2 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Do not miss quote me

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

So how was he to get the ball then ?

You HAVE said it wasn't by tackling.

So how else ? And please dont tell me he had no idea the only alternative outcome was the bump.

Shiel was just going to give it to him ?

19 minutes ago, Macca said:

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)

your comprehension skills are not too good today, macca

i only said he was gone according to current rules (and precedents)

i have said a number of times (and gave reasons) why it could go either way

i also said i wasn't overly fussed how it turns out

There is no way he will be suspended for that PF collision.  However he should have been suspended for both of the other incidents he was fines for.

Just now, daisycutter said:

your comprehension skills are not too good today, macca

i only said he was gone according to current rules (and precedents)

i have said a number of times (and gave reasons) why it could go either way

i also said i wasn't overly fussed how it turns out

You've changed your tune dramatically ... only 3 years ago you were lambasting the AFL about what they were doing re the bump etc. 

My comprehension skills are fine ... it's you who has gone down the AFL's path ... arguing on their behalf instead of keeping up the good fight. 

I prefer to not sellout.  People power helped reverse the Jack Viney decision and if you and others don't argue against this imbecilic ruling,  you're basically all-in with them.

If this wasn't Cotchin and it was a demon in the same circumstances, you'd have a completely different opinion. 

Tell me I'm wrong.

Does anyone have any vision of the incident that caused Brent Moloney to get a two week suspension for not hitting Jimmy Bartel in 2005?

I just want to compare it with Cotchin's actual hit on Shiels.

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

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.

Not being a smartarse here, but are you talking about Shiel's taped shoulder, BB, or another injury? Did he injure it again recently, because he always has it taped up?

Although I also agree that players target injuries, in this case I don't think it's true though, the taped shoulder was on the other side of the direction Cotchin was coming in from.

Normally I would expect the MRP to probably fine the player in this case, but I honestly don't think they'll have the balls in this case because Cotchin already has the two fines.

8 minutes ago, Males said:

Not being a smartarse here, but are you talking about Shiel's taped shoulder, BB, or another injury? Did he injure it again recently, because he always has it taped up?

Although I also agree that players target injuries, in this case I don't think it's t isrue though, the taped shoulder was on the other side of the direction Cotchin was coming in from.

Normally I would expect the MRP to probably fine the player in this case, but I honestly don't think they'll have the balls in this case because Cotchin already has the two fines.

As you say Shiel's shoulder has been a problem for years. It was greatly aggrevated in rnd 18(ironically against Richmond)

Tigers would have to know that. If as some suspect the ol' hunting techniques are employed then Cotchin as capt would only too well know who...and what. 

He seemed a bit on a mission yesterday . Played very well overall but not without some cavalier efforts. 

Edited September 24, 20177 yr by beelzebub

26 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Does anyone have any vision of the incident that caused Brent Moloney to get a two week suspension for not hitting Jimmy Bartel in 2005?

I just want to compare it with Cotchin's actual hit on Shiels.

First it was not a final at stake and second Brent was not a player  for a big popular club. The club he played for, copped it up the backside from the AFL and were too scared to do anything about it.

PS. I think Brent holds the record for the only player in the AFL to be suspended for a bump that missed, with no contact to the other player.

Edited September 24, 20177 yr by Redleg

Don't know why we are all discussing this as there is no way the Tigers' Captain is missing the GF for that incident. 

The tackler has an obligation of 'duty of care' when executing a tackle or bump. That is the starting point. Could he have avoided that contact or made an attempt to nullify the contest without the high contact?

Going for the ball does not in any way waive a tacklers 'duty of care' obligation to other players.

If it was an unavoidable accident then he will be in the clear. He tucked his shoulder in for contact so not likely an accident.

He definitely has a case to answer. Home and away he likely would  have at least received a fine. It looked careless and concussion means at least medium impact. GF coming up he hopefully will be let off - common sense should prevail. There are plenty of precedents to let him off which have left the public scratching their collective heads.

Their will be an (Tigers) uproar if Sloane gets off and Cotchin is outed.

45 minutes ago, Macca said:

You've changed your tune dramatically ... only 3 years ago you were lambasting the AFL about what they were doing re the bump etc. 

My comprehension skills are fine ... it's you who has gone down the AFL's path ... arguing on their behalf instead of keeping up the good fight. 

I prefer to not sellout.  People power helped reverse the Jack Viney decision and if you and others don't argue against this imbecilic ruling,  you're basically all-in with them.

If this wasn't Cotchin and it was a demon in the same circumstances, you'd have a completely different opinion. 

Tell me I'm wrong.

you're just being silly now, macca

the afl will let him play, they will say he was going for the ball, accident. To me he turned his shoulder into the GWS player and hit him high which left the GWS one very good player short all game.  I also thought there was another gws player whitfield perhaps who got a bit of a elbow or shoulder to the head  in the last quarter i wonder if that will also get looked at.

I see that an MRP member has been commenting on the situation before the MRP meets. Totally inappropriate but that's what you expect from the 'professional' AFL sadly.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-24/bump-or-brace-the-question-that-will-determine-cotchins-fate/8979586

10 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

 

I've read your previous posts about the eradication of the bump and how you hate the fact that that is happening.  So why the change of mind?  Is it because it's Richmond/Cotchin? 

