How many weeks for cotchin's dangerous tackle?

[WilloTree]

Cotchin - should take his chances at the MRP chook lotto like everyone else. What that spits out is anyone's guess.

Lynch - Probably a fine, but why do it? Surely someone from Richmond has a word with him this week.

 

[theyellowsash]

since apparently you're too stupid to remember what actually happened, here it is again.

play has stopped, as you can see from everyone staring at the ump
tough guy bouffant cotchin then comes in with a coathanger and uses centrifugal motion to try and rip jones' head off.

which part of that is accidental?
the part where he tackles him after play has stopped? the part where it is very obviously high despite jones standing upright? or the part where he continues the tackle even after he knows its high, dragging the player to ground by his neck?

Who's this Gordon guy and why does his opinion matter?

 

[theyellowsash]

We're suspending players for sling tackles.

This one just so happened to be around the guys neck.

Except it wasn't a sling tackle

 

[backtozero]

Except it wasn't a sling tackle

Take the black and yellow sunglasses off.

 

[theyellowsash]

Yes. And accidental high bumps. Have you been in a coma since 2007?

Hey look, someone who doesn't know the rules.

Accidental high bumps are suspendable because the rules say that if you choose to bump and it gets the player high, it doesn't matter if it was an accident or not.

There is no rule which says that a high tackle is suspendable.

 

[theyellowsash]

Take the black and yellow sunglasses off.

I'm not sure you understand what a sling tackle is.

 

[HairyO]

Heard the umpire loud and clear on my TV saying “I didn’t see it” when a St.Kilda player protested.

The 2 other field umpires were checking their email ?

 

[theyellowsash]

No it’s “the potential to cause injury” precedent.

Will be interesting to see whether Christian has the balls to follow up from his decision last week.

Thing is, that can only be applied to something which is a suspendable action in the first place. A high tackle isn't, or else every contest or free kick would be a suspension based on potential Injury.

 

[Stax on the mill]

Funny, because I look at these shots and see the only thing that Lynch has eyes for IS the ball, until the Aints defender whacks him in the head making an unrealistic attempt to spoil a mark, and in the process shifts Lynch's right arm into the head of PatonView attachment 981806View attachment 981807View attachment 981808

Nice story bro.

 

[PostmanBish]

The 2 other field umpires were checking their email ?

More likely their SportsBet multi ...

 

[Stealth69]

Ben Long got a week for his bump that others got away with.

Hayden Crozier got a week for a sling tackle, no arms pinned, for "potential to cause injury" when others have performed worse tackles, with arms pinned, and got away with it.

It's not a Vic club privilege, it's a Richmond privilege

There were 2 actions in the Crozier tackle, he wrapped Martin up in a tackle then flung him to the turf, head first... Marty was hurt by the tackle, came straight off and even had blood streaming from his temple area...
This and the Cotch tackle were 2 totally different actions, force and results. Though I do admit he "rag dolled" him and it was excessive to what a tackle should be, what one makes of it, we shall see but your or my opinion won't change the outcome and happy to discuss without bias

Long decided to avoid a tackle and bump. Caught Mcrae flush in the head. Had it been a softer player he'd be lying on the turf milking a free. But not hard man MCrae... he got up and played on

I posted that since MCrae wasn't impacted, and being a final, Long should play, however I'm not the judiciary...

 

[Duckenthusiast]

id rather cotchin plays to be honest.. hes a liability, you'd be a better side without him

That's why I am mixed. He should get 2-3 weeks for it but with the finals/ good bloke discount he will get 0-1. He makes them better by not being in the side and gives them a 'do it for cotch' motivation to get into a GF.

 

[dumb]

Not much in the lynch one.

Cotchin's started out as just a classic coat hanger. After that I'm a bit confused, they both kind of pirouette with Jones landing on Cotchin's back before he hits the ground. Any slinging is sideways rather than dumping down.
It's been a while since I bothered trying to understand the rules re: dangerous tackles. I think the AFL may have loosened the interpretation so that Michael Christian and the MRP aren't preoccupied with bizarre technicalities like the number of countable actions before they deem it dangerous.

