2 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

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. 

 

The rule is there (but it's vague) ... and we constantly see different outcomes on when & where the rule is applied.  Also, the outcomes (suspensions, fines etc) are all over the place. 

Given all that, how can anyone have a definitive opinion on the actual ruling?

You can say he's guilty ... but based on what?  A BS rule.

Just now, Gorgoroth said:

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. 

Both players going for the ball, there was always going to be a collision. It all happened in less than 2 seconds and not in slo mo, normal speed. 

In 2005 Barry Hall was cleared after a disgraceful punch we all saw

Cotchin had eyes for the ball and the impending collision...

1 minute ago, Gorgoroth said:

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. 

Im inclined to think his intent (imho ) was to take advantage of a situation to hurt/test Shiel. 

He did it clumsily. He'll probably get away with it, but shouldn't.

Shiel's injury (known) would have been on a 'hit list' . Anyone who thinks such thinks dont happen are welcome to put a deposit down on my pink and purple unicorns I'm selling.

And if Cotchin gets to play in the GF those who are arguing that he shouldn't will then turn their attention towards the AFL. 

The same AFL who created this inconsistent ruling that they believe will be somehow adhered to.  ha ha

Just now, Macca said:

And if Cotchin gets to play in the GF those who are arguing that he shouldn't will then turn their attention towards the AFL. 

The same AFL who created this inconsistent ruling that they believe will be somehow adhered to.  ha ha

That...has never been in dispute Macca

The AFL are terribly flawed. It's they who will be configuring the way this citing will be deliberated....giving the desired outcome.

9 minutes ago, Macca said:

 

You can say he's guilty ... but based on what?  A BS rule.

By george youve got it. 

 

5 minutes ago, Macca said:

And if Cotchin gets to play in the GF those who are arguing that he shouldn't will then turn their attention towards the AFL. 

The same AFL who created this inconsistent ruling that they believe will be somehow adhered to.  ha ha

I'm not sure that this it's funny when it's a game we all love, and it's not being administered well.......

Just now, beelzebub said:

That...has never been in dispute Macca

The AFL are terribly flawed. It's they who will be configuring the way this citing will be deliberated....giving the desired outcome.

And that's partly the point I'm trying to make here. 

Why have a rule if it's not cut and dried?  Whilst I don't particularly like the current ruling anyway,  I can understand why they're doing it. 

But to then backtrack when it suits makes the whole business quite farcical.  They have the same attitude towards PED use,  ilicit drug use etc etc.  When it gets too hard,  they look for appeased outcomes.

5 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

By george youve got it.

Yeah I have ... a long time ago. 

Perhaps the penny has just dropped for you.

Such is the nature of the ruling, many here have divided opinions on whether Cotchin should even be cited or not. 

And as for the penalty (if it comes to that) opinion is also divided ... anything from a small fine to 3 or 4 weeks. 

Yet people want to quote the rule as if it is somehow rock solid. 

I'm going to have a good chuckle if he has no case to answer for.

 

I do not barrack for TIgers , BUT imagine the hue & cry if Cotchin had laid off on Shiel and he turned it into a goal. We want players to attack the ball and now the AFL books them, sorry the media.

On Outsiders they highlighted a contact between Shiels and Ellis(??) late in Q1 which could have been the real cause as my impression was that Shiels problem (post Cotchin was his shoulder .

He will be cleared. As he should be. Clearly going for the ball. The AFL aren't going to deprive Cotchin and the club as a whole for a hit like that.

50 minutes ago, Gorgoroth said:

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. 

But he won the ball, he is within his rights to attack the ball hard and fairly which is what I believe he did. 

It's literally only a discussion because of the concussion which may or may not have been caused by the incident. 

1 minute ago, Abe said:

But he won the ball, he is within his rights to attack the ball hard and fairly which is what I believe he did. 

It's literally only a discussion because of the concussion which may or may not have been caused by the incident. 

Only by smashing shiel in the face with his shoulder.

There was no malicious intent on Cotchin's part, he just wanted the ball. It's a contact sport, sometimes accidents will happen.

