No Oppo Supporters General AFL and other clubs discussion thread. **Opposition fans not welcome** Part 2

[Dewnior]

And 2 X Normies

My $0.02 - if you are deemed to have been involved in any 'careless' grading incident in a preliminary then any sanction should be suspended until round 1, but the sanction doubled. Players who haven't gone out of their way to take someone out of the game can then still get the sanction they deserve but will not miss out on a grand final for a minor incident.

The problem is how do you determine intent (is gone out of their way). How does this rule apply to players who've announced retirement at season's end and won't serve any suspension?

 

[jenniferHAWKinS]

It's really difficult to gather the ball when your dominant arm is tucked in! Such a predictable decision by the MRP. Shouldn't miss a GF for that but should have got fined/suspended under the rules.

 

[Hawkboy62]

Had me wondering, too. So I went to the RFC site. Apparently they have the Swinburne Centre showing the game. Access is entry fee. Seems reasonable to me. Family is 2 adults and up to 4 juniors. If I was a tiggers fan and no ticket to the G, I would be willing to pay the $20 for a good seat surrounded by hundreds of similarly minded rabid bogans.

Good thing I am not a tiggers fan.

Seems good value.

With only 34,000 finals tickets for the 2 finalists, and many of those guaranteed to premium members, the majority of Tiger members will be locked out of the G. Much better to appreciate the game with like minded fans, without needling by jealous bogans.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

did Cotchin deserve weeks? No

But have players been done for less? Yup

 

[MinerBoy]

I wonder if this was Toby Green would the same result have occurred?

Well he did get off kicking a bloke in the face lol.

 

[burger09]

So, that pre finals bye sure ****ed things up for the teams who won their qualifying finals, didn't it.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

The problem is how do you determine intent (is gone out of their way). How does this rule apply to players who've announced retirement at season's end and won't serve any suspension?

The intent is always determined in the grading. Anything rated as careless you would assume the MRP has determined there is no intent. They could get this wrong - sure - but that is what I think it should go on. Even if you get the most severe rating of 'careless' you should still be free to play in a grand final but then pay the suspension forward.

Retiring players are always a quandry - but it has been a long time since someone has gone all Alistair Lynch on someone.

 

[Pessimistic]

people ste saying Cotchin wasn't going for the ball but he came up with it didn't he?

Free kick at worst

 

[Off The Couch]

I don't care either way and I would of been fuming if hodge had missed a gf for it but he did miss a very important game for something far less worthy than this and that's what pisses me off

Fwiw at the time I didn't think there was anything in it and neither did commentary until he got sidelined

 

[Yardie]

I think Cotchin and Ellis should have been suspended because the AFL have been going on and on about how the head is sacrosanct and the concern around concussions. But it appears that it only suits them to protect the head some of the time. At some point in the future a player will sue the AFL for concussion and they will be able to bring these types of decisions into play to show that the AFL only shows duty of care when it suits them.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

I think Cotchin and Ellis should have been suspended because the AFL have been going on and on about how the head is sacrosanct and the concern around concussions. But it appears that it only suits them to protect the head some of the time. At some point in the future a player will sue the AFL for concussion and they will be able to bring these types of decisions into play to show that the AFL only shows duty of care when it suits them.

If that is going to extend as far as incidental contact due to being a high impact, physical, fast contact sport - then we may as well put everyone in zorb balls and be done with it.

I am fine with protection of the head when there is no need to go near it - but if you honestly think in the space of time that Cotchin had (in real time was probably a handful of seconds at best) intentions to knock Shiel out then I wonder how many knocks in the head you have had.

 

[Glacier]

Besides Cotchin, how the hell did Ellis get nothing?
Bewildering

 

[Yardie]

If that is going to extend as far as incidental contact due to being a high impact, physical, fast contact sport - then we may as well put everyone in zorb balls and be done with it.

I am fine with protection of the head when there is no need to go near it - but if you honestly think in the space of time that Cotchin had (in real time was probably a handful of seconds at best) intentions to knock Shiel out then I wonder how many knocks in the head you have had.

Wow! What a fantastic finish to your post to someone that doesn't agree with your opinion.

 

[Birdofprey]

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

If that is going to extend as far as incidental contact due to being a high impact, physical, fast contact sport - then we may as well put everyone in zorb balls and be done with it.

I am fine with protection of the head when there is no need to go near it - but if you honestly think in the space of time that Cotchin had (in real time was probably a handful of seconds at best) intentions to knock Shiel out then I wonder how many knocks in the head you have had.

Ha, nice personal attack ...

I don't think anyone is suggesting he intended to knock Shiel out, however looking at the footage it was clear that his original intention was to get the ball and not worry about the man, and at the last minute shifted the direction of his body to protect the ball but also make physical contact with Shiel. Whilst he clearly did not intend to hit Shiel in the head, he did, and precedent suggests that the kind of damage done, irrespective of intention, typically results in a suspension.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Wow! What a fantastic finish to your post to someone that doesn't agree with your opinion.

I didn't explicitly suggest that you had head injuries - I was merely inferring that if you think that someone in Cotchin's position, in the time he was operating in, had the ability to deliberately knock Shiel out or even attempt to bump him with contact to the head as his end goal, then yes you are probably cause for concern.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Ha, nice personal attack ...

