Mason cox suspension - farcical

[The Falcon Strike]

Strange decision to bump with one's chest

All cox was trying to do was screen for his collingwood teammate

There was no intent to commit a reportable offence.

Screen's happen 50 times a game at stoppages, f50 etc - it's called football craft

Christian's acting like Cox picked some bloke off 35m from the ball - he hit him chest on FFS

As an eagles supporter - sure it'd be good for Mason to miss - but bugger me, I actually like our game of Aussie Rules - and that suspension is way out of the spirit of the game

 

[Underarm]

Reckon Collingwood could use an argument previously trotted out to get a certain player off to play in a GF

the concussion could have happened earlier in the game.

I am highly doubtful that concussion occurred form this incident- unless Grimes has a glass jaw that is connected to his shoulder and I am blind.

The fact he was OK enough to run around for the next few minutes and try and ram his forearm through Elliott's skull suggest BS.

I notice he only came (or taken!) off after the Elliott incident

Tigers are cracking- weak

I'll repeat what I said in my first post. I dont think it should be a suspension.

I don't think it was enough force to warrant a suspension, but that doesn't somehow equate to "Grimes is a flopper/diver/soft".

 

[unplugged]

Looking at the "new vision" which just seemed to be standard game vision...

I honestly think we will argue that Cox was walking and possibly even pointing to where he wants the footy, should he have been deemed an option. It then looks like he concedes that his team mate is more likely to have set shot, before looking up and suddenly realising he was about to pass it off. Suddenly he starts to move to get dangerous and potentially lead towards the ball carrier (towards the pocket).

Next second, he realises the ball is going central to Tom Phillips. He then goes to stop moving. Looks up, suddenly realises Grimes is running towards him and is less than a metre away. Has less than a second to brace for contact.

I think this is purely accidental, and whether or not it was high contact is irrelevant. It was probably Grimes' fault as much as it was Cox. I would expect this defence will see the report not only downgraded, but thrown out completely. Within a minute.

 

[FireKrakouer]

We see neutrals here, not just neutrals but carlton supporters ffs (love you guys) claiming that the report is BS. But the latest AFL vid explanation makes me believe that the suspension will be upheld. I don't know what the solution here is, but most of us agree that the umpiring and MRO are out of touch with public expectations.

 

[ep2018]

I heard earlier his parents are flying over for this game, even if Mason had killed a man on field he'd get off based on that alone. The AFL have no integrity.

In saying that, its pretty soft to get a week for what he did.

 

[spenze]

Jeebers, hasn't this been dismissed already?

 

[Randomizor]

Jeebers, hasn't this been dismissed already?

That would be the most obvious solution so of course the AFL has... doubled down instead

 

[spenze]

That would be the most obvious solution so of course the AFL has... doubled down instead

That's unlike the AFL, I mean if they stop the big fella doing anything physical he'll end up a soft Cox

 

[kingswood71]

Surely releasing the video of him explaining the charge is sub-justice??....

 

[Jack Gun Cyril Stun]

Judged the same as a gutless elbow to the head...fmd ..and worse than a gut punch 40m off the ball.

WTF?

 

[sr36]

Wow, it’s crazy how broken the system is.

I have no idea why they put so much emphasis on impact vs intent.

Cox’s intent was nothing, he just stands his ground. There’s no reason to discourage that from the game.

On the other hand Grimes’ hit on Elliott is extremely dangerous. Elliott was vulnerable after a kick, the ball was gone and Grimes launched at him elbow out looking straight at him and hit him in the head. With the exact same action a player could have broken another player’s jaw.

That should have been a multiple weeks punishment because you want to actively discourage players doing this sort of thing.

Not the first nor the last thing that doesn’t make sense in AFL rules.

I agree with the over emphasis on the consequence, but they are meant to put emphasis on intent - Christian just got intent wrong on this one. It's really obvious that Cox was just setting a screen, and not intending to lay a big bump.

 

[sr36]

I'll agree there was some level of flopping going on but the issue is that it was a deliberate bump and he got him high so he has opened himself up to the possibility of a fine or suspension.

He knew exactly what he was doing and went out of his way to deliberately bump Grimes. You can see his head swivel from right to left and unless he had a long blink when he was doing so he would have to have been blind not to see Grimes.

It's pretty clear to me that he was just setting a screen and it wasn't a deliberate bump. Grimes ran chin first into the shoulder of a bloke who was barely moving. Surely there has to be some onus on the guy running to have some idea of what's in front of him.

 

[sr36]

We see neutrals here, not just neutrals but carlton supporters ffs (love you guys) claiming that the report is BS. But the latest AFL vid explanation makes me believe that the suspension will be upheld. I don't know what the solution here is, but most of us agree that the umpiring and MRO are out of touch with public expectations.

I'm pretty confident that he will get off. Chrisso is just defending his decision. Collingwood will argue the intentional part of the charge. He's charged with rough conduct. I don't think you'll find a panel that will be convinced that that is an example of a player intentionally committing rough conduct.

 

[Aramis]

Chrisso trying to prove to everyone that he has no affinity towards Collingwood anymore by pulling a suspension out of his ass.