 

[Pusswah]

The drama with this sort of shit being let go is that will become the norm.

You cannot have that tackle being performed every single game.

When that tackle, and the cheap shit that pricks like Lynch seem to pull every week or two, it will become a free for all and all of a sudden there will be all sorts of shit going on.

Players see that they can get away with it and it becomes another item in the toolkit - if they can do it, so can we.

 

[Accepted 04]

Afl reviewed and changed the rule after that.

I’m talking about the second time, with the same action and no suspension.

 

[Bulldog1954]

That's why I am mixed. He should get 2-3 weeks for it but with the finals/ good bloke discount he will get 0-1. He makes them better by not being in the side and gives them a 'do it for cotch' motivation to get into a GF.

Staggered to read multiple Port posters say Richmond are better without Cotchin, it’s ridiculous.

Also, it’s a preliminary final, the motivation of a grand final is clear, extra motivation isn’t needed.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

EXACTLY!!!

Thank you for asking, was hoping someone would pick up on that...

umpires were there. They paid a free to Saints, Cotchin tackled b4 he had a chance to not tackle, clumsy and high.

Was never a 50 if anything it would have been that Saints players free, but there was one just picked out and played is deemed as halted... great umpiring

We move on

Great umpiring?

The umpire said he didn't see it.

 

[AndyLucimitis]

He will probably get let off but all I can say is that watching live on TV at the time I said in my best Alf Stewart voice ' Strike a light' !!.

It was a very,very reckless tackle and clearly designed to try and intimidate. Whether that means he gets rubbed out - I don't know ??

 

[Yojimbo]

We need some footage on young Ben Paton running off the ground after the Tom Lynch elbow as he is "Wearing the crimson mask" looking like an extra from a
horror movie, it's in the AFL.com highlights package of the game, but i am not an IT wizard so some help would be appreciated.

 

[Duckenthusiast]

Staggered to read multiple Port posters say Richmond are better without Cotchin, it’s ridiculous.

Also, it’s a preliminary final, the motivation of a grand final is clear, extra motivation isn’t needed.

He hasn't got 20 touches since round 14 and he's running at 'average' on basically every stat. inb4 he gets 30 and kicks 2 on us. I could pick 10 blokes in Richmond that I'd rather see miss than him.

 

[Bulldog1954]

He hasn't got 20 touches since round 14 and he's running at 'average' on basically every stat. inb4 he gets 30 and kicks 2 on us. I could pick 10 blokes in Richmond that I'd rather see miss than him.

Which of the guys not getting a game for Richmond would you pick ahead of him?

 

[Duckenthusiast]

Which of the guys not getting a game for Richmond would you pick ahead of him?

I mean, Chol tore us up last time as did Arts. Caddy maybe.

 

[Bulldog1954]

I mean, Chol tore us up last time as did Arts. Caddy maybe.

If you would seriously pick any of them ahead of Cotchin I don't know what to say. To me it seems ignorant and ridiculous, but each to their own I guess.

 

[Duckenthusiast]

If you would seriously pick any of them ahead of Cotchin I don't know what to say. To me it seems ignorant and ridiculous, but each to their own I guess.

Who do you reckon gets picked first out of Gray and Butters? Players are guns until they're not. Chol would be a huge in for them as he would combat our two pronged ruck and I can guarantee 3 x 6'6 forwards would challenge our defence. Bolton 100% midfield time over Cotchin. That would exploit our two weaknesses - Tall KPF and super quick ball movement. Cotchin isn't going to beat up Wines/SPP/Rockliff/Boak in the middle.

 

[Drought Break]

Add Phil Carman in 1977, and Gordon Coventry in 1936. There’s a clear anti Pies pattern emerging here.

yeh mate, no free barry hall campaign run by the media for our mob, dont think there has been any other club have a player suspended for GF this century. we have 2.