26 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Macca. In debating you often argue about a particular point. Whether you agree to its underlying value is not in question.

This is the thing here

 Im sure nearly all contend the bump ruling as erroneous, contentious or plainly unworkable,let alone contributory to inconsistent outcomes. Thats not what some are discussing here.

There IS a rule. Cotchin is in the firing line as a result. Its not about whether the rule,that version etc is warranted. It exists,so therefore do citations when breaking it.

Given the nature of the rule might Cotchin be in trouble ? I think so as far as the rule, probably not in regards to its authors the AFL/mrp

So why were you so adamant about the actual ruling with the Viney incident?  You argued black & blue back then that the whole ruling was a crock of shitt.  Have you had a change of mind? 

You and just about every other person on this site could see the injustice back then - and just because it's a player from another team this time around shouldn't make an ounce of difference.

Unless that does make a difference ... I'm arguing big picture, as I normally do.  I couldn't give a stuff about which player or team is involved.

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, Macca said:

So why were you so adamant about the actual ruling with the Viney incident?  You argued black & blue back then that the whole ruling was a crock of shitt.  Have you had a change of mind? 

You and just about every other person on this site could see the injustice back then - and just because it's a player from another team this time around shouldn't make an ounce of difference.

Unless that does make a difference ... I'm arguing big picture, as I normally do.  I couldn't give a stuff about which player or team is involved.

 

 

 

These two incidents are actually different, You do not see that ?

Are you arguing a Mabo /vibe thing...or actual incidents on their merit ?

Vineys crunch/ sandwich bump was legal . Was that day still is really though  it would arguably make for interesting testing., testing Id not prefer to make in todays climate

Cotchins bump simply crosses a line.  I dont actually agree where that line is but I can see how the arguments go.

It's all going to be moot tomorrow as the MRP are paving the way to equit him .

12 minutes ago, Macca said:

One could argue that you're the one being silly.  Or just plain stubborn.

I can't see why we can't talk about the why's & wherefore's of the ruling whilst discussing the actual incident.  Most others are ... perhaps you should take them to task as well. 

I never saw you as being such a stickler for poorly instigated rules but there you go.  Make sure you argue this strongly when it's a demon involved in such an incident.  Oh hang on, you did so with the Viney incident (the other way around though)

3 and a half years from the Viney incident and we're no closer to resolving this issue ... and we'll never get there either (save for the AFL turning the sport into 'touch' football)

for the last time.... i am merely discussing this incident as i see it on the basis of the current afl bumping rules and previous mrp rulings this year, and whether cotchin breached these rules. i have intentionally avoided discussing the right/wrong of these rules as it has nothing to do whether cotchin breached the current rules and is a red herring that will just go around in circles. i'm well aware you have been promoting tackling rules for the afl along the lines of the nfl or nrl and this thread is simply not the best place to go there. 

what the mrp will decide i have no f'n idea though i expect they will do anything to find a way to find him not guilty 

over and out

Just now, beelzebub said:

These two incidents are actually different, You do not see that ?

The incidents weren't that dissimilar in terms of the head being struck by a bump (whether intentional or not) ... and that's what this whole ruling is about. 

Incidental contact goes out the window in favour of 'duty-of-care'.  One could even argue that there was more intent with the Viney incident (not that he should have ever been cited of course)

Anyway,  the AFL will 'manage' this to their heart's content.  Any publicity is good publicity and all that. 

14 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

for the last time.... i am merely discussing this incident as i see it on the basis of the current afl bumping rules and previous mrp rulings this year, and whether cotchin breached these rules. i have intentionally avoided discussing the right/wrong of these rules as it has nothing to do whether cotchin breached the current rules and is a red herring that will just go around in circles. i'm well aware you have been promoting tackling rules for the afl along the lines of the nfl or nrl and this thread is simply not the best place to go there. 

what the mrp will decide i have no f'n idea though i expect they will do anything to find a way to find him not guilty 

over and out

I did mention that once here but that's not my agenda.  If that's what you're on about, you're way off beam.  I only mentioned it because of the relevance of the AFL's paranoia about head high hits.

As previously stated,  there needs to be an obvious intent with regards to hits to the head for any sort of ruling to have real substance.  Otherwise, the debate goes on forever.  And not much has changed since the Viney incident.  

Anyway,  I've said all I need to say so likewise,  I'll talk to you another time. 

Edited September 24, 20177 yr by Macca

Macca, please don;t get me wrong . I know youre passionate about these silly rules and in the main I agree they are rubbish. I wouldnt advocate that we keep them in their current guise.  ( goes for quite a few rules ruining this good game )  I( like some others ) were simply viewing the incident  as it is in the light of current rulings.  In my view as an incident it is just a clash, play on. Those who suggest there will always be injuries are right. It's a CONTACT sport.

Thats not what this adjudication is about though. 

I see only two things coming out of this really..Shiel has a headache  and the AFL look more and more stupid with inconsistencies. Nothing new there though.

Players get hit in the head every match in various ways. If Cotchin was intending to connect with Shiel's head he would connected better than that. He's attack was ferocious, definitely a bit dangerous, but Shield's dropped his head very low in the contest! 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, red&blue1982 said:

Players get hit in the head every match in various ways. If Cotchin was intending to connect with Shiel's head he would connected better than that. He's attack was ferocious, definitely a bit dangerous, but Shield's dropped his head very low in the contest! 

the rule cares not about intent to hit head...only that you do. Culpable accidents are punishable...thats the gist

1 hour ago, sue said:

I see that an MRP member has been commenting on the situation before the MRP meets. Totally inappropriate but that's what you expect from the 'professional' AFL sadly.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-24/bump-or-brace-the-question-that-will-determine-cotchins-fate/8979586

"Brace for the contact or brace for the bump"

Do you accelerate for brace for the bump? Do you decelerate for brace for the contact?