Cotchin should play. If by consequence this situation forces the AFL to adopt a more appropriate interpretation that stops their current bureaucratic bs, then his playing would make the game all the better for it. 

24 minutes ago, Macca said:

Such is the nature of the ruling, many here have divided opinions on whether Cotchin should even be cited or not. 

And as for the penalty (if it comes to that) opinion is also divided ... anything from a small fine to 3 or 4 weeks. 

Yet people want to quote the rule as if it is somehow rock solid. 

I'm going to have a good chuckle if he has no case to answer for.

 

there is a good chance the mrp(afl) will rule no case to answer

which won't satisfy many

will further the case of mrp inconsistency and afl incompetence

and.....is really no good reason to chuckle 

2 minutes ago, Abe said:

But he won the ball, he is within his rights to attack the ball hard and fairly which is what I believe he did. 

It's literally only a discussion because of the concussion which may or may not have been caused by the incident. 

Absolutely correct. The Ball ended up in Cotchin's hands. 

Both players are going for the ball in a final

Contact is unavoidable, unless one of them "Squibs" and that was not an option

When it comes down to it, we don't know what the mrp will do.

They have to determine if he gets him high. Other options he had. Intent. Damage caused. Football act. If two of those are ticked it prob ends in a fine. I ddon't think they will suspend him outright but he will cop a fine. 

1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Absolutely correct. The Ball ended up in Cotchin's hands. 

Both players are going for the ball in a final

Contact is unavoidable, unless one of them "Squibs" and that was not an option

So as long as you end up with the ball it's ok to tuck your arm and hit them in the head with his shoulder. Looks Like we are not going to agree on this one ?

Just now, Gorgoroth said:

So as long as you end up with the ball it's ok to tuck your arm and hit them in the head with his shoulder. Looks Like we are not going to agree on this one ?

No we are not. Cotchin braced for unavoidable contact, yes. But his intention was always the ball. I have no doubt. 

 

Just now, daisycutter said:

there is a good chance the mrp(afl) will rule no case to answer

which won't satisfy many

will further the case of mrp inconsistency and afl incompetence

and.....is really no good reason to chuckle 

Well,  the amusement would be because you and others seem to be so sure that he's 'gone.' 

And if I want to laugh at the incompetency of the AFL, so what.  You do it (all the time)

17 minutes ago, dimmy said:

I do not barrack for TIgers , BUT imagine the hue & cry if Cotchin had laid off on Shiel and he turned it into a goal. We want players to attack the ball and now the AFL books them, sorry the media.

On Outsiders they highlighted a contact between Shiels and Ellis(??) late in Q1 which could have been the real cause as my impression was that Shiels problem (post Cotchin was his shoulder .

I can fully see this will be the loophole used...by all parties intending Cotchin walk...it was Ellis

And when Ellis cited...it was Cotchin.

Both walk. Richmond happy , AFL relieved. MRP ...doing their job to perfection.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

No we are not. Cotchin braced for unavoidable contact, yes. But his intention was always the ball. I have no doubt. 

 

Ah but the nature of contact was avoidable had he intended to tackle not bump.

6 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Ah but the nature of contact was avoidable had he intended to tackle not bump.

His intention was the ball, never to tackle

and he won it. 

It's a brutal game and collisions occur

There is a very big difference between incidental and intentional. 

Look at most pack mark situations, we never question those, if a player is hit in the head in a pack it is deemed bad luck

Edited September 24, 20177 yr by Sir Why You Little

5 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

His intention was the ball, never to tackle

and he won it. 

His intention as you agree was to bump. How else was he going to get that ball if not tackling.

It was clumsily executed resulting in a clanger to Shiel. 

Rightly or wrongly there is a rule governing this the one Cotchin is cited for.

He bumped, he hit.

Just now, beelzebub said:

His intention as you agree was to bump. How else was he going to get that ball if not tackling.

It was clumsily executed resulting in a clanger to Shiel. 

Rightly or wrongly there is a rule governing this the one Cotchin is cited for.

He bumped, he hit.

Do not miss quote me

His intention was the ball, the collision was unavoidable...