1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Shiel had the ball about 3 frames before Cotchin

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

 

So he had it..cheers

3 hours ago, beelzebub said:

So he had it..cheers

And i am sure you can envisage 3/25 of a second...

it's a live ball

The lifeline Cotchin needed:  GWS doctors unsure which incident caused the concussion.  http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/teams/richmond/trent-cotchins-grand-final-hopes-could-be-saved-by-inconclusive-gws-medical-report/news-story/41fd7650008de7f202403bbaa182304c

Have mixed feelings:

• Footy fan in me says:  Let him play
• Cynic in me says:  AFL did some horsetrading of a future benefit with their appointee to GWS:  David Matthews.
• If I was a GWS supporter:  Shiel's absence for most of the game influenced the result.

Cotchin getting off is probably the right result.  I wouldn't want one of our guns outed for the GF.

 

Footnote:  Hope the Carlton doctors are paying attention on fair medical assessments.

It was clear that the incident left him stunned so there's definitely some funny business started here for sure.

Still, if Shiels head was a couple of inches backward instead of forward we wouldn't be talking about it. 

The umps let it go as well when there was every opportunity for a free kick to be paid.

heard one of the mrp members on radio this morning. he said they would be busy reviewing 10 incidents. if they haven't met yet, who decides which incidents get looked at (and not looked at)?

Cleared to Play

sanity prevails

Leaks suggest he's been cleared.

Re watched the incident and the one involving Zac Jones on one of our boys.

New line in the sand .

 

 

On 23/09/2017 at 8:25 PM, Wizza said:

Looking for some advice peeps. The wife is a Richmond AFL Gold Member and I'm a Melbourne Gold member. Tickets for participating teams go on sale 10am tomorrow, non-participating teams go on sale at 2pm. Obviously I'm keen to sit with my wife so ideally I'd grab 2 tickets at 2pm. On the flip side I'd feel terrible if my wife misses out on a ticket. Do I run the gauntlet and grab 2 tickets at 2pm? Or just buy separate and sit separately? Haven't bought tickets to a Granny before so not sure how to play it.

I have a mate that will buy an extra ticker if you get it.

 

On ‎24‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 9:37 AM, beelzebub said:

If he is cited ? How do you unsee that ? 

Probably the same way as the tribunal did, never in doubt.

12 minutes ago, Dockett 32 said:

Leaks suggest he's been cleared.

Re watched the incident and the one involving Zac Jones on one of our boys.

New line in the sand .

 

 

Zac Jones clearly went the man. 

That was a disgrace...

17 minutes ago, Dockett 32 said:

Leaks suggest he's been cleared.

Re watched the incident and the one involving Zac Jones on one of our boys.

New line in the sand .

 

 

Hope you are right. I like him as a player. Great game by him on Saturday.

Best decision the MRP has made this year.

If that's how they judge those incidents, great, I actually like it, but what about people getting fines/ suspensions all year for the same thing. And let's remember even a fine would have tipped him over the edge.

MRP making it up on the run again.

Edited September 25, 20177 yr by Forest Demon

Any player who gets fined or suspended for a similar incident next year should appeal and use this footage as defence. The MRP have set the precedent now. Cotchin's eyes were not on the ball, he dipped the shoulder and chose the bump which caused a concussion. 

39 minutes ago, bobby1554 said:

Any player who gets fined or suspended for a similar incident next year should appeal and use this footage as defence. The MRP have set the precedent now. Cotchin's eyes were not on the ball, he dipped the shoulder and chose the bump which caused a concussion. 

The problem is tbat there are no real 'precedents' in the AFL ... they quite literally make it up as they go along. 

And this latest decision highlights tbat ... we shouldn't be surprised either. 

Whilst I don't agree with the current ruling anyway, why have such a ruling if it's only going to be enforced when it suits?.