So you're now arguing on behalf of the ruling ... that's ok,  I get it.  I accept your change of mind.  We're all entitled to change our minds.

But ...

If Cotchin gets cited and misses the GF,  you've then forfeited any right to argue on behalf of one of our players if a similar incident occurs in any of our games.

 

Edited September 24, 20177 yr by Macca

It may be deemed an unavoidable accidental to allow him to play.

There is high contact.

There is medium impact.

2 out of 3.

Accidental or careless. The MRV have to decide. They will be loathe to rub a player out for a GF so they will look for an out. They have to publish reasons for their decisions.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Macca said:

...If Cotchin gets cited and misses the GF,  you've then forfeited any right to argue on behalf of one of our players if a similar incident occurs in any of our games.

 

Personally I can't judge from the video and the AFL 'rules' and 'precedents' if he deserves to be rubbed out. Doubtless I'd be tempted to look at it more forgivingly if it was a Melbourne player.  But if it was a Demon player in some home & away game, I'd be happy to escape with a fine given the video and the concussion (it's clear he was stunned at the time).

The dilemma for the AFL is the huge effect of a fine in this case.  Couldn't happen to a more deserving organization.

Edited September 24, 20177 yr by sue

11 minutes ago, sue said:

I see that an MRP member has been commenting on the situation before the MRP meets. Totally inappropriate but that's what you expect from the 'professional' AFL sadly.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-24/bump-or-brace-the-question-that-will-determine-cotchins-fate/8979586

Setting up for the verdict that he braced. 

Macca. In debating you often argue about a particular point. Whether you agree to its underlying value is not in question.

This is the thing here

 Im sure nearly all contend the bump ruling as erroneous, contentious or plainly unworkable,let alone contributory to inconsistent outcomes. Thats not what some are discussing here.

There IS a rule. Cotchin is in the firing line as a result. Its not about whether the rule,that version etc is warranted. It exists,so therefore do citations when breaking it.

Given the nature of the rule might Cotchin be in trouble ? I think so as far as the rule, probably not in regards to its authors the AFL/mrp

17 minutes ago, sue said:

I see that an MRP member has been commenting on the situation before the MRP meets. Totally inappropriate but that's what you expect from the 'professional' AFL sadly.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-24/bump-or-brace-the-question-that-will-determine-cotchins-fate/8979586

They've created the "out" 

AFL ... true to form.

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

So how was he to get the ball then ?

You HAVE said it wasn't by tackling.

So how else ? And please dont tell me he had no idea the only alternative outcome was the bump.

Shiel was just going to give it to him ?

A COLLISION WAS UNAVOIDABLE WITH 2 players attacking the ball

 

FFS!!

12 minutes ago, Macca said:

I've read your previous posts about the eradication of the bump and how you hate the fact that that is happening.  So why the change of mind?  Is it because it's Richmond/Cotchin? 

So you're now arguing on behalf of the ruling ... that's ok,  I get it.  I accept your change of mind.  We're all entitled to change our minds.

But ...

If Cotchin gets cited and misses the GF,  you've then forfeited any right to argue on behalf of one of our players if a similar incident occurs in any of our games.

 

still being silly

if you want a discussion on changing the afl rules regarding tackling, or the process, consistency and independence of the mrp then start a new thread

I don't particularly want to see Richmond win a flag as Melbourne will be borderline unliveable for at least the next year as a result. That being said, if Cotchin gets rubbed out of a GF for that contest (and that's what it was) then it's a blight on the AFL and their rules.

14 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

A COLLISION WAS UNAVOIDABLE WITH 2 players attacking the ball

 

FFS!!

One HAD the ball. The other attempted to dislodge it via collision.  FFS !!

10 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

if you want a discussion on changing the afl rules regarding tackling, or the process, consistency and independence of the mrp then start a new thread

One could argue that you're the one being silly.  Or just plain stubborn.

I can't see why we can't talk about the why's & wherefore's of the ruling whilst discussing the actual incident.  Most others are ... perhaps you should take them to task as well. 

I never saw you as being such a stickler for poorly instigated rules but there you go.  Make sure you argue this strongly when it's a demon involved in such an incident.  Oh hang on, you did so with the Viney incident (the other way around though)

3 and a half years from the Viney incident and we're no closer to resolving this issue ... and we'll never get there either (save for the AFL turning the sport into 'touch' football)

I find this quote from the Afl website puzzling:

Quote

His right arm is tucked, an action that suggests Shiel is his focus, but his left arm is attempting to collect the ball. That should be enough to give the midfielder the benefit of the doubt.

I don't see where the benefit of the doubt is.  If you decide to both bump front-on and collect the ball, then you have clearly done the former to help you with the latter and a penalty should follow.     I don't see why purposely doing both simultaneously provides any doubt to benefit from.    (I'm not commenting on what happened in the Cotchin case, just the logic of the author.)

It could be argued if you take a mark running backwards and take out the opponent coming towards the ball you are not in trouble, so why should you in this case.  However that situation is somewhat different, the marking player has not decided to bump in order to get the ball, he is just going for the ball and a collision is unavoidable.  Ditto for kneeing someone in the head to take a speccy.