Have a look at the replay any way you like............

4 minutes ago, willmoy said:

"Brace for the contact or brace for the bump"

Do you accelerate for brace for the bump? Do you decelerate for brace for the contact?

Have a look at the replay any way you like............

this isnt about facts...its about spin.  Somehow the MRP has to not offer up Pilates head on a platter and justify why ( not )

apparently Bill Clinton advising  

4 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Macca, please don;t get me wrong . I know youre passionate about these silly rules and in the main I agree they are rubbish. I wouldnt advocate that we keep them in their current guise.  ( goes for quite a few rules ruining this good game )  I( like some others ) were simply viewing the incident  as it is in the light of current rulings.  In my view as an incident it is just a clash, play on. Those who suggest there will always be injuries are right. It's a CONTACT sport.

Thats not what this adjudication is about though. 

I see only two things coming out of this really..Shiel has a headache  and the AFL look more and more stupid with inconsistencies. Nothing new there though.

The sport is often over-officiated (e.g. the bump and the outlawing of it) and at times under-officiated (e,g, the 'throw' is often now allowed)  It's not rocket science but the AFL often try and make it that way. 

Despite all that it's hugely popular and the bottom line is that most just want their team to win.  The rules & the aesthetics are of a secondary nature. 

I view the sport and the MFC in a completely different way and always have.  But that doesn't mean that I don't want what is best for the sport.  Without a point of difference the end goal may never be reached.

 

2 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

this isnt about facts...its about spin.  Somehow the MRP has to not offer up Pilates head on a platter and justify why ( not )

apparently Bill Clinton advising  

wonderful mixing of names there BB

Go Salome or whatever Herod said about John the B !!!

The AFL say that if a player ducks in a tackle it's play on. I'm mentioning this to highlight what i think is vagueness in the rules.

4 hours ago, Gorgoroth said:

Only by smashing shiel in the face with his shoulder.

You're for banning players flying for marks and putting their knee into someone's head then, same principle.

I haven't read the whole thread, so apols if this has been commented on.

However, and for one of the few times ever, Dermie's view was worth noting. His claim was that as Cotchin clenched his fists and balled up he was clearly going for impact and not the ball.

If you accept this and combine it with head high and concussive impact, then he's gone.

However, given the make up the rules as you go along MRP, who knows?

 

Anyway, rules or not, I hope he goes because I hate Richmond with a passion.

Edited September 24, 20177 yr by Bitter but optimistic

2 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

A COLLISION WAS UNAVOIDABLE WITH 2 players attacking the ball

 

FFS!!

Unfortunately some just don't get it SWYL

2 hours ago, beelzebub said:

One HAD the ball. The other attempted to dislodge it via collision.  FFS !!

Shiel had the ball about 3 frames before Cotchin

Both Going for the Ball...Collision unavoidable...

 

1 minute ago, loges said:

Unfortunately some just don't get it SWYL

What some aren't getting is in current rules collisions have consequences and responsibilities. Not my doing. The AFL gurus.

But its ok... it's a ' bracing' 

5 minutes ago, loges said:

Unfortunately some just don't get it SWYL

Can you imagine what would be said today if the Richmond Captain had pulled up and "Squibbed" the contest!!

it is a Prelim Final with a GF on the line with 2 players going flat out at the ball....

Collisions happen....

11 minutes ago, loges said:

You're for banning players flying for marks and putting their knee into someone's head then, same principle.

No it's not.  The player going for the mark only incidentally knees someone in the head and there is no way of establishing that he deliberately kneed him in order to get the ball.   In  a case like Cotchin's it may be possible to establish that he deliberately cleaned an opponent up in order to get the ball.  I'm personally not saying he did or didn't, just that it is not the same principle.

3 minutes ago, sue said:

No it's not.  The player going for the mark only incidentally knees someone in the head and there is no way of establishing that he deliberately kneed him in order to get the ball.   In  a case like Cotchin's it may be possible to establish that he deliberately cleaned an opponent up in order to get the ball.  I'm personally not saying he did or didn't, just that it is not the same principle.

I think it the analogy is pretty good. If you consider that Cotchin is definitely planning on smashing into Shiel's, you still have to determine whether he meant to make high contact or not. In my opinion. 

 

And to add to that, some players want to collide and takeout their opponents that they're high flying on.

14 minutes ago, red&blue1982 said:

And to add to that, some players want to collide and takeout their opponents that they're high flying on.

Yep ... it definitely happens.  Hogan had his vertebrae smashed in one of his first practice games.  Some say deliberately.  Cite that.

Many key forwards in the past were belted from behind on a constant basis.

Playing in front has it's price.  That's why it takes courage to play in front.

As an aside,  the sling tackle is rightfully being stamped out of the game.

But it's a brutal game and the AFL should know when to pull the trigger and when not to.

I agree. If you climbing high on someone there's a temptation to injure your opponent with a knee, or by landing on them. 

Sling tackling can be cruelly delivered. Probably good to get rid of a potentially violent form of tackling. It seems tackling is really just holding, or trying to dislodge the ball now.

I've also noticed you don't seem to be able to push the ball carrier from any angle now. 

Let's be honest, the AFL has no intention of allowing a marquee player to be scrubbed out of the grand final when he's playing in one of the leagues most popular teams. Logic tells us this snake called the MRP will toe the party line. Case thrown out.