 

Edited September 25, 20177 yr by Macca

25 minutes ago, bobby1554 said:

Any player who gets fined or suspended for a similar incident next year should appeal and use this footage as defence. The MRP have set the precedent now. Cotchin's eyes were not on the ball, he dipped the shoulder and chose the bump which caused a concussion. 

Of course they should. Should have done it for years

Any player going for the ball should not be suspended

26 minutes ago, bobby1554 said:

Any player who gets fined or suspended for a similar incident next year should appeal and use this footage as defence. The MRP have set the precedent now. Cotchin's eyes were not on the ball, he dipped the shoulder and chose the bump which caused a concussion. 

My TV set showed a different picture bobby. Cotchins eyes were clearly on the ball and his hands reaching for it. Just part of our great game. Body contact sport. Unless the head is a deliberate target no problems. Welcome to the forum. You will always get people agreeing or disagreeing with you.

I would have been appalled if Cotchin missed a Grand Final for what was unavoidable contact as two players went for the ball. I don't care how or why the decision was made, just that the correct outcome was achieved.

I have no issue with players missing Grand Finals for deliberate punches or strikes, particularly those off the ball. These are the acts that the AFL need to focus on, regardless of impact.

 

42 minutes ago, bobby1554 said:

Any player who gets fined or suspended for a similar incident next year should appeal and use this footage as defence. The MRP have set the precedent now. Cotchin's eyes were not on the ball, he dipped the shoulder and chose the bump which caused a concussion. 

The MRP set a precedent every second week.

For any given incident, there's a previous similar one to show that the player should get off. there's also a previous one to show the player should get weeks. Perfect for a conflicted body that doesn't know what the f*** it's supposed to be doing.

 

Cotchin was always going to get off. Even if he'd eye gouged Sloane, tripped him, spat on him, jumper punched him, elbowed the back of his head, and broken his jaw, he would have gotten off. It's one of the unbreakable laws of nature: stars don't get sent down in GF week.

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Cleared to Play

sanity prevails

Sanity does prevail, but if the MRP were to follow the letter of the law, he would miss.

It's a good result for footy that he hasn't, but it just further highlights how broken the MRP is, and how inept those who officiate on it are. Time for a complete reshuffle.

3 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

The MRP set a precedent every second week.

For any given incident, there's a previous similar one to show that the player should get off. there's also a previous one to show the player should get weeks. Perfect for a conflicted body that doesn't know what the f*** it's supposed to be doing.

 

Cotchin was always going to get off. Even if he'd eye gouged Sloane, tripped him, spat on him, jumper punched him, elbowed the back of his head, and broken his jaw, he would have gotten off. It's one of the unbreakable laws of nature: stars don't get sent down in GF week.

He'd probably get off for sure if you cant place two players at the same ground !! 

He should have got a fine that related to a suspension, but, no way the AFL was going to let a teams captain not play GF day. If MRP were to follow letter of the law, he would miss. Just adds to the corruption of the game, that I'm sure of.

I'm not saying he should of been rubbed out, but a fine was warranted and his previous misdemeanours would have him out.

Anyway, we move on.

25 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

Sanity does prevail, but if the MRP were to follow the letter of the law, he would miss.

It's a good result for footy that he hasn't, but it just further highlights how broken the MRP is, and how inept those who officiate on it are. Time for a complete reshuffle.

Shouldn't have even been looked at. He had eyes for the ball. 

Zac Jones had eyes for the man. 

That is the one that is broken

I don't believe that Cotchin should have been suspended for that incident, but I can see what people believe to be huge inconsistencies in the MRP.  Above all that though, I am very happy that we get to avoid all the drama that goes along with the MRP, Tribunal, appeals, etc. in the lead up to the game.  We can now just focus on the match and not the ten thousand different opinion pieces about whether he should miss or not.

A lot of talk about precedence in this thread without mentioning the obvious one.

Barry Hall.

That is normal rules don't apply for big name players if there is a risk they could miss the GF.