Cotchin out?

[red&blue1982 255]

People die playing professional sports. Not sure if someone's died on the ground playing VFA/VFL/AFL.

[red&blue1982 255]

The rules of the game are going in a direction away from tackling, bumping. And fans like myself don't like that.

I don't play football anymore, but i must be frustrating changing the way you played and practices every year!

[deelete my account 1,194]

13 minutes ago, Macca said:

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. 

And what's crazy is that if he doesn't commit to the impact by tucking his arm in to 'shoulder' and bracing for impact, then his only option is to dive in head first with his arms outstretched to grab the ball first and risk being done for sliding, which as i said before, runs way more of a risk of causing an ACL to Shiel, but less a risk of getting suspended. (Absurdly the sliding also gives away a free and the head high contact usually doesn't)

I've watched it a few more times now and its really line ball but favoring Cotchin if FINES are taken out of it. It looks as though they are both going for the ball, but somethings still irks me about the way Cotchin dives in to Shiel with a torpedo like quality. Like hitting Shiel as hard as he could once that very very split micro-second has him knowing Shiel will get to it first. 

I think my earlier assessment that he should've held back is probably wrong though, the ball is definitely there to be won for both of them.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Deeprived Childhood

[red&blue1982 255]

Did Sloane get reported for his bump on Dangerfield? That looked quite high.

[beelzebub 23,383]

Its almostv....almost analogous to instances where a player is about to run into another because he's eyes on the ball. He's fine right until he looks away from the ball and fends the other player. Pinged. Damned either way. 

I'm inclined to subscribe to the idea he was going for the ball, almost until he wasn't

[Macca 17,041]

13 minutes ago, Deeprived Childhood said:

And what's crazy is that if he doesn't commit to the impact by tucking his arm in to 'shoulder' and bracing for impact, then his only option is to dive in head first to grab the ball first and risk being done for sliding, which as i said before, runs way more of a risk of causing an ACL to Shiel, but less a risk of getting suspended.

I've watched it a few more times now and its really line ball. It looks as though they are both going for the ball, but something in the way Cotchin dives in to Shiel has a torpedo like quality to it. Like hitting Shiel as hard as he could once that very very split micro-second has him knowing Shiel will get to it first. 

In that situation human instinct and self-preservation takes over ... hurt or be hurt (so to speak) It's not like Shiel is a complete lightweight ... Cotchin might have thought that Shiel might have been the one who could have inflicted damage. 

You put yourself into that situation and there's a lot of things going through your mind ... and it is a prelim final and he is the captain. 

I maintain Cotchin did nothing wrong and the rules are an ass.  I said the same thing when the Viney incident happened ... in the end, common sense prevailed then as it should now.

And just on that, imagine it was us playing in such an important game and instead of Cotchin being involved,  it was Jones?  For those who believe Cotchin should be pinged, would you be saying the same thing if it was Nate?

Edited September 24, 2017 by Macca

[Willmoy1947 4,146]

So are we all assuming Cotchin's intent is solely hunting the ball, i think not.....

[daisycutter 29,746]

2 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Its almostv....almost analogous to instances where a player is about to run into another because he's eyes on the ball. He's fine right until he looks away from the ball and fends the other player. Pinged. Damned either way. 

I'm inclined to subscribe to the idea he was going for the ball, almost until he wasn't

the key, bub, is cotchin opted at the last minute to bump and not tackle. the rules state that in that circumstance the onus is on the bumper to have a duty of care such that any head contact is a reportable offence

[SFebes 4,884]

The more I look at it, the more he is gone IMO

[Sir Why You Little 37,165]

Rule number 1. Watch th incident in real time, not slo mo or frame by frame. 

1 frame = 1/25 of a second

you cannot expect anyone to make 5-6 different decisions in the space of 1-2 seconds. 

I believe both players were going for the ball, bracing before impact is a natural instinct and very hard not to do

[beelzebub 23,383]

5 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

the key, bub, is cotchin opted at the last minute to bump and not tackle. the rules state that in that circumstance the onus is on the bumper to have a duty of care such that any head contact is a reportable offence

DC i agree and thats why any other week of the year he'd be gone. Irrespective of any alluded intent (irrelevant) he HAS bumbed , and deliberately. 

 

[Macca 17,041]

14 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

the key, bub, is cotchin opted at the last minute to bump and not tackle. the rules state that in that circumstance the onus is on the bumper to have a duty of care such that any head contact is a reportable offence

You are arguing on behalf of a rule that you don't believe should be there.

Were you arguing that Viney should have been pinged in that incident a few years ago?  For consistencies sake, you should have been. 

But you weren't.  You wanted him to get off.

