Contesting the ball as he's entitled to do, Jack Viney cleared on appeal for exact same thing, no case to answer against West Coast exact same thing.

Couldn't give a continental

15 minutes ago, loges said:

Contesting the ball as he's entitled to do, Jack Viney cleared on appeal for exact same thing, no case to answer against West Coast exact same thing.

When?

When I first saw it I thought no chance he will be rubbed out.

But the replay looks like he goes the man as well as the ball and clearly collects shiel in the head resulting in concussion. 

Poor record can't afford a fine I think he needs to go for that... 

Grand final or not the rules shouldn't change 

2 minutes ago, Watts the matter said:

When?

2014 Adelaide??

5 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

2014 Adelaide??

Yes broke the other players jaw if my memories correct.

Rub him out just to see the Richmond nuffies get upset.

Now that's entertainment!!!

27 minutes ago, loges said:

Contesting the ball as he's entitled to do, Jack Viney cleared on appeal for exact same thing, no case to answer against West Coast exact same thing.

Viney would be rubbed out now..just saying

51 minutes ago, Watts the matter said:

Has to be rubbed out, hands didn't go for the ball, braced for a bump and had other options.

Exactly. You get it. Good eye, and you understand the game. Not many do, so full props there.

1 minute ago, beelzebub said:

Viney would be rubbed out now..just saying

Don't think so.

I think GWS should be awarded draft concessions for it.

54 minutes ago, Return to Glory said:

Has our game become so crazy that a player can be suspended for attempting to bump his opponent? Forget the precedents, fines, mrp etc, it's all crap and absolute over-policing of the game imo

Forget logic and reason RTG. He's a Richmond [censored] so I hope he gets life.

Tom $cully

 

F U

27 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

2014 Adelaide??

The poster confused me by saying Viney did the exact same thing.

Very different, Viney was upright and Lynch dropped into him.

Cotchin accelerated, braced for a bump and basically dived causing injury.

Have to watch it again but pretty sure he dived in low to contest the ball, you're allowed to contest the ball, if the impact is incidental then it's ok.

4 minutes ago, Watts the matter said:

The poster confused me by saying Viney did the exact same thing.

Very different, Viney was upright and Lynch dropped into him.

Cotchin accelerated, braced for a bump and basically dived causing injury.

What I was saying is that the contact was in the act of contesting the ball which is allowed.

Both players going for the ball- he's just as culpable as Shiel.  I'm no Tigers fan, but you can't miss a grand final for something as dubious as that.

1 hour ago, Return to Glory said:

I think it matters. For a player to miss a potential grand final for that is unforgiveable. It's plain wrong. The current law is an ass.

think I agree...but it IS the rule and too many precedents THIS year to ignore it...

Was going the ball

Just now, Demons11 said:

Was going the ball

nope, and on precedents irrelevant anyway

2 minutes ago, Demons11 said:

Was going the ball

Since when do you pick up a ball with a clenched fist?

Very dangerous when a player already has there head over the ball to slide in like that. 

I don't think it is but we'll see.

I love Cothcin's attack on the ball that maximises the physical impact on his opponent. Footy at its best. I hope he does not get rubbed out but the current climate is harsh on these types of incidents. 

nah, won't even be cited

should've been a free kick but

They tend to turn a blind eye for GF ( refer B.Hall)

Safe but lucky I reckon.

( Head sacrosanct etc ,will be forgotten in true AFL , frustrating style)