Cotchin out?

[Redleg 40,929]

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

The problem as i see it is that that grey area, that wriggle room is what's used to downgrade incidents to fines.  That won't work here as Cotch is still rubbed out.

It's all total bullshlt  and of the AFLs own making. 

I see there as nothing untoward about it. Had Shiel stayed on it might be easier to whitewash. But he didn't. 

Elephant in room stuff.

 

Mid season he gets a week. 

Monday he gets off. He won't miss a GF. 

[Dockett 32 1,239]

22 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Mid season he gets a week. 

Monday he gets off. He won't miss a GF. 

You just said a mouthful Red.

The AFL have a real opportunity to make clear how serious they are about the head here, but I fear they will make it even more cloudy and unfathonable.

Time will tell.

 

[beelzebub 23,378]

29 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Mid season he gets a week. 

Monday he gets off. He won't miss a GF. 

you may well be right....but it will only fuel the critics of the AFL who cry hypocrisy

[Redleg 40,929]

7 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

you may well be right....but it will only fuel the critics of the AFL who cry hypocrisy

But Hardwick and Ellis said he is innocent and everyone else said he is a nice guy.

 

[beelzebub 23,378]

1 minute ago, Redleg said:

But Hardwick and Ellis said he is innocent and everyone else said he is a nice guy.

 

Oh. Well they ought know. Hand him the Normy now !!

[beelzebub 23,378]

Mrp should decide today. There are no other games or incidents ( to come)to ponder.

AFL..a sham of professionalism.

[Willmoy1947 4,091]

34 minutes ago, Deeprived Childhood said:

My opinion of the hit:

Cotchin bracing his shoulder upon impact, while looking premeditated, is actually an instinctive position to put the body in. It's almost fetal. It would be totally [censored] absurd and reckless to you AND the other player to go into the contest leading with your head. His intention was to have shoulder to shoulder impact. In fact, it seems like most players intention is to have should to shoulder impact, but that actually requires quite a lot of precision if you think about shoulders negating the weight of force by hitting (or bouncing) against each other in precisely the same location and without slipping up/down and hitting head, which leads to a lot of players downfall. It's more intelligent to hold back and tackle the player as they gather the ball, but Cotchin has been running on ferocious momentum this past month and he is over committing-himself to the contest with reckless abandon. On a side note; he's looked like the most courageous and ferocious player since Hodge in 2013-15 in the past month, no doubtedly he has been consciously trying to rectify the 2013-15 finals efforts.

On looking back at the incident, i would think that Cotchin intends to hit shoulder to shoulder AND richochet towards the ball with the force of the hit. I guess you'd call it 'grazing' against another player and propelling yourself towards the ball and them towards the boundary. A sort of smart billiard ball type deflection.

Just dealing with intention, it looks like that because of his past fines, that won't be taken into account though and he can expect a holiday.

BUT NOT TO WORRY, Richmond genuinely look like they have the superstars to challenge again next year and if they win this year, it will be a silver lining to have Cotchin itchin to play in a GF the following year.

Let's face it, the MCG is a bigger influence than Cotchin on whether an MCG team wins the premiership. Adelaide in 97/98, Brisbane in 01-03 and Sydney in 12 are the only anomaly.

"a smart billiard ball connection" is called a "kiss" and that was no kiss.

People keep saying that he braced. I didn't think he did brace. There was more intent there than that.

Cotchin went about that game with what appeared to be a " hurt" mission, and it succeeded. All goes back to Sheedy connection and missions for certain guys in Finals. Ironically enough pops up in his old team.

Lets see if they get away with doing it next week, and in the name of anything goes in the GF, it's a moral. (immoral)

[deelete my account 1,194]

25 minutes ago, willmoy said:

"a smart billiard ball connection" is called a "kiss" and that was no kiss.

People keep saying that he braced. I didn't think he did brace. There was more intent there than that.

