Round 13: St Kilda vs Geelong, Saturday Night @ the MCG

[Squizz]

Kosi: high contact (two points)

Wow - just wow.

Tackle around the waist = high contact?

 

[stkildathunda]

Wow - just wow.

Tackle around the waist = high contact?

Yea was the same as Corey & Mumford were rated, gotta be because the heads hit the ground??? Doesnt make much sense.

I still reckon they just throw darts and a list and whatever they hit thats the verdict. How else do you explain Judd getting off every charge he goes up for

 

[krusden]

The verdicts are crap, but their obvious focus in injury.

If the opposition player is dazed, then you are gonna be suspended. (full stop).

Jack steven looked a bit wobbly, and if he had fallen over like duncan did corey wouldve gone.

Mumford on ellard, ellard didnt move and jump up after the verdict. thus mummy = 2 weeks.

In regards of the tackles, the kosi tackle actually was the one of the three LEAST likely to injure as he landed duncan on his side as much as he (kosi) did himself. The corey tackle couldve caused serious injury where corey landed steven on his (stevens') neck, and the mummy one sort of landed on ellard so he got the tackle and the (considerable) weight of the big mummy.

 

[Look2Me4Guidance]

So you nail a perfectly legitimate tackle and are suspended. If it's such an illegal action, why aren't free kicks paid?

The game is becoming harder and harder to like.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The verdicts are crap, but their obvious focus in injury.

If the opposition player is dazed, then you are gonna be suspended. (full stop).

Jack steven looked a bit wobbly, and if he had fallen over like duncan did corey wouldve gone.

Mumford on ellard, ellard didnt move and jump up after the verdict. thus mummy = 2 weeks.

In regards of the tackles, the kosi tackle actually was the one of the three LEAST likely to injure as he landed duncan on his side as much as he (kosi) did himself. The corey tackle couldve caused serious injury where corey landed steven on his (stevens') neck, and the mummy one sort of landed on ellard so he got the tackle and the (considerable) weight of the big mummy.

Yep. Throw a cat among the pigeons. Kosi was trying to make him cough up the ball. Duncan had the opportunity to cough up the ball and put his arm down in self preservation. He has contributed to his own little head knock the same as players who duck their heads going into a contest.

FFS can someone ask the AFL how the defending team is supposed to get posession of the ball? Should they change the rules to make the ball carrier drop it if he is tapped on the shoulder?

 

[krusden]

Yep. Throw a cat among the pigeons. Kosi was trying to make him cough up the ball. Duncan had the opportunity to cough up the ball and put his arm down in self preservation. He has contributed to his own little head knock the same as players who duck their heads going into a contest.

FFS can someone ask the AFL how the defending team is supposed to get posession of the ball? Should they change the rules to make the ball carrier drop it if he is tapped on the shoulder?

Aren't they doing thhat this year anyway?

 

[stkildathunda]

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

 

[StFly]

Yea was the same as Corey & Mumford were rated, gotta be because the heads hit the ground??? Doesnt make much sense.

With the impact clause it effectively states that any player engaging in illegalities is entirely responsible for any action as a result of their action. As such you could have a case whereby an attempted strike could get 6 weeks because the player avoided it, stumbled and then KO'd himself on a fence or the ground. For intentional [3pt], High [2pt] - Severe [4pt] for 9 activation points and straight to tribunal as a result of a guy tripping and splitting his head open because the two were punching on.

Impact
In determining the level of impact regard shall be had not only to
the impact between the offending player and the victim player,
but also any other impact to the victim player as a result of such
impact. By way of an example, where a victim player as a result
of the impact from the offending player is pushed into the path
of a fast-moving third player, the impact to the victim player may
be classified as high or severe, even though the level of impact
between the offending player and the victim player was only low
or medium.

Everyone can thank the Adelaide incident for this addendum (I'm going to push my teammate into the opposition and make both of them shit their pants! Oh they clashed heads.)

 

[Farmer2Goggin]

Just quoting this for the last time re Corey, which I disagree with vehemently.

Corey engaged in a lifting motion within his tackle whereby the player with possession was uprooted from the turf and as such had no control over where he would then end up. That style of tackle (and not saying it was his intent or anything of the sort, merely it worried me at the time) is conductive to players being dropped on their heads and the severe possibility of spinal injuries.

Trengove also engaged in a lifting motion through the speed at which the tackle was completed, it was also a more "classic" slinging motion whereby the player is gripped and pulled to impart momentum. regardless of when Trengove let go, he had imparted momentum and Dangerfield could not arrest it in the time frame given (Trengove letting go of Dangerfields hand / forearm)

In these two situations the tacklers basically take it upon themselves to be wholly responsible for where the player ends up or how the player ends up striking the ground. With Kosi, and with most front or side on tackles, the arms are pinned above the elbow and the tackled player is airborn for moments, unlike the above scenarios there is no "severe" lift, pull or otherwise to impart unstoppable momentum. The duty of care is simply not the same, nor is the scope for injury.

This is a great post and sums up the matter very well. There is absolutely no way Kosi should be gone for that , basically a wrap around tackle and bringing him to ground motion , rather than a forceful sling like Joels'. Obviously the MRP is heavily factoring in the result of the tackle into considerations. I think it's time they clarified their interpretations as it's getting beyond a joke.

 

[Papa Juggs]

It's not the action that's being punished it's the actual head trauma being caused.

Corey's tackle looked no different to the one Trengove did on Dangerfield.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

It's not the action that's being punished it's the actual head trauma being caused.

Corey's tackle looked no different to the one Trengove did on Dangerfield.

And its ineffective in preventing trauma, given it does not address the cause of the most serious head injury during that game, or the most serious injuries StKilda have seen on their players this year.
Blind stupid tokenism.

 

[DnWallisismyhero]

It's not the action that's being punished it's the actual head trauma being caused.

Corey's tackle looked no different to the one Trengove did on Dangerfield.

Correct. Your man got very unfairly targeted. Corey was lucky.

According to MRP, intentional hits to the head (read: Daisy, Buddy) are somehow less severe than good tackles. Complete, utter rubbish.

I've also learned that you can be "reckless" if the footage shows that you deliberately put your elbow at someone's head (but don't do it well enough to hurt them), but it's "intentional" if there is no footage whatsoever.

How is the MRP meant to be a disincentive if they keep focussing on what actually happens (which is a matter of chance) rather than the intention (which is the actual matter within the player's control)?