Koschitzke 2 weeks. Corey 0 weeks.

[SaintsSeptember]

Corey - 125
Kozi - 225

The difference was the force of contact - Kozi medium and Corey Low

Yes , force measured by the immediate reaction of two different individuals at the time. I wouldnt thing that would be a reliable way of measuring force.

 

[Magnum27]

Ludicrous decision, and I hate that the tackle is being looked at in such way....but...

Surely the act should be the thing the MRP look at, not the outcome.

Forget whether the player took his kick or not. Was the act intentional and showing no regard for the opponents safety?

In the Corey case, you can't honestly say he didn't willingly slam the guy into the ground when he didn't have to(Although I'm sure Cat's fan will try). It was two motions. He didn't have to move his weight and sling the bloke to the ground with such force.

If the AFL are going to come down on tackles like this, then the 'act' is what they should be judging the penalty on, not the outcome. it makes no sense.
If I get pulled over by the cops tomorrow for speeding in a school zone I don't get to say "yeah, but no one got hurt, so it's all good eh?".


Everyone was on notice after the Trengove tackle, and I'm not sure how you can do the same thing a month later and nothing comes of it for one player, but two others get weeks, unless of course, we're going to give every player that's not yet slung a bloke the opportunity to get one free attempt at doing it.

C'mon mate stop making sense would ya.

Let's hope this rule isn't taken up by local leagues, clubs will struggle to fill a side each week if that's the case.

 

[astrowizzle]

OP is spot on.

if kozi was a collingwood, wce, gc, adelaide or essendon player he would have got a free kick for holding the ball and wouldnt even be cited.

Oh i think u need to have a good hard look at some of our games. We rarely get penalites for tackling players who hold/drop the ball but get pinged plenmty for them. Have a look at the MRP and see how much they actually like hte bombers. Hardingham is a good example getting offered 2 weeks for something noone saw with no footage. And the tripping rules applies only to essendon players. REally bad call on your part.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Yet something that wasn't deemed a free kick results in a two week suspension. Absolute crock of shit and most supporters and the media are saying as much.

The other way of looking at it is it should have been a free kick, but of course you'll take the opposing view...

I wish people would stop bringing up Kosi's prior record as a justification for the suspension and Corey getting off. The facts are that Corey's tackle was more reckless, was at least the same amount of force and had more potential to cause serious injury than Kosi's tackle.

Kosi's tackle wasn't even a bloody sling tackle, it was a legitimate tackle in the one motion which just used Duncan's own momentum to bring him to ground. Corey's tackle was more of a sling tackle using two motions.

Yet Corey gets no weeks and Kosi gets two weeks. Just ridiculous.

It sure is ridiculous, when you remove that basis for the decisions that were handed down. Why would anyone do that? Because it's easier to get all outraged that way.

Corey's didn't cause more damage, Kosi's did.

Disappointed that St Kilda isn't challenging it just to make a point and for the good of the game but it would probably be a waste of time and just add an extra week on to Kosi's suspension.

The MRP needs a massive overhaul ASAP. It was brought in to make suspensions more consistent and logical but has actually done the complete opposite.

Not really.

 

[Falchoon]

Trying to use the fact he came back on as some sort of double jeopardy technicality is strange.

Handing out increased penalties based on 3 minutes of inconvenience is strange.

Is the turf harder in the centre square than in the forward pocket? should Kosi take that in to account.

How many weeks would Kosi have got in the Gabba's centre square? or if the exact same tackle had been made on Barry Hall?

Ridiculous.

On the plus side given Kosi's susceptibility to concussion he should be able to go about his business relatively unhindered in the future

 

[Falchoon]

The diving epidemic is about to be joined by the stunned epidemic.

Congratulations Adrian Anderson

 

[Plugger35]

The other way of looking at it is it should have been a free kick, but of course you'll take the opposing view...

A free kick for what? It was a legitimate tackle, no high contact, no push in the back...

The umpires didn't pay a free kick because a free kick wasn't there. It was only the MRP in hindsight handing out a suspension because Duncan got up and was staggering around which is a bad look for the AFL who are all about keeping up appearances for the mums and kiddies watching.