Cotchin went about that game with what appeared to be a " hurt" mission, and it succeeded. All goes back to Sheedy connection and missions for certain guys in Finals. Ironically enough pops up in his old team.

Lets see if they get away with doing it next week, and in the name of anything goes in the GF, it's a moral. (immoral)

Now that you mention it, it does ring a bell. The Hardwick/Sheedy connection. GWS have probably long grown out of those Sheedy roots, but Hardwick was a career long campaigner. At the time I  thought he was just a mindless thug, but now: he was obviously the main general down back and Dean Wallace was the brainless thug. No surprises then that he's assigned Cotchin the role of taking out their key players with aggressive hits. Given they've got the MCG Home ground advantage, it's not that big a deal to have a key player rubbed out from thuggery, assuming the AFL have any balls to rub him out.

We really should have selected Marcus Seecamp in 2000 and thrown him forward to retaliate. We also shouldn't have traded him for Martin Pike, and instead traded someone else (Had to wiki that info). Pike and Seecamp flying the flag. Who knows what might've happened. We probably should have thrown Green, Schwartz, Farmer and Robertson into the backline to apply the Terry Wallace/Noah's Ark "FLOOD" that day. Would've been the most shocking grand final result ever. Can't blame Neal Daniher for wanting to win the premiership on his own attacking terms though. Oh what might've been.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Deeprived Childhood

[SFebes 4,884]

Going for the ball.....with his leading shoulder, slow it down. All he needs is a fine and he is goneski

[TheoX 1,222]

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-23/will-cotchin-play-in-the-grand-final-argument-for-and-against/8978258?pfmredir=sm&WT.ac=statenews_vic

 

Explains it well. Must go.

[Ted Lasso 19,518]

2 minutes ago, TheoX said:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-23/will-cotchin-play-in-the-grand-final-argument-for-and-against/8978258?pfmredir=sm&WT.ac=statenews_vic

 

Explains it well. Must go.

The problem is that he had delayed concussion, and had also copped a head knock from astbury earlier so there is no real way to attribute the concussion conclusively to the Cotchin knock. 

That in mind I don't think the force can be judged above low. And the contact is incidental because his eyes are on the ball and he's in the contest. Had no real alternative outside letting Shiel win the ball. 

I personally think he has a very strong case to be cleared and the case to fine or suspend him is very shakey when the concussion isn't viewed as a factor 

[daisycutter 29,616]

having watched it again and listening to the arguments here, i'm wavering

according to the current rules (right or wrong) he is gone

according to the 3 fines rule he is gone

going on how the mrp work it is anyone's guess

going on previous finals he probably gets off

if it is up to the afl (i.e. $$$s) he gets off

........and then there is sloane......

[Macca 16,972]

A player will naturally turn his body side-on when contact is inevitable ... what may look like a deliberate bump is often just a normal footy movement.

Most onlookers were unaware that Shiel had even sustained a head knock - his shoulder was the focus (at least initially) 

I don't have a dog in this fight as I couldn't care less whether Cotchin plays in the GF or not. 

Where I do have a bias is the sport itself ... incidents like this happen all the time and what's to stop players feigning a head knock* to milk a free kick - as a result of that there would then be a compulsion to cite the perpetrator to the MRP.  Where does it all start & finish? 

 

*We are already seeing various players milking free kicks for high contact tackles.  And that issue is getting worse.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Macca

[daisycutter 29,616]

2 minutes ago, Macca said:

A player will naturally turn his body side-on when contact is inevitable ... what may look like a deliberate bump is often just a normal footy movement.

Most onlookers were unaware that Shiel had even sustained a head knock - his shoulder was the focus (at least initially) 

I don't have a dog in this fight as I couldn't care less whether Cotchin plays in the GF or not. 

Where I do have a bias is the sport itself ... incidents like this happen all the time and what's to stop players feigning a head knock* to milk a free kick - as a result of that there would then be a compulsion to cite the perpetrator to the MRC.  Where does it all start & finish? 

