2 hours ago, binman said:

The AFL will somehow find a way to let him walk conspiracy palaver is ridiculous. 

Exactly. And totally illogical, since the MRO is employed by the AFL and the tribunal aren’t.

The absolute nerve of challenging the suspension should be worth an extra 2 or 3 weeks.

A missed opportunity for the AFL to show the public that a big name is not an automatic downgrade of said charge.

A 4 week penalty would have been a lovely "[censored] you" to Franklin and the Swans. As would a 1 week ban for Cotchin being a total [censored].

Edited June 1, 20223 yr by faultydet
I'm on the turps. It's a miracle I can type English at any level.

Bud should have recieved an extra week for the stupidity of challenging the charge.

17 minutes ago, faultydet said:

The absolute nerve of challenging the suspension should be worth an extra 2 or 3 weeks.

A missed opportunity for the AFL to show the public that a big name is not an automatic downgrade of said charge.

A 4 week penalty would have been a lovely "[censored] you" to Franklin and the Swans. As would a 1 week ban for Cotchin being a total [censored].

I’m not on the turps and not only did I understand every word you said, but I also agree with you. 
Maybe I need to get on the turps. 
Watching my girl Iga Świątek clean up at Roland Garros rn. 

 

Yeah, we all agree at the Demons........

 

"Mr Franklin intended to strike Mr Cotchin," Gleeson said.

"He was looking directly at him. His response was spontaneous sand intentional."

It concluded a heated evening in which Franklin said Cotchin "exaggerated" the contact and the AFL counsel Andrew Woods described Franklin's action as "cowardly".

Woods said Franklin was "angry" when Cotchin bumped him off the ball.

 

 

Trent Cotchin reacts after a confrontation with Lance Franklin in Sydney's win over Richmond in round 11, 2022. Picture: Phil Hillyard

"It's an element of luck that Cotchin does not sustain a more serious injury," he said.

"It's precisely what a professional AFL player should know what not to do.

"It's brazen, it's cowardly and the opposing player isn't expecting that to happen to him.

"It's AFL, not Fight Club or a combat sport."

 

 

2 hours ago, DubDee said:

I guess the conspiracy theorists can take a break for a week

He is Buddy so of course he will get off!

Yeah nah

You say that as if the MRP has displayed any sort of consistency when it involves high profile players including Franklin in the past.
Short memory.

 

3 minutes ago, David-Demon said:

 

Yeah, we all agree at the Demons........

 

"Mr Franklin intended to strike Mr Cotchin," Gleeson said.

"He was looking directly at him. His response was spontaneous sand intentional."

It concluded a heated evening in which Franklin said Cotchin "exaggerated" the contact and the AFL counsel Andrew Woods described Franklin's action as "cowardly".

Woods said Franklin was "angry" when Cotchin bumped him off the ball.

 

 

Trent Cotchin reacts after a confrontation with Lance Franklin in Sydney's win over Richmond in round 11, 2022. Picture: Phil Hillyard

"It's an element of luck that Cotchin does not sustain a more serious injury," he said.

"It's precisely what a professional AFL player should know what not to do.

"It's brazen, it's cowardly and the opposing player isn't expecting that to happen to him.

"It's AFL, not Fight Club or a combat sport."

 

 

I know Andrew Woods. He is a ripper bloke. Well done sir!! 

I think you only had to look at the vision and ask one simple question.  Is this what we want to see happen in a game? Game over Buddy 

10 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Correct decision.

Disappointing, as I'd prefer to watch Buddy on Saturday night at the G.

I agree and I get the disappointment. Looking forward to May taking care of Buddy come finals, if Sydney are good enough to make it that far!  
In the meantime I hope we give them a good towelling. GO DEES 😎

Personally i'm glad Buddy isn't playing. No match-up with May out. He has an x-factor and quite capable of kicking 3-4 goals against us so our chances of winning are 10-15% better with him suspended.

Ripper bloke? Well played ? Well played Sir.

So he stands up in a forum where Franklin can't respond and says it was cowardly. Really?

Most people would assess that lawyer's performance as, at best, pretty average.

