12 minutes ago, Macca said:

The whole situation is a farce ... deliberate targeting of the head should be penalised but incidental contact to the head due to normal football moves not so.  The same principle could be applied to the contentious 'around-the-neck' adjudication. 

They need to make it simple and clear cut rather than create more grey areas.

It's not rocket science but the AFL are trying their best to make it that way. 

Sorry Macca, I mean't to attach your statement.

Bravo!

3 hours ago, willmoy said:

Yes, fair comment. I wasn't hoping for GWS upon reflection, maybe a lack of a closer game score and balanced broadcasting along with how seventy thousand  ferals can swing like a pendulum has browned me off enough for this year.

Did posters notice the constant booing when $cully had the ball? Either there were quite a few Melbourne supporters there or he is universally unpopular for his dishonesty and deception? 

6 minutes ago, red&blue1982 said:

 

Sorry Macca, I mean't to attach your statement.

Bravo!

The AFL can learn from other sports with regards to the head being targeted deliberately.  In League,  Union and even in the NFL,  penalised infringements to the head/neck area are nearly always quite obvious.

Currently in the AFL,  most onlookers are either confused or they don't agree with the adjudication of such incidents.  And whilst the players have generally stopped targeting the head deliberately,  a number of the players would be equally confused.

What happened to Shiel today should just be looked upon as an unfortunate incident.

7 hours 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.

Wont be though, Cotchin is a protected species

5 hours ago, dave said:

Wont be though, Cotchin is a protected species

The whole club is a protected species.

8 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Shiel was at the ball first, had won the ball and was in an extremely vulnerable position. Cotchin elected to bump, he didn't try and tackle or dive for the ball. He charged in with arm tucked, got him in the head and concussed him. The rules are there to protect the ball players.

I don't really understand how there is an argument about this. If it's a suspension in a NAB challenge game or in round 5 it's a suspension in the preliminary final. The rules don't just change in September.

I don't know what you're looking at but he certainly dived at the ball

1 hour ago, loges said:

I don't know what you're looking at but he certainly dived at the ball

If you objective was the ball. Youd have both arms out to get it. Cotchin doesnt. In fact hes had enough time to pull one in and brace knowingly.

I dont like the rules. I like the idea of bumping players. But in the current evolution of the rule Cotchin is in deep do-do.

What he intended is all but irrelevant as its almost never taken into account.

What will be ( as stands now ) is:

What he DID. What he was ABLE to do. What injury was incurred to other player.

Gonski

I wonder what Richmonds record without Cotchin is, he's the kind of player that has probably played the last 3 years straight? I don't recall injuries or suspensions? Personally I don't think Cotchin > MCG for actual influence, therefore Richmond will probably win. Unfortunately we have an uneven competition because one stadium fits 100,000 people and the others don't because of some vague "spiritual home" nonsense.

Edited September 23, 20177 yr by Deeprived Childhood

1 minute ago, beelzebub said:

If you objective was the ball. Youd have both arms out to get it. Cotchin doesnt. In fact hes had enough time to pull one in and brace knowingly.

I dont like the rules. I like the idea of bumping players. But in the current evolution of the rule Cotchin is in deep do-do.

What he intended is all but irrelevant as its almost never taken into account.

What will be ( as stands now ) is:

What he DID. What he was ABLE to do. What injury was incurred to other player.

Gonski

'Technically' he's in trouble (according to rhe current ruling) but the ruling still has just enough grey area for a desired outcome to be obtained.

The AFL creates then breaks its own rules on a constant basis so why would this be any different? 

3 minutes ago, Macca said:

'Technically' he's in trouble (according to rhe current ruling) but the ruling still has just enough grey area for a desired outcome to be obtained.

The AFL creates then breaks its own rules on a constant basis so why would this be any different? 

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.

 

6 minutes 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.

And if we'd had an actual MRP that deals with 'Justice', then they could instantaneously adjudicate that it was an action worthy of week/s at the next quarter break after Shiel is ruled out of the game and GWS being unfairly compromised. The response would be that they should have an emergency player substituted in OR have Trent Cotchin sin binned. But that's a bit of a tangent, which kind of does apply, more so in next weeks grand final. And we're all too familiar with thuggish activities in grand finals over at demonland. Cough Wallace. Long. Cough. 

Edited September 23, 20177 yr by Deeprived Childhood

I dislike always perfectly bouffant flattop haircuts as the next person but I didn't think there was anything wrong with it. 

Edited September 23, 20177 yr by Ethan Tremblay

26 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

If you objective was the ball. Youd have both arms out to get it. Cotchin doesnt. In fact hes had enough time to pull one in and brace knowingly.

I dont like the rules. I like the idea of bumping players. But in the current evolution of the rule Cotchin is in deep do-do.

What he intended is all but irrelevant as its almost never taken into account.

What will be ( as stands now ) is:

What he DID. What he was ABLE to do. What injury was incurred to other player.

Gonski

Many people have different views on this incident we'll just have to wait and see what happens. If he is cited get ready for the appeal.

13 minutes 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.

 

The AF.L tribunal should have found the Essendon 34 guilty based the level of guilt required (comfortable satisfaction) but they were found not guilty.

This will almost certainly go the same way but Ellis might be the one to go ... again, more desired outcomes.

Edited September 23, 20177 yr by Macca

Continuing tis tangent because it does hit close to home with what happened in the 2000 GF, It's absurd that we had a substitute rule for 2 or 3 years that was basically whenever the coach felt like subbing a player in. Surely we could have a sub rule for players that are ruled out due to concussion THAT IS independently verified by an AFL Doctor (Ie not a Carlton Doctor) - so that we get 22 v 22 back happening again, and leave the MRP to dish out justice. It doesn't solve the issue of a [censored] player taking out a superstar, but i think the AFL is relatively free of that sort of thuggish behaviour nowadays.

