Macca

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.

And I haven't changed my stance

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.

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)

It certainly is (3 years later)

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.

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. Yeah I have ... a long time ago. Perhaps the penny has just dropped for you.

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

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I could take your stance but If I did, then I might be then calling for a situation where a player in Shiel's situation can just pick the ball up unimpeded. Incidental contact to the head area is just bad luck ... no one wants to see players taken out but that is a completely different argument. What we see hundreds of times in a game is 2 or more players going for the ball at the same time. Head knocks & head clashes are an inevitable consequence of those actions. The AFL's legislation with the head being sacrosanct has no finishing line. Unless you can see where that finishing line is? What's your opinion on where it all stops so that we all have a clear understanding of what's legal and what isn't legal?

I couldn't care less about Cotchin - you are missing the point I'm making. Lose your bias and look at the issue in a clinical way.

The next step is 'tackle-free' football ... they're already legislating against the bump. If we're so concerned about brain injuries then ban the sport totally - because that's the only true way of fixing that issue. Head injuries/concussions are going to occur because of the nature of the sport. I'll say it again ,... ping a player who deliberately targets the head. The rest of it is just footy. What we now have is a confused mess ... and the outcomes look like they've been pre-arranged. As @Redleg stated, if this had have happened during the season he gets a holiday (Cotchin) but as for next Saturday, he'll almost certainly be a participant. So, how is that not confusing?

Rules? Yeah, when they're applied ... or when they're not applied. The sport would be so much easier to understand if the rules were more clear-cut. The fact that the Cotchin incident is even a talking point is quite ridiculous ... to me it's just play-on and if it was play-on, there's no issue. The AFL are creating another huge grey area and it's as if they're doing so deliberately to keep people talking about the sport. Oh, hang on ...

A player will naturally turn his body side-on when contact is inevitable ... what may look like a deliberate bump is often just a normal footy movement. Most onlookers were unaware that Shiel had even sustained a head knock - his shoulder was the focus (at least initially) I don't have a dog in this fight as I couldn't care less whether Cotchin plays in the GF or not. Where I do have a bias is the sport itself ... incidents like this happen all the time and what's to stop players feigning a head knock* to milk a free kick - as a result of that there would then be a compulsion to cite the perpetrator to the MRP. Where does it all start & finish? *We are already seeing various players milking free kicks for high contact tackles. And that issue is getting worse.

The AF.L tribunal should have found the Essendon 34 guilty based the level of guilt required (comfortable satisfaction) but they were found not guilty. This will almost certainly go the same way but Ellis might be the one to go ... again, more desired outcomes.

'Technically' he's in trouble (according to rhe current ruling) but the ruling still has just enough grey area for a desired outcome to be obtained. The AFL creates then breaks its own rules on a constant basis so why would this be any different?

The AFL can learn from other sports with regards to the head being targeted deliberately. In League, Union and even in the NFL, penalised infringements to the head/neck area are nearly always quite obvious. Currently in the AFL, most onlookers are either confused or they don't agree with the adjudication of such incidents. And whilst the players have generally stopped targeting the head deliberately, a number of the players would be equally confused. What happened to Shiel today should just be looked upon as an unfortunate incident.

The whole situation is a farce ... deliberate targeting of the head should be penalised but incidental contact to the head due to normal football moves not so. The same principle could be applied to the contentious 'around-the-neck' adjudication. They need to make it simple and clear cut rather than create more grey areas. It's not rocket science but the AFL are trying their best to make it that way.

Got a bit tight in the end but the Hammers tardy start was costly (again) The better team won. Too little too late and the pressure is going to come on Bilic now. But that's par for the course with regards to being a soccer manager (especially in England) ... win, or you're out.

I maintain we did fantastically well to make the 2000 GF and ditto for the 1988 GF appearance. I didn't give the team much of a shot in either GF and that's how it played out. We were a 13/9 team in '88 and a 14/8 team in 2000. And we were up against juggernaut teams in both years. But supporters get their hopes up and who can blame them? I'm more disappointed with regards to '87, '90, '94 & '98 when we might have been able to pinch a flag in each of those years (more so '90 & '98) And it all went pear-shaped in 2004 as well. We haven't really had a dominant season proper since the Smith years ... since the advent of the 22 round season, teams that win 17 - 19+ games could best be described as dominant teams. And those dominant teams always have top grade lists. If our list ever has an abundance of B, B+ & A grade players, we'll be a genuine threat. 16 -18 of those types means we will go close to finishing in the top 2. We're a ways off but we can get there.