 

*We are already seeing various players milking free kicks for high contact tackles.  And that issue is getting worse.

whatever, macca

back in the real word there are real current rules and that is what should decide this issue

but being the afl/mrp i very much doubt it

[Macca 16,972]

Just now, daisycutter said:

whatever, macca

back in the real word there are real current rules and that is what should decide this issue

but being the afl/mrp i very much doubt it

Rules?  Yeah, when they're applied ... or when they're not applied. 

The sport would be so much easier to understand if the rules were more clear-cut.  The fact that the Cotchin incident is even a talking point is quite ridiculous ... to me it's just play-on and if it was play-on,  there's no issue.

The AFL are creating another huge grey area and it's as if they're doing so deliberately to keep people talking about the sport.  Oh, hang on ...

[deelete my account 1,194]

4 minutes ago, Macca said:

Rules?  Yeah, when they're applied ... or when they're not applied. 

The sport would be so much easier to understand if the rules were more clear-cut.  The fact that the Cotchin incident is even a talking point is quite ridiculous ... to me it's just play-on and if it was play-on,  there's no issue.

The AFL are creating another huge grey area and it's as if they're doing so deliberately to keep people talking about the sport.  Oh, hang on ...

The sport would be so much easier if we hadn't discovered concussion leads to long term brain injuries. While i can get behind the 24 hour news cycle being somewhat to blame on many occasions, the only 'grey area' here is the grey matter area.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Deeprived Childhood

[Macca 16,972]

11 minutes ago, Deeprived Childhood said:

The sport would be so much easier if we hadn't discovered concussion leads to long term brain injuries. 

The next step is 'tackle-free' football ... they're already legislating against the bump.

If we're so concerned about brain injuries then ban the sport totally - because that's the only true way of fixing that issue.  Head injuries/concussions are going to occur because of the nature of the sport. 

I'll say it again ,... ping a player who deliberately targets the head.  The rest of it is just footy.

What we now have is a confused mess ... and the outcomes look like they've been pre-arranged.  As @Redleg stated, if this had have happened during the season he gets a holiday (Cotchin) but as for next Saturday, he'll almost certainly be a participant.   So, how is that not confusing?

Edited September 24, 2017 by Macca

[Willmoy1947 4,091]

24 minutes ago, Macca said:

A player will naturally turn his body side-on when contact is inevitable ... what may look like a deliberate bump is often just a normal footy movement.

Most onlookers were unaware that Shiel had even sustained a head knock - his shoulder was the focus (at least initially) 

I don't have a dog in this fight as I couldn't care less whether Cotchin plays in the GF or not. 

Where I do have a bias is the sport itself ... incidents like this happen all the time and what's to stop players feigning a head knock* to milk a free kick - as a result of that there would then be a compulsion to cite the perpetrator to the MRP.  Where does it all start & finish? 

 

*We are already seeing various players milking free kicks for high contact tackles.  And that issue is getting worse.

Cotchin is a "milker" as well as a "creamer"

[deelete my account 1,194]

9 minutes ago, Macca said:

The next step is 'tackle-free' football ... they're already legislating against the bump.

If we're so concerned about brain injuries then ban the sport totally - because that's the only true way of fixing that issue.  Head injuries/concussions are going to occur because of the nature of the sport. 

I'll say it again ,... ping a player who deliberately targets the head.  The rest of it is just footy.

What we now have is a confused mess ... and the outcomes look like they've been pre-arranged.  As @Redleg stated, if this had have happened during the season he gets a holiday (Cotchin) but as for next Saturday, he'll almost certainly be a participant.   So, how is that not confusing?

Except he chose to run into the player instead of conceding the play and going for the smother or corralling him into the boundary. The AFL is trying to curb first instincts and recklessness and put some kind of awareness into players minds about holding back on diving into or at the player and causing injury. People call it 'soft', but a line has to be drawn. 

If Shiel edit: had've gathered the ball, then Cotchin would have slid in and taken out his legs. Which incidentally wouldn't have got any weeks i think, even though it probably risks an ACL far more than it does a long term brain injury. 