I'm guilty of cheering on Lewis for taking out Cripps in round 3 or so though, so what do i know. 

Edited September 23, 20177 yr by Deeprived Childhood

1 minute ago, Deeprived Childhood said:

Continuing tis tangent because it does hit close to home with what happened in the 2000 GF, It's absurd that we had a substitute rule for 2 or 3 years that was basically whenever the coach felt like subbing a player in. Surely we could have a sub rule for players that are ruled out due to concussion THAT IS independently verified by an AFL Doctor (Ie not a Carlton Doctor) - so that we get 22 v 22 back happening again, and leave the MRP to dish out justice. It doesn't solve the issue of a [censored] player taking out a superstar, but i think the AFL is relatively free of that sort of thuggish behaviour now. 

You mean ...like actually use the emergencies ?

Sorry no room for logic. It's AFL

This is going to be fascinating watching the AFL effectively have to untangle itself...from itself.

I agree with those that suggest there was nothing really in it. But thats applying a metric from 'long ago'.

Now , using the MRPs own set of criteria , there must have been 'something' as there was a result. ( Shiel's concussion)

It hasn't found the path of common sense before. Can't see it doing so now. 

A delicious conbobulation.

 

Just now, Deeprived Childhood said:

Continuing tis tangent because it does hit close to home with what happened in the 2000 GF, It's absurd that we had a substitute rule for 2 or 3 years that was basically at whenever you felt like subbing a player in. Surely we could have a sub rule for players that are ruled out due to concussion THAT IS independently verified by an AFL Doctor (Ie not a Carlton Doctor) - so that we get 22 v 22 back happening again, and leave the MRP to dish out justice. It doesn't solve the issue of a [censored] player taking out a superstar, but i think the AFL is relatively free of that sort of thuggish behaviour now. 

That is good in theory. 

But look at what happened yesterday at the start of the 3rd quarter by the 3 independent adjudicators on the field.  Even Kevin Bartlett was shocked by 3 frees given their way in that 15 minutes, which resulted in goals.  The umpires evened the free kicks by the end but it was too late for the Giants. The goals from the 3 frees broke the spirit of the Giants. 

Giants weren't good enough to win but the game can do without the so called independents make biased calls.

No thanks, to a doctor adjudicating concussion.

31 minutes ago, loges said:

Many people have different views on this incident we'll just have to wait and see what happens. If he is cited get ready for the appeal.

If he is cited ? How do you unsee that ? 

The thought that the captain of richmond can get rubbed out for that incident in their first grand final for 35 years makes me feel sick. It'd be as tragic as footy can get. 

Things in his favour. 

1. His eyes were on the ball 

2. He was in the contest and won the ball

3. Shiel had delayed concussion so it's difficult to attribute that to that exact incident

20 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

That is good in theory. 

But look at what happened yesterday at the start of the 3rd quarter by the 3 independent adjudicators on the field.  Even Kevin Bartlett was shocked by 3 frees given their way in that 15 minutes, which resulted in goals.  The umpires evened the free kicks by the end but it was too late for the Giants. The goals from the 3 frees broke the spirit of the Giants. 

Giants weren't good enough to win but the game can do without the so called independents make biased calls.

No thanks, to a doctor adjudicating concussion.

Isn't there some sort of Hippocratic Oath though with doctors and injuries? I haven't watched the game so I can't really comment, but this just reminds me of the comment made by a Demonlander who i've forgotten, that was commenting on just how much influence the umpires do have on a match. Like last year, swaying the results of matches with momentum crushing calls in certain periods of the match or in the dying minutes, but it's not PC in the AFL world to ascribe blame to umpires especially when the result is a big margin and because most opposition fans do it in a heightened state of emotion. But surely we've all sensed that some calls just kill contests, no matter how early in the game? BTW Was it Matt Nichols who made these calls? This [censored] genuinely seems like he's trying to sway matches.

I haven't seen the Ellis bump yet, but the cynic in me says he'll be the scapegoat and be rubbed out for 12 weeks to help justify letting Cotchin off.

6 minutes ago, Deeprived Childhood said:

1) Isn't there some sort of Hippocratic Oath though with doctors and injuries?

2)I haven't watched the game so I can't really comment, but this just reminds me of the comment made by a Demonlander who i've forgotten, that was commenting on just how much influence the umpires do have on a match. Like last year, swaying the results of matches with momentum crushing calls in certain periods of the match or in the dying minutes, but it's not PC in the AFL world to ascribe blame to umpires especially when the result is a big margin and because most opposition fans do it in a heightened state of emotion. But surely we've all sensed that some calls just kill contests, no matter how early in the game? BTW Was it Matt Nichols who made these calls? This [censored] genuinely seems like he's trying to sway matches.

1)  True but that didn't stop the Carlton doctors putting mayo on Lamb's 'delayed concussion' and Cripps' 'slight jaw fracture'.  Cost us 2 extra game suspensions:  (The  'extras' were for the deemed 'medium contact' to the head = automatic 2 games rather than 'low impact' to the head = automatic 1 game.  So both Hogan and Lewis got an extra game out, courtesy of the Carlton doctors).

2) I don't know who the umpire was/were that gave the frees yesterday.  They turned the game when it was very evenly poised.  It was poor of most Giant players to then give up I but don't like umpires (supposedly the best in the game) exerting such influence.  They need to get better at shutting out all the unconscious cues from all the stakeholders.

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.

Edited September 24, 20177 yr by Deeprived Childhood