It sure is ridiculous, when you remove that basis for the decisions that were handed down. Why would anyone do that? Because it's easier to get all outraged that way.

Corey's didn't cause more damage, Kosi's did.

Which was just more luck than anything, could have easily have been Steven badly injured and Duncan OK. The force was the same and if anything Corey's tackle was more reckless, it's the actions of the player not the outcome which should determine the suspension.

Not really.

Yeah good argument.

Don't know why your bothering to even argue this when the majority of supporters and media have all said Kosi's suspension was a joke and that Corey's was the more dangerous tackle.

 

[Confuscius]

Trying to use the fact he came back on as some sort of double jeopardy technicality is strange.

Only as strange as saying the damage done in a tackle was why the rulings were different when they both played on. There's no middle ground with concussions, I've heard several of the clubs doctors say this, and I've also heard them state that they are not allowed to take any risks in regards to concussion. Against Adelaide, Riewoldt sat at the last quarter as there were concussion concerns, it doesn't matter if the sub has been used or not... So was Duncan fine, or were the Cats medical staff ignoring their own rules?

Kosi's style of tackle happens regularly, Corey's does not. why should the result of the tackle have more impact in the ruling than the action and the intent?

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Handing out increased penalties based on 3 minutes of inconvenience is strange.

Is the turf harder in the centre square than in the forward pocket? should Kosi take that in to account.

How many weeks would Kosi have got in the Gabba's centre square? or if the exact same tackle had been made on Barry Hall?

Ridiculous.

On the plus side given Kosi's susceptibility to concussion he should be able to go about his business relatively unhindered in the future

Probably just shouldn't drive blokes head into the ground?

Please remember if I had my way none of these tackles would be looked at, apart from a possible free kick.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

A free kick for what? It was a legitimate tackle, no high contact, no push in the back...

The umpires didn't pay a free kick because a free kick wasn't there..

I look forward to your post complaining about the free kick that was given to Stevens then...

It was only the MRP in hindsight handing out a suspension because Duncan got up and was staggering around which is a bad look for the AFL who are all about keeping up appearances for the mums and kiddies watching.

Agreed.

Which was just more luck than anything, could have easily have been Steven badly injured and Duncan OK. The force was the same and if anything Corey's tackle was more reckless, it's the actions of the player not the outcome which should determine the suspension.

Yeah, maybe. Can you explain to the me the difference between the two tackles in your opinion?

Yeah good argument.

Don't know why your bothering to even argue this when the majority of supporters and media have all said Kosi's suspension was a joke and that Corey's was the more dangerous tackle.

I don't think it's all that baffling, and I'm not going to ignore the reasons why it worked out the way it did just because it suits my argument better, like you are. If Corey had been suspended as often as Kosi had, he would have got a week or two and it wouldn't be as outrageous.

 

[Falchoon]

Probably just shouldn't drive blokes head into the ground?

I saw one of those on the weekend, and it wasn't Kosi.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Probably just shouldn't drive blokes head into the ground?

Please remember if I had my way none of these tackles would be looked at, apart from a possible free kick.

All this is surprisingly ineffective at preventing head injury.
The Bartel concussion was the worst head injury of that game.
I think the worst for StKilda this season was Goddard (suspected kneck injury from contact with Dawson ), and Dempster ( Knocked out - Contact with Jason Blake ). Will Johnson was also concussed in his first ( and only ) game for StKilda , not sure how.

Is it only a matter of time before the MRC starts scrubbing out players for contact with their own team members.

 

[Plugger35]

Yeah, maybe. Can you explain to the me the difference between the two tackles in your opinion?

Corey lifted Steven up and tipped him on his head, wasn't a full on spear tackle but was approaching it.

Kosi's tackle just threw Menzel sideways, there was no lifting him up or dropping him on his head. His head hit the ground after his body did whereas Steven's head/shoulder hit the ground first, hence why Corey's tackle was potentially more dangerous.

The force was virtually the same too which is why I can't understand why Kosi's was rated medium impact and Corey's low impact.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Corey lifted Steven up and tipped him on his head, wasn't a full on spear tackle but was approaching it.