Edited September 24, 2017 by Deeprived Childhood

[Macca 16,972]

3 minutes ago, willmoy said:

Cotchin is a "milker" as well as a "creamer"

I couldn't care less about Cotchin - you are missing the point I'm making. 

Lose your bias and look at the issue in a clinical way.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Macca

[Demon trucker 1,800]

1 minute ago, Deeprived Childhood said:

Except he chose to run into the player instead of conceding the play and going for the smother or corralling him into the boundary. The AFL is trying to curb first instincts and recklessness and put some kind of awareness into players minds about holding back on diving into or at the player and causing injury. People call it 'soft', but a line has to be drawn. 

If Shiel had not gathered the ball, then Cotchin would have slid in and taken out his legs. Which incidentally wouldn't have got any weeks i think, even though it probably risks an ACL far more than it does a long term brain injury. 

If he slides then it a free kick to shiel 

[Macca 16,972]

2 minutes ago, Deeprived Childhood said:

Except he chose to run into the player instead of conceding the play and going for the smother or corralling him into the boundary. The AFL is trying to curb first instincts and recklessness and put some kind of awareness into players minds about holding back on diving into or at the player and causing injury. People call it 'soft', but a line has to be drawn. 

If Shiel had not gathered the ball, then Cotchin would have slid in and taken out his legs. Which incidentally wouldn't have got any weeks i think, even though it probably risks an ACL far more than it does a long term brain injury. 

I could take your stance but If I did, then I might be then calling for a situation where a player in Shiel's situation can just pick the ball up unimpeded.

Incidental contact to the head area is just bad luck ... no one wants to see players taken out but that is a completely different argument. 

What we see hundreds of times in a game is 2 or more players going for the ball at the same time.  Head knocks & head clashes are an inevitable consequence of those actions.

The AFL's legislation with the head being sacrosanct has no finishing line.  Unless you can see where that finishing line is? 

What's your opinion on where it all stops so that we all have a clear understanding of what's legal and what isn't legal? 

[Ted Lasso 19,518]

5 minutes ago, Macca said:

I could take your stance but If I did, then I might be then calling for a situation where a player in Shiel's situation can just pick the ball up unimpeded.

Incidental contact to the head area is just bad luck ... no one wants to see players taken out but that is a completely different argument. 

What we see hundreds of times in a game is 2 or more players going for the ball at the same time.  Head knocks & head clashes are an inevitable consequence of those actions.

The AFL's legislation with the head being sacrosanct has no finishing line.  Unless you can see where that finishing line is? 

What's your opinion on where it all stops so that we all have a clear understanding of what's legal and what isn't legal? 

Pretty much. Cotchins only real alternative is to let Shiel grab the ball and then try and tackle him. 

 

[Willmoy1947 4,091]

12 minutes ago, Macca said:

I could take your stance but If I did, then I might be then calling for a situation where a player in Shiel's situation can just pick the ball up unimpeded.

Incidental contact to the head area is just bad luck ... no one wants to see players taken out but that is a completely different argument. 

What we see hundreds of times in a game is 2 or more players going for the ball at the same time.  Head knocks & head clashes are an inevitable consequence of those actions.

The AFL's legislation with the head being sacrosanct has no finishing line.  Unless you can see where that finishing line is? 

What's your opinion on where it all stops so that we all have a clear understanding of what's legal and what isn't legal? 

Bias aside, sin bin might be an answer, or we are going to potentially have a death on the ground.

[Macca 16,972]

1 minute ago, Abe said:

Pretty much. Cotchins only real alternative is to let Shiel grab the ball and then try and tackle him. 

 

And yet Cotchin might believe he can get to the ball before Shiel does ... if so,  and if he commits to that action,  he then runs the risk of being suspended.  That's quite a large penalty for a player who is simply hunting the ball.

We're creating an even bigger problem as a consequence.