We need to go back to having a panel of judges, this one man show thing is so flawed.

I mean having a one man show isn't even the biggest issue, its the credentials of that one man. What are Michaels Christians credentials that make him appropriate to hold such a powerful position? Dont know? well I didnt either, so I did some research by very very quick googling his name..

1. Played AFL
2. Was a commentator

and thats it.... I mean we all know nepotism is rampant in the AFL and he clearly is a member of that exclusive upper echelon of the privileged boys club. But f*** me, at the expense of the game as a whole...seriously? Before we can talk about having multiple individuals on the panel we need to make sure those individuals are fit for purpose.

 

[sr36]

I mean having a one man show isn't even the biggest issue, its the credentials of that one man. What are Michaels Christians credentials that make him appropriate to hold such a powerful position? Dont know? well I didnt either, so I did some research by very very quick googling his name..

1. Played AFL
2. Was a commentator

and thats it.... I mean we all know nepotism is rampant in the AFL and he clearly is a member of that exclusive upper echelon of the privileged boys club. But f*** me, at the expense of the game as a whole...seriously? Before we can talk about having multiple individuals on the panel we need to make sure those individuals are fit for purpose.

What credentials are you after? His job is to make judgement calls on footy incidents. Most of us think this is a crap judgement, but what credentials would stop someone from making a crap judgement on something under review?

 

[Aramis]

What credentials are you after? His job is to make judgement calls on footy incidents. Most of us think this is a crap judgement, but what credentials would stop someone from making a crap judgement on something under review?

People who do this for a career... lawyers, judges, magistrates....... If its football brain youre after... there is plenty of ex-football players who are qualified in the legal field. It's hardly a large time commitment. In essence the whole process of match review/tribunal is quasi-legal.

Its not just this one judgment though, its the vast majority of judgments and the inconsistencies that have constantly and frustratingly arisen.

 

[Jack Gun Cyril Stun]

What credentials are you after? His job is to make judgement calls on footy incidents. Most of us think this is a crap judgement, but what credentials would stop someone from making a crap judgement on something under review?

Perhaps someone with any sort of legal background or expertise..maybe Christian has some???

 

[Nice n Crispy]

Tigers medical report saying no concussion - https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/grimes-medical-could-help-clear-cox-20190402-p519yr.html

 

[oak79]

Looking at the "new vision" which just seemed to be standard game vision...

I honestly think we will argue that Cox was walking and possibly even pointing to where he wants the footy, should he have been deemed an option. It then looks like he concedes that his team mate is more likely to have set shot, before looking up and suddenly realising he was about to pass it off. Suddenly he starts to move to get dangerous and potentially lead towards the ball carrier (towards the pocket).

Next second, he realises the ball is going central to Tom Phillips. He then goes to stop moving. Looks up, suddenly realises Grimes is running towards him and is less than a metre away. Has less than a second to brace for contact.

I think this is purely accidental, and whether or not it was high contact is irrelevant. It was probably Grimes' fault as much as it was Cox. I would expect this defence will see the report not only downgraded, but thrown out completely. Within a minute.

I think you're clutching at straws with that explanation - it was intentional, he went out of his way to bump him off the ball.

That said, I still don't think it's worth a suspension, and didn't look like he actually got him high.

 

[ItsGameTime]

Tigers medical report saying no concussion - https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/grimes-medical-could-help-clear-cox-20190402-p519yr.html

9 News just said the exact opposite. Something along the lines of:

"It is understood that the Tigers are expected to present a medical report that shows that Grimes suffered a concussion as a result of that knock".

Another source suggests similar:

https://thewest.com.au/sport/collin...-to-sink-collingwood-challenge-ng-b881154383z

 

[Corkintheocean]

There is precedence for this sort of thing.

Last year Naitanui had to account for height and weight when planning to tackle smaller opponents.

This is just a straight up block, clumsy, but a block off the ball with next to no malice involved. Shouldn't even be looked at for a fine.

Contrast this to Mitchell purposefully elbowing Goldstein in the head 50m of the ball last year and avoiding any layoff.

The mind boggles.

Echo the sentiments of Aramis above. Get someone form the legal profession that has consistency and a shrewd understanding of terminology to review cases. At the very least it would give a shred of legitimacy to proceedings.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

It appears to me that Cox and Grimes are both watching the contest where the ball is while moving. Cox notices that they're going to collide, tucks in the shoulder to mitigate the impact and they crash because Grimes is still looking over his shoulder.

No intent to even make contact from the footage. That's just a collision and an absolute joke that's even considered report worthy.

 

[bencoop]

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-04-02/follow-it-live-mason-cox-facing-the-tribunal-from-430pm-aedt

Follow it live here.

 

[ItsGameTime]

So Cox is arguing against the intentional and low impact grading. Not the high contact grading. So what impact exactly is he claiming? Low impact would be the least severe I am imagining and it suggests that he did make contact with Grimes.

 

[ItsGameTime]

Medical report says no signs of concussion. So where did Christian get the idea that there was as stated in some sources?