beelzebub

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 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.

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.

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.

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

There would be a growing chorus in respect to this alone. He wasn't the only one whose game was well down upon return. I think Jack (v) pushed a bit too hard, as is his way. Now look !!

@Sir Why You Little Im not convinced that there were more than a few returning with injuries not fully rectified. This may be a case of need over nurture but we were told players would not be chanced. They certainly seemed so at times. This is Missons preserve but probably not his call it seems.

Time for thar thread possibly @rpfc We're critiquing everyone and everything else, time for ' him' And fair's fair. Goodwin is not above or aside from such discussion.

Mrp should decide today. There are no other games or incidents ( to come)to ponder. AFL..a sham of professionalism.

Oh. Well they ought know. Hand him the Normy now !!

i think this goes to the core of it.

you may well be right....but it will only fuel the critics of the AFL who cry hypocrisy

Often the notion of change if only for change's sake , is pilloried as misguided, unwarranted and all but ignorance. Are we as successful in this department as might be though. Are our current results whilst not bad , not brilliant ? We aim to raise the bar in all areas of the club's performance. Could this area be better ? If it can be better , if we are only comparing our current status to a previous might we not look outwardly and everywhere as to what is now state of the art ? Arw we there ? If not...we should aim to be. That might require fresh faces. It might.

If he is cited ? How do you unsee that ?

Hang on Are you suggesting he doesn't ?

Im torn. I'd rather not than do but rather there than not !!

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.

You mean ...like actually use the emergencies ? Sorry no room for logic. It's AFL

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.

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

That went well.

Strangely i could see the argument as: You (cotchin ) had the time, the wherewithal and awareness to pull your arm in but werent able to avoid the contest ? This of course is true . Also true no one can stop on a sixpence once committed. Its vexed. Im damn curious how the AFL will get out of this. They will...but how ?

....Black shorts and rainbow hooped socks !!

This is hard for me Bartlett is right There i said it. Have to go shower now...

The problem for Cotchin is 1) there was without doubt contact 2) Shiel was concussed 3) he's got a tab running. Normally the mrp would downgrade it to a nothing kinda fine. So its more a case that the mrp has nowhere to go. It cant say it was nothing. It can't just sweep it under the carpet. So any form of something os just a bit too much. This ought to be entertaining.