#46 Mason Cox

This is a Collingwood Bulletin Board - use this forum for general, Pies-related topics. For other footy topics, use Nick's Other AFL forum, and for non-footy sporting topics please use Nick's Sports Bar. For non-sporting topics please use the Victoria Park Tavern.

Moderator: bbmods

Post Reply
User avatar
Magpietothemax
Posts: 8004
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 11:05 pm
Has liked: 20 times
Been liked: 29 times

Post by Magpietothemax »

Cox will be right to play next week:(AFL website)
"Pie escapes suspension
COLLINGWOOD tall Mason Cox has been offered a $2000 fine for making front-on contact against Western Bulldogs defender Jason Johannisen late in Friday night's game at Etihad Stadium."
Classified as careless conduct with low grade contact.
I think the AFL has heard the significant anger that the umpires' treatment of Cox last night has elicited, and we can hopefully expect to see I believe some attempts to adjudicate in games more fairly towards him.
Free Julian Assange!!
Ice in the veins
Top
BazBoy
Posts: 11073
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 11:38 am
Been liked: 41 times

Post by BazBoy »

Good news and yes they really as Nathan said "stopping his legitimate path to the footy needs looking at "
I'm not arguing--just explaining why i am right
Top
User avatar
Pies4shaw
Posts: 34842
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:14 pm
Has liked: 128 times
Been liked: 164 times

Post by Pies4shaw »

No, Chrisso just - quite rightly - graded it as careless (because it was merely careless) and low grade (because the bumpee suffered no major injury consequences).
Top
User avatar
stoliboy
Posts: 4978
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 8:44 pm
Location: Sydney, NSW
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 57 times

Cox gets off!

Post by stoliboy »

@afl One charge has been laid from #AFLPiesDogs.

Mason Cox can accept a $2000 sanction for front-on contact with Jason Johannisen,

https://twitter.com/afl/status/1000209395488210944?s=21
Sydney Collingwood Supporters Club
http://sydneymagpies.magpies.net/
Top
User avatar
Raw Hammer
Posts: 7353
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 12:54 pm
Location: The Gutter
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 4 times

Post by Raw Hammer »

Est. 2002
Top
User avatar
Doc63
Posts: 4558
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 8:58 pm
Location: Newport

Post by Doc63 »

I hold a cup of wisdom, but there is nothing within.
Top
User avatar
think better
Posts: 3105
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 4:42 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 37 times

Post by think better »

Magpietothemax wrote:Cox will be right to play next week:(AFL website)
"Pie escapes suspension
COLLINGWOOD tall Mason Cox has been offered a $2000 fine for making front-on contact against Western Bulldogs defender Jason Johannisen late in Friday night's game at Etihad Stadium."
Classified as careless conduct with low grade contact.
I think the AFL has heard the significant anger that the umpires' treatment of Cox last night has elicited, and we can hopefully expect to see I believe some attempts to adjudicate in games more fairly towards him.
Very happy with this - I was pretty sure it would be one week
I think therefore I think - I think
Top
User avatar
swoop42
Posts: 22048
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 9:27 pm
Location: The 18
Been liked: 6 times

Post by swoop42 »

The club needs to get on the front foot this week and send a please explain letter to the umpires boss in regards to the tactics being used against Cox.

If Cox is kept from a marking attempt by either illegal holding or tunneling then his greatest potential skill set as an AFL footballer is under threat and so is his place in the side.

No doubt was infringed against on numerous occasions though he also dropped marks he needs to take when he was able to get both hands on the ball.
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD!
Top
User avatar
duggieboy
Posts: 592
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 7:08 pm
Has liked: 20 times
Been liked: 3 times

Post by duggieboy »

To me it looked more like contact to the shoulder than the head.

Glad he got off with a light fine
Top
User avatar
stui magpie
Posts: 54769
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
Location: In flagrante delicto
Has liked: 112 times
Been liked: 145 times

Post by stui magpie »

If you watch the replay, listen to Carey talking about the Dogs tactics against Cox. 3 or 4 times at least I reckon Carey reckoned cox was clearly illegally spoiled for no free.

He described how they were getting under his body and basically tunnelling him, as well as other instances where they'd grab one arm as he was going for a mark and pull it down. Both actions should be free kicks.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Top
User avatar
ronrat
Posts: 4932
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:25 am
Location: Thailand

Post by ronrat »

I was wayching it with a mate who follows Essendon and even he said the umpires seem to hate Cox. Minor or non existant frees against and baltant frees to him not paid. Bucks needs to call the scumps out big time on this,
Annoying opposition supporters since 1967.
Top
User avatar
Cam
Posts: 15354
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 6:01 pm
Location: Springvale
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 27 times

Post by Cam »

They did the same thing to Shaquille O'Neal in the NBA because he was big.

He had Hack-a-Shaq... we got Box-the-Cox...
Get back on top.
Top
E

Post by E »

swoop42 wrote:The club needs to get on the front foot this week and send a please explain letter to the umpires boss in regards to the tactics being used against Cox.

If Cox is kept from a marking attempt by either illegal holding or tunneling then his greatest potential skill set as an AFL footballer is under threat and so is his place in the side.

No doubt was infringed against on numerous occasions though he also dropped marks he needs to take when he was able to get both hands on the ball.
why would we do that? the message has been sent beautifully. In the court of public opinion Cox is being herd done by. This is so much more effective than a please explain letter.
Top
E

Post by E »

Cam wrote:They did the same thing to Shaquille O'Neal in the NBA because he was big.

He had Hack-a-Shaq... we got Box-the-Cox...
Hack a Shaq has nothing to do with the fact that he was big. There was nothing illegal about what they did. Hack a Shaq had more to do with the fact that he couldn't shoot free throws. totally different situation. They found his weakness and exploited it.
Top
E

Post by E »

ronrat wrote:I was wayching it with a mate who follows Essendon and even he said the umpires seem to hate Cox. Minor or non existant frees against and baltant frees to him not paid. Bucks needs to call the scumps out big time on this,
this is just the pendulum of life. A few weeks ago people were observing that he seemed to get a lot of free kicks because he was awkward and slight contact looked worse than it was. I bet that had something to do with the reason the whistle has been put away these past 2 weeks. Now, it is clear they aren't giving him a fair go. watch for the over-reaction the other way.

This is the reason why directing umpires to focus on things guarantees a certain outcome. Umpiring is so hard with so many judgment calls that if an umpire has a predisposition, all of a sudden they are going to see things a certain way.

Its the same reason why inherent bias is real!
Top
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”