt to pull himself to the ground and his opponent with him.
It didn't look like a slinging motion to me.

It looked like a powerful, very good tackle that was intented to hold the ball in and take the contest to the ground to force a stoppage.


So I disagree with the decision.


And I also disagree with the rule in the first place. Since when did it become such an abhorrent thing that players might get hurt playing AFL footy?
Every single player knows they can, and most likely will get hurt at some stage. Every supporter knows that players can, and will get hurt at some stage.

It is, and always has been an integral part of the game.

If you don't want to get hurt, don't play. If you don't want to see players get hurt, watch a different sport. Because it's part and parcel of Aussie Rules footy.


IF the AFL are so intent on preventing players fom getting hurt, put padding on them and make them wear helmets. But please, do not damage the very fabric of the game by removing the physicality.

No problem; don't agree then.

But Kosi still got weeks. That's how they look at such tackles, like it or not.

Let me be clear. I would rather accidental contact in such tackles were treated as just bad luck, as on the face of it the tackle was well applied, but the AFL have a thing about head contact, they've made it very clear that's the case, and if you transgress that you'll get weeks.

So I don't think we can whinge really. But no doubt that won't stop us!

[bergsone]

Dont bump,now dont tackle,no wonder people are turning away from the game,people who have PLAYED the game cant understand the game anymore.May as well play soccer or marbles or something

[Eastern]

I think we all need to take a deep breath here and think about what we are argueing;

Is the suspension wrong? If so, the club should/will appeal

Is the rule that creates the suspension wrong? If so, the club, along with the other clubs should lobby the afl to have it changed/clarified


Have they got it about right and the emotion of one of our own being involved clouded our judgement? I'm yet to come up with an answer for this one

[stkildathunda]

Justin Koschitzke has accepted his 2 match sanction from the MRP.

[Johnny Member]

I think we all need to take a deep breath here and think about what we are argueing;

Is the suspension wrong? If so, the club should/will appeal

Is the rule that creates the suspension wrong? If so, the club, along with the other clubs should lobby the afl to have it changed/clarified

I'm arguing that both are wrong.

[dragit]

Have they got it about right and the emotion of one of our own being involved clouded our judgement? I'm yet to come up with an answer for this one

The problem with this is that 2 very similar incidents from the same game have been assessed differently…
Priors aside, It's seems to be pretty commonly accepted that the Corey tackle was worse, closer to a 'spear' tackle…

Both players finished the game, however repeated footage of a drunken Duncan has really meant Kosi has paid a higher penalty imo.

One of the Kosi/Corey assessments is wrong, probably the Corey one…

It's these inconsistencies that we seem to often be on the receiving end of.
What did Scarlett get for a behind the play elbow to Riewoldts guts that forced him from ground - one week? He has a bad record too, the AFL has said that off the ball incidents will be dealt with more heavily, when they feel like it?

[perfectionist]

Verdict accepted

[CURLY]

Like it or not, agree with the MRP's interpretation or not, Kosi's tackle was a clear sling tackle and was always going to get weeks. You just can't drag them from one side of your body to the other with force, as it increases the potential for damage dramatically.

Do I like it? No I don't; I like the opportunity to make the opposition feel the tackle. But it ain't 1985 (when I played) anymore. The AFL have made it very clear these tackles will be looked at. Any damage to the tackled player will result in weeks.

Corey was very lucky Jack was OK, as his tackle was the most forceful. But part of the criteria is damage done, not force used, and Jack was OK whereas Duncan was not. Simple as that.

No point in contesting the decision. Can't posibbly win. Kosi should take the 2 weeks, learn from it and move on.

Crap. I challenge you to tackle a player running at you to the ground any other way than Kosi did. Its a ridiculous decision with no common sence at all involved. Duncan was fine as he kept playing out the game. There are no reasonable grounds for suspension other than its a easy target.

[dragit]

http://www.afl.com.au/video/tabid/76/co ... fault.aspx
What's even more ridiculous are the Malceski and Scully fines for umpire contact…
Malceski looks like he stands on the umpires foot, and the umpire actually backs into Scully WTF? Surely there needs to be some common sense and leniency for accidental contact, which in the Scully case was instigated by the umpire÷
Also it says Kyle Hardingham level 2 strike on Lindsay Thomas, but the footage shows Hurley striking Firrito which wasn't cited,
They've had a rough week at the MRP.

[St DAC]

Crap.

If you say so chief. So, did he get weeks or not?

[CURLY]

Crap.

If you say so chief. So, did he get weeks or not?

Its a incorrect decision that should be appealed and overturned. This takes away the very fabric of the game. Only a fool would suggest that the Kosi tackle is worthy of penalty.

[bergsone]

If Judd ,Bartel,Swan etc lay same tackles in prelim final ,will they miss GF doubt it would even be looked at