Kosi's tackle just threw Menzel sideways, there was no lifting him up or dropping him on his head. His head hit the ground after his body did whereas Steven's head/shoulder hit the ground first, hence why Corey's tackle was potentially more dangerous.

The force was virtually the same too which is why I can't understand why Kosi's was rated medium impact and Corey's low impact.

Hmm I would argue that the whipping action of the head hitting after the body is more damaging anyway. And turned out reality supports my position.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

All this is surprisingly ineffective at preventing head injury.
The Bartel concussion was the worst head injury of that game.
I think the worst for StKilda this season was Goddard (suspected kneck injury from contact with Dawson ), and Dempster ( Knocked out - Contact with Jason Blake ). Will Johnson was also concussed in his first ( and only ) game for StKilda , not sure how.

Is it only a matter of time before the MRC starts scrubbing out players for contact with their own team members.

Yeah I wasn't very happy with Pods, especially after he almost KO'd Vardy not long afterwards.

 

[Blues_Man]

Hmm I would argue that the whipping action of the head hitting after the body is more damaging anyway. And turned out reality supports my position.

The general footballing public..including a lot of media outlets do not support your veiw ...they are of the opinion that Coreys tackle was the most reckless of the three ..and can't understand how he didn't miss a week .

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

He probably did once, before he had a bad record.

It's pretty simple mate.

Exactly my point.

Player A does something wrong, but because he's never done it before get's 0 weeks. Player B does something half as bad as A, but because he also caught a player high 6 months earlier he get's 2 weeks.

It's bullshit, and it's good to hear Paul Roo's has made mention of it on Fox Sports last night as well.

Said it before and I'll say it again. 99% of the incidences that get looked at by the MRP and dealt week, are un-intentional acts. Players running at the ball, catching a bloke high. You'll never stop that, so why try and rule it from the game by penalising players for attacking the contest.
Look at the Karmichael Hunt hit on Vardy, which was simply and honest accident with no malice invovled.
The next time he goes up he has a 'Bad Record', regardless of the fact that there was not much in it.
Yet if we actually got someone on the MRP with an ounce of common sense, who could judge a incident on the 'act' and not the 'outcome', he'd probably never have been cited.

What Corey did was far worse than the other two tacklers who copped weeks. There was far more thought put into slinging Stevens to the ground than there is with half the high contact charges we see each weekend.
But his 'action' wasn't judged purely on how he lifted a player and slung him to the ground as it should be.

At the moment it's ok to do the crime, as long as no one get's hurt in the process.
Hurt them though, and you'll do the time( unless you've never done it before, in which case you'll get a reprimand told not to do it again). There's so many grey areas, and contradictions.

And it's a very dicey road for the MRP and AFL to travel down.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

The general footballing public..including a lot of media outlets do not support your veiw ...they are of the opinion that Coreys tackle was the most reckless of the three ..and can't understand how he didn't miss a week .

There's countless examples of how the general public's views are wrong, that doesn't bother me.

 

[gPhonque]

There's countless examples of how the general public's views are wrong, that doesn't bother me.

Oh come on...

I haven't read this whole thread (just this last page) but if you're seriously trying to claim that Corey's tackle wasn't potentially more dangerous than the other ones, you need to wake up and take the blue and white glasses off.

That said, I don't think ANY of the incidents warrant any kind of suspension. Perhaps a warning for Corey as it's not a good look when you almost drive an opponent head-first into the turf... and can potentially be very dangerous for reasons that shouldn't even need to be explained.

The others were just good hard tackles. If we're going to start suspending players for that, then we may as well start suspending them for kicking goals.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Oh come on...

I haven't read this whole thread (just this last page) but if you're seriously trying to claim that Corey's tackle wasn't potentially more dangerous than the other ones, you need to wake up and take the blue and white glasses off.

That said, I don't think ANY of the incidents warrant any kind of suspension. Perhaps a warning for Corey as it's not a good look when you almost drive an opponent head-first into the turf... and can potentially be very dangerous for reasons that shouldn't even need to be explained.

The others were just good hard tackles. If we're going to start suspending players for that, then we may as well start suspending them for kicking goals.