Interestingly, he mainly does royal commissions. Not exactly throwing himself into the heat of battle.

3 hours ago, BDA said:

Personally i'm glad Buddy isn't playing. No match-up with May out. He has an x-factor and quite capable of kicking 3-4 goals against us so our chances of winning are 10-15% better with him suspended.

I'm inclined to think otherwise. The Swans are Buddy-conscious and try to deliver it to him 90% of the time. Last year, when he didn't play, their forward line became more unpredictable, and they won games without him. They have numerous targets that will continue to test our defence.

26 minutes ago, Bystander said:

So he stands up in a forum where Franklin can't respond and says it was cowardly. Really?

Yes, "cowardly" does miss the mark. Going toe to toe against a bloke known to deal out a bit of biffo himself  doesn't strike me as "cowardly". Maybe "rash", "impulsive", a bunch of other possibilities, but "cowardly"?

2 hours ago, Bystander said:

Ripper bloke? Well played ? Well played Sir.

So he stands up in a forum where Franklin can't respond and says it was cowardly. Really?

Most people would assess that lawyer's performance as, at best, pretty average.

Interestingly, he mainly does royal commissions. Not exactly throwing himself into the heat of battle.

Isn’t that what Buddy’s counsel does on his behalf? overdramatising for effect much?

Also, he can still be a ripper bloke. That’s not contingent on how he handled the case, nor on the outcome. 
 

21 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Isn’t that what Buddy’s counsel does on his behalf? overdramatising for effect much?

Also, he can still be a ripper bloke. That’s not contingent on how he handled the case, nor on the outcome. 
 

Agree.  I trust Bystander was even more outraged by the Swans' lawyers cheap shot about Cotchin being more likely to get an Oscar than a Brownlow? Cotchin wasn't even represented - had no way of defending himself.   (I also agree with Mazer R, that cowardly wasn't appropriate.)

39 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Isn’t that what Buddy’s counsel does on his behalf? overdramatising for effect much?

Also, he can still be a ripper bloke. That’s not contingent on how he handled the case, nor on the outcome. 
 

Wow, not a lot of love for Andrew in this thread ...  😢

I have briefed Andrew many times. He is an outstanding barrister.

Y'all stop being mean about him ! 

11 minutes ago, Winners at last said:

Wow, not a lot of love for Andrew in this thread ...  😢

I have briefed Andrew many times. He is an outstanding barrister.

Y'all stop being mean about him ! 

Seems it’s pretty much the one poster who’s being mean (his initials are BYSTANDER.) 
If you say Andrew’s a fine fellah, then he’s a fine fellah! 😁

He will be a fine fellow when he apologises for the slur...as his client has done.

Calling someone an actor is not in the same class as calling a person a coward.

21 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

I was actually quoting Buddy’s counsel. Thought that would’ve been obvious since I BARRACK FOR THE DEES. 🤣

Apologies, I have clearly misread your comment. My bad 

23 minutes ago, Bystander said:

He will be a fine fellow when he apologises for the slur...as his client has done.

Calling someone an actor is not in the same class as calling a person a coward.

But he wasn't  simply calling Cotchin an actor.   Seems a strange issue to make a fuss about.

 

Didn't see the AFL intervene, apologise and tell some ex Carlton rabbit to pull his head in, when he called us cowardly.Albeit not directly..

Poor Buddy ... did the mean man call him a mean word? Or more accurately describe his actions as "##"? (I won't repeat the c word.)

Perhaps he should reflect on "sticks & stones ..."?

It’s amazing how similar Cotchin’s (over) -reaction was to Roger Dean’s when Ron Barassi didn’t strike him in 1962, leading to a 4 week suspension, missing the finals, and possibly costing us a premiership

2 minutes ago, Winners at last said:

Poor Buddy ... did the mean man call him a mean word? Or more accurately describe his actions as "##"? (I won't repeat the c word.)

Perhaps he should reflect on "sticks & stones ..."?

Perhaps your mate can be a professional and not call someone a coward in official proceedings. It is embarrassing to the sport and to himself.