I don't think anyone is suggesting he intended to knock Shiel out, however looking at the footage it was clear that his original intention was to get the ball and not worry about the man, and at the last minute shifted the direction of his body to protect the ball but also make physical contact with Shiel. Whilst he clearly did not intend to hit Shiel in the head, he did, and precedent suggests that the kind of damage done, irrespective of intention, typically results in a suspension.

Wasn't a direct personal attack. Was a broad statement that when people watch things in slow motion they tend to lend a superhuman reaction time to athletes that, while skilled decision makers, are still human like anyone and can't really defy the laws of physics. Viewed in real time, Cotchin did absolutely nothing wrong and the MRP made the absolute 100% correct decision.

If you think in the less than 2 seconds (I re-watched the video - that's how long it takes) Cotchin had the ability to go for the ball, weigh up how a player was coming in behind him who he couldn't possibly see because he is facing a ball on the ground, position his shoulder to cop Shiel in the jaw with sufficient force to render him unconcious, all while then getting the ball and disposing of it, then Cotchin shouldn't be playing in a grand final this week and should instead be fighting crime in a caped costume of some sort.

 

[seysearles]

Hoping players like Cotchin and Sloane miss a grand final is lame. It was the right result and the game will be better for it.

 

[Birdofprey]

Re. photo above - I had to look up what a Zorb Ball is - I think I am getting old before my time.

I am looking forward to the grand final a lot. My great old Richmond mates have got me really feeling it for the Tigers. But I will be having a bottle of Barossa Shiraz this week out of respect for the Crows for knocking out those Cats in such emphatic fashion.

Go Hawks!!

 

[Pessimistic]

View attachment 420372

I'm calling CLASH won't somebody do something

 

[Yardie]

Wasn't a direct personal attack. Was a broad statement that when people watch things in slow motion they tend to lend a superhuman reaction time to athletes that, while skilled decision makers, are still human like anyone and can't really defy the laws of physics. Viewed in real time, Cotchin did absolutely nothing wrong and the MRP made the absolute 100% correct decision.

If you think in the less than 2 seconds (I re-watched the video - that's how long it takes) Cotchin had the ability to go for the ball, weigh up how a player was coming in behind him who he couldn't possibly see because he is facing a ball on the ground, position his shoulder to cop Shiel in the jaw with sufficient force to render him unconcious, all while then getting the ball and disposing of it, then Cotchin shouldn't be playing in a grand final this week and should instead be fighting crime in a caped costume of some sort.

All I'm saying is that the AFL goes on about concussion cause they are worried about potential lawsuits in the future. When there is a grey area and they err on the side of letting the player off they open themselves up for questioning.

Personally for bumps (side on not front on) I liked the old rule they used to have. You leave the ground and hit the head see ya in a few weeks. This meant that taller players (like Franklin) weren't given time off cause they were tall. And under this rule Cotchin would have been fine.

 

[beta_condition]

Hoping players like Cotchin and Sloane miss a grand final is lame. It was the right result and the game will be better for it.

No one was hoping but the rules are there, another example of the AFL making decisions on the fly

 

[JoeHawk]

Hoping players like Cotchin and Sloane miss a grand final is lame. It was the right result and the game will be better for it.

It was a good result but the wrong result. Spare a thought for Shiels who now has been declared unfit to even attend the Brownlow. Had GWS won he would have been doubtful. Cotchin is extremely lucky, as is Ellis. This smells much like when Hall was given the ok to play the GF. Thanks only to a bit of AFL intervention. And FWIW I'm on the Tigers bandwagon.

 

[MacMace]

I love being critical of the AFL and Match Review Panel as much as the next person, but I can't recall the precedent that many have suggested has been set in regards to similar collisions to the Cotchin one.

Could one of the posters that believes he should have been suspended upload some links to back this up.

AFL is a contact sport, accidents happen. If Cotchin (or any player for that matter) was rubbed out of a GF for courageously attacking on the ball (as opposed to a deliberate bump, aka a Buddy special), I would stop watching the game.


On SM-G900I using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[seysearles]

It was a good result but the wrong result. Spare a thought for Shiels who now has been declared unfit to even attend the Brownlow. Had GWS won he would have been doubtful. Cotchin is extremely lucky, as is Ellis. This smells much like when Hall was given the ok to play the GF. Thanks only to a bit of AFL intervention. And FWIW I'm on the Tigers bandwagon.

No one was hoping but the rules are there, another example of the AFL making decisions on the fly

Is there a different standard applied to finals as there are in the H&A? You bet there is and so there should be. AFL were obliged to find any loophole they could to get those boys onto the park. So they reached into their tool kit and made it happen. I have no problem whatsoever with players getting leniency during finals. Sloane or Cotchin missing a GF for that would have been a disgrace. What sort of game are we promoting here? They play finals at twice the pace and desperation and to adjudicate the games under exactly the same adjudication as the H&A season is not reasonable. Players should only miss grand finals for acts that are intentional and really really obvious. The stakes are too big to start having debates over whether a bloke should miss for bloody collision in a contest. Rules need to be changed so that carry over points and fines don't carry into finals also. For the record I am not supporting either team, so I don't have a horse in the race. This is just a matter of principal because I know how I would feel if Hawthorn were in that position.