I don't think there was much difference between the tackles at all. The difference between landing headfirst and having your head whipped after your shoulder contacts is minimal, two different types of contact with about the same potential for damage.

How did corey pin a guys arms and yet apparently speartackle him as well? Is there a youtube of it?

 

[gPhonque]

The difference between landing headfirst and having your head whipped after your shoulder contacts is minimal....

So the difference between potentially being concussed and potentially breaking your neck is "minimal?"

Ok then....

And here I was thinking that it didn't need to be explained.

Ah BigFooty - you never cease to amaze me.

 

[PieBeast]

I actually agree with Pluggers' sulking for once, Corey's tackle looked by far the most dangerous of the 3 that came under scrutiny.

http://www.afl.com.au/Video/tabid/76/contentid/365516/invoke/Default.aspx

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

So the difference between potentially being concussed and potentially breaking your neck is "minimal?"

Ok then....

And here I was thinking that it didn't need to be explained.

Ah BigFooty - you never cease to amaze me.

Both have potential to break necks.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

I actually agree with Pluggers' sulking for once, Corey's tackle looked by far the most dangerous of the 3 that came under scrutiny.

http://www.afl.com.au/Video/tabid/76/contentid/365516/invoke/Default.aspx

They were ball one action, both players landed shoulder then head.

 

[Plugger35]

Exactly my point.

Player A does something wrong, but because he's never done it before get's 0 weeks. Player B does something half as bad as A, but because he also caught a player high 6 months earlier he get's 2 weeks.

It's bullshit, and it's good to hear Paul Roo's has made mention of it on Fox Sports last night as well.

Said it before and I'll say it again. 99% of the incidences that get looked at by the MRP and dealt week, are un-intentional acts. Players running at the ball, catching a bloke high. You'll never stop that, so why try and rule it from the game by penalising players for attacking the contest.
Look at the Karmichael Hunt hit on Vardy, which was simply and honest accident with no malice invovled.
The next time he goes up he has a 'Bad Record', regardless of the fact that there was not much in it.
Yet if we actually got someone on the MRP with an ounce of common sense, who could judge a incident on the 'act' and not the 'outcome', he'd probably never have been cited.

What Corey did was far worse than the other two tacklers who copped weeks. There was far more thought put into slinging Stevens to the ground than there is with half the high contact charges we see each weekend.
But his 'action' wasn't judged purely on how he lifted a player and slung him to the ground as it should be.

At the moment it's ok to do the crime, as long as no one get's hurt in the process.
Hurt them though, and you'll do the time( unless you've never done it before, in which case you'll get a reprimand told not to do it again). There's so many grey areas, and contradictions.

And it's a very dicey road for the MRP and AFL to travel down.

That's the problem I have with using this loading for prior offences. Half the time the prior offences are from soft or questionable suspensions to begin with. Like Franklin, most of Kosi's suspensions have been from accidental collision type incidents mainly due to him being a big bloke that can be a bit clumsy at times. It's not like Kosi or Franklin have king hit anyone like Barry Hall did.

Yet, as in Franklin's case, this poor record gets used against them to suspend them for other soft incidents which of course adds again to their poor record and increases the loading for their next incident. It virtually means they will be suspended now for any minor incident while other players get off from similar incidents or worse.

No doubt a player's record should be taken into account when deciding suspensions but not to the extent where you have players getting suspensions completely out of whack for the offence conmitted.

Baker's 9 week suspension last year was the most glaring example of a player's prior record leading to a ridiculous, out of whack suspension. The irony being that his poor record was mainly due to his 7 week suspension for the Farmer incident which was also ridiculous given that there was no footage and witnesses said that Farmer ran into the back of Baker's head.

Baker ended up paying a total of 16 weeks suspension for what amounted to a few jumper punches and a slap of the hand while Barry Hall was suspended for 7 weeks for king hitting someone behind play. It's no wonder people think the MRP is a joke.

There's countless examples of how the general public's views are wrong, that doesn't bother me.

Well Gary Lyon, Robert Walls and Paul Roos have all agreed that Kosi shouldn't have been suspended for that tackle and that Corey's tackle was more dangerous. Are they all wrong too?