Sad Kosi Story

[St Lenny]

I am absolutely pissed that some pricks on here actually defending Giansirracusa's dog act. Call yourself f****** supporters eh?

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.

[stinger]

I am absolutely pissed that some pricks on here actually defending Giansirracusa's dog act. Call yourself f****** supporters eh?

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.

+1.....that prick would get 4 weeks with the way the rules are today....and...should have got weeks at the time...imhfo....

[joffaboy]

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.

[saintdooley]

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.

the things i could say in response to that

I am absolutely pissed that some pricks on here actually defending Giansirracusa's dog act. Call yourself f****** supporters eh?

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.

+1.....that prick would get 4 weeks with the way the rules are today....and...should have got weeks at the time...imhfo....

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.

[Moods]

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.

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.

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]

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.

no fcuking way?????? JB is taken my side? what has the world come to.

[St Lenny]

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.

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.

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

Are you in the media? Talk about swist things...............

[Cairnsman]

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.

no fcuking way?????? JB is taken my side? what has the world come to.

My eyes welled up a little.

[plugger66]

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.

[Moods]

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.

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.

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

Are you in the media? Talk about swist things...............

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.

[IluvHarvey]

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.

Not sure wouldn't that be classed as taking his legs out?

[plugger66]

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.

Not sure wouldn't that be classed as taking his legs out?

Our supporters would want sandilands to go for kicking.

[Johnny Member]

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.

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.

[plugger66]

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.

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.

No such rule as far as i know.

[Johnny Member]

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!

[plugger66]

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.

No such rule as far as i know.

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]

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.

[plugger66]

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.

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]

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.

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.

Well maybe start up another thread about that if you're bored and are looking for an argument.

This is about the Kosi bump and whether or not it was illegal.


So f*** off and heckle someone else ya wanker.

[plugger66]

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.

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.

Well maybe start up another thread about that if you're bored and are looking for an argument.

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]

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.

I assumed it went without saying that laws in relation to the Kosi bump were being discussed.


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.

[plugger66]

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.

I assumed it went without saying that laws in relation to the Kosi bump were being discussed.


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.

[To the top]

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.

[westy]

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!

[Devilhead]

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