By the way,  Viney would probably get pinged for that incident these days but again,  I see what he did then and what numerous players do now as normal footy moves.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Macca

[deelete my account 1,194]

5 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

DC i agree and thats why any other week of the year he'd be gone. Irrespective of any alluded intent (irrelevant) he HAS bumbed , and deliberately. 

 

And yet the added caveat is that he has 2 fines. It's the perfect storm.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Deeprived Childhood

[Gorgoroth 13,029]

Tucked arm in. Hits him high. Could have tackled Shiel, shiel misses due to concussion. Enjoy the stands Cotch. 

[beelzebub 23,383]

9 minutes ago, Deeprived Childhood said:

And yet the added caveat is that he has 2 fines. It's the perfect storm.

Its quite beautifully poised isnt it.

Im sure the AFL will develop a strategy to sell the outcome. Its most likely what they're working on right now.

Yes...those priors are the Achilles Heel. Gil's called for the strapper no doubt.

[beelzebub 23,383]

@Macca

Surely its beside the point whether we/any believe the rule good/flawed or whatever. At the time of the incident it was a rule in play.

[Macca 17,041]

Just now, beelzebub said:

@Macca

Surely its beside the point whether we/any believe the rule good/flawed or whatever. At the time of the incident it was a rule in play.

It is relevant because we're seeing inconsistent outcomes with these types of incidents.  Unless you and others believe that the outcomes of head knocks are all being judged in the same way?

The fact is that some more blatant incidents have been let go whilst other incidents aren't (for whatever reason)  And I've seen you and others comment accordingly on those inconsistent outcomes. 

You can't have it both ways bub.

You'd have a point if the incidents and outcomes were totally consistent.

[daisycutter 29,746]

17 minutes ago, Macca said:

You are arguing on behalf of a rule that you don't believe should be there.

Of course I am. I can only comment on the rule as it stands

Were you arguing that Viney should have been pinged in that incident a few years ago?  For consistencies sake, you should have been. 

No. Viney one totally different. Viney was stationary on contact. Cotchin had forward motion into a player bent over picking up the ball and defenceless

But you weren't.  You wanted him to get off.

By the way,  Viney would probably get pinged for that incident these days but again,  I disagree I see what he did then and what numerous players do now as normal footy moves.

your arguments here have all centred on what you think the rules should be which is totally different to deciding the cotchin situation which can only be decided by the current rules. Initially i thought he'd get off but after further rewatching and consideration i have changed my mind. I have no skin in this and personally i don't care much which way it goes, but i think as the rules stand he broke them and a top player missed half the game through concussion.

 

[Gorgoroth 13,029]

Could. Have. Tackled. 

[Wells 11 5,424]

3 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

@Macca

Surely its beside the point whether we/any believe the rule good/flawed or whatever. At the time of the incident it was a rule in play.

Agreed BB. The humanist in me wants him to play...but according to the rules of the game he's gone imo. He should have gone already TWICE this season and you just cant have a different rules for different players no matter how good. Tucks his arm and goes for the bump....leaves an opposition player concussed and unable to continue. 100% a fine at least. Which mean he's gone

[beelzebub 23,383]

1 minute ago, Macca said:

It is relevant because we're seeing inconsistent outcomes with these types of incidents.  Unless you and others believe that the outcomes of head knocks are all being judged in the same way?

The fact is that some more blatant incidents have been let go whilst other incidents aren't (for whatever reason)  And I've seen you and others comment accordingly on those inconsistent outcomes. 

You can't have it both ways bub.

You'd have a point if the incidents and outcomes were totally consistent.

I have a point anyways.

Theres more than one issue.

Is the rule any good ?

Are judgements consistent ?

Are heads any more/less/same  protected ?

There are those.

My point was/is simple. At the time of incident said rule was in vogue. Its because of that a ruling is now required.

What that will be and any regard to precedents/consistency etc is an outcome of deliberation. But the rule is the rule atm. Thats all thats relevant. 

 

[Macca 17,041]

@daisycutter

Agree to disagree although I do reckon there's a small chance that Cotchin will miss.

But my opinion on the Cotchin outcome is based on not actually knowing what the actual rule is (it's not clear-cut) and also,  I'm never sure which way the AFL are going to go with these types of incidents.

[Sir Why You Little 37,165]

2 minutes ago, Gorgoroth said:

Could. Have. Tackled. 

Not if his intention was for the ball, which i believe it was

[beelzebub 23,383]

3 minutes ago, Gorgoroth said:

SHould. Have. Tackled. 

[Gorgoroth 13,029]

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

Not if his intention was for the ball, which i believe it was

Was never getting their first. He meant to hit shiel, not high, but he does. Had options. Mrp will give him a fine of they are truly impartial to what game it is. His idiotic actions in other games will cost him.