Trent Cotchin bump on Dylan Shiel

[Beerfish]

Shouldn't be playing if the AFL was consistent but since we all know they're not and just make it up as they go along it's all good.

 

[DemonTim]

This isn't really the place to post this as im not trying to single out Cotchin, but the dismissing of concussion in the AFL grinds my gears a tad.

It's overly simplistic to say, "that's what they are and should be taught at junior level"

Do you not agree that if rules should allow players to play with vigorous intent, then surely there should be ownership by clubs at senior and grass roots level to better educate, or are you happy with the level of concussion that is present in the AFL at the moment?

Quoting the incidence of concussion shows very little and club guidelines are much more proactive and cautious than in previous years. Trust me. From knowing club doctors they err on the side of diagnosing concussion rather than not, this is relatively new (players are also being more open and honest with testing than in the past)

I've discussed this previously. Due to the AFL bringing in much stricter rules on high contact, the coaching at junior levels on defensive approaches and protect oneself in a contest have almost disappeared.

I am not one to dismiss concussion, seeing as I understand what club doctors deal with, check my posting history if you doubt this. I've had man arguments about people whinging about "fake" medical reports citing concussion to get players suspended. Barking up the wrong tree here.

 

[Uneik]

You've yet to actually say anything of substance...

Do you have anything on topic to add or something to refute?

Already said my piece both here and elsewhere in this forum, no need to 'bang-on', waffle further, or keep banging head against brick walls, but will make a brief comment where I feel applicable or warranted......depending upon which hat I happen to be wearing or need to put on.

 

[DemonTim]

Already said my piece both here and elsewhere in this forum, no need to 'bang-on', waffle further, or keep banging head against brick walls, but will make a brief comment where I feel applicable or warranted......depending upon which hat I happen to be wearing or need to put on.

So you have nothing to add an just wanted to whinge at me

Good to know.

 

[These 4 Walls]

"At the point in which he decided to make the bump, he would have known that Shiel easily would have gotten to the ball first"
The ball was bouncing up until about 0.9-1.1s prior to Cotchin bracing, contact is made about 0.55s after Shiel has gotten the ball
To say that he easily got there first and that cotchin would've known it was happening like that is a lie

Cotchin also is very poor in technique if that's how he "chooses to bump"

Is there anything available to dispute the above?

It seems that every time someone starts referencing the fact that before the severity of the damage is caused, the act that caused it needs to be considered reportable is ignored and the severity of the injury or prior incidents where the act was considered reportable is/are recirculated.

As a collective, do we supporters know the rules? Are we really even taught what they are anymore or are we meant to be learning them from the media who very clearly do not all see them the same way?

 

[Davo63]

I've coached/assistant coached 11s to 13s. Have you coached juniors DemonTim?

If you had, you might know that the AFL level 1 coaches manual says this: "only bump when an opponent does not have the ball. If he does have the ball apply a tackle". Now personally I don't think it should be black and white in that.

BUT while I have always told kids to brace to protect themselves I have always said that you cannot ever bump an opponent high just because the ball is there. They hav a duty of care to others just like we would hope them to apply when they are bumping us. If one of my junior players drove into an opponent's head who was open like that I'd be wondering what that kids parents would think, and what I would think or my missus would think if it was our kid on the receiving end. If our kid delivered a bump to the head of an opponent like that frankly I'd be embarrassed, ball there or not.

 

[Sir_Loin]

It's not the nub of the matter, the MRP didn't mark him against the guidelines they've been given.

At the point in which he decided to make the bump, he would have known that Shiel easily would have gotten to the ball first, if he chose to bump, he should have shown enough duty of care to avoid head contact.

The game evolves, but if the AFL decide that players have the right to vigorously attack the contest, thats fine, but then they need to then educate the clubs better on execution in contested football situations.

At the moment, I think there is a soft approach to both solutions.

Didn’t bump. MRP said so

 

[Sir_Loin]

According to Dylan it was Cotch, said he couldn't see straight after the hit. GWS should have taken him off then.

Got four pretty handy disposals straight after running into cotch. Seemed fine then

 

[Sir_Loin]

If his focus was always on winning the ball why did he brace his shoulder and ram Shiel? Surely if going for the ball your arms and hands would be extended? This is what I don't get. He went the man, probably in anticipation that Shiel would spill the ball. I don't think his intention was to maim or make contact with the head, but that is what happened. Clearly in this case Shiel's head was NOT sacrosanct

You’re right he should have gone in head first and knocked both himself and Shiel out at the same time. FFS.

 

[DemonTim]

I've coached/assistant coached 11s to 13s. Have you coached juniors DemonTim?

If you had, you might know that the AFL level 1 coaches manual says this: "only bump when an opponent does not have the ball. If he does have the ball apply a tackle". Now personally I don't think it should be black and white in that.

BUT while I have always told kids to brace to protect themselves I have always said that you cannot ever bump an opponent high just because the ball is there. They hav a duty of care to others just like we would hope them to apply when they are bumping us. If one of my junior players drove into an opponent's head who was open like that I'd be wondering what that kids parents would think, and what I would think or my missus would think if it was our kid on the receiving end. If our kid delivered a bump to the head of an opponent like that frankly I'd be embarrassed, ball there or not.

It's like you've ignored all I've said and just ranted about me coaching kids to smash each other's heads

I've explicitly spoken about protecting ones body

This could be why you chose not to quote me

 

[Boogy]

Just Wrong.
He clinches his right fist and tucks his shoulder about 1.5 m from contact and accelerates.
Just bc its low doesnt matter. His shoulder was in line with his head.
Paused picture shows the same time he is tucking up and preparing for contact Shiels is trying to gather ball.
Everyone craps on about Cockchin being fair.
He's the same guy that changed the jumper punch rules when he hit Neale in the jaw.

 

[Boogy]

The other tiger got off as well.
WTF.
The MRP: 2 said bump 2 said not.
But they didn't refer it because the law would rub him out.

 

[dplggr47]

Shiel can sue the AFL if he ever gets post concussion symptoms later on in life because the AFL didn't do its duty of care to reduce this type of incident.

 

[sprockets]

Just Wrong.
He clinches his right fist and tucks his shoulder about 1.5 m from contact and accelerates.
Just bc its low doesnt matter. His shoulder was in line with his head.
Paused picture shows the same time he is tucking up and preparing for contact Shiels is trying to gather ball.
Everyone craps on about Cockchin being fair.
He's the same guy that changed the jumper punch rules when he hit Neale in the jaw.

While you're looking at paused pictures, show us one where his shoulder is in contact with Shiel's head. I'll save you the trouble though, there isn't one because it didn't happen. Just because his shoulder is in the same vertical plane as Shiel's head when they were 1.5m apart doesn't mean shoulder to head contact was made. The contact was actually between Cotchin's back and Shiel's chin. It's clear that Cotchin did his best NOT to injure Shiel, apart from not contesting the ball at all.

 

[DemonTim]

Shiel can sue the AFL if he ever gets post concussion symptoms later on in life because the AFL didn't do its duty of care to reduce this type of incident.

Actually he would most likely only be able to sue his club, especially if he claims he was stuffed, couldn't see etc after the hit, and their doctors provided no treatment.

What grounds would he sue the Afl For non suspension?

 

[Boogy]

While you're looking at paused pictures, show us one where his shoulder is in contact with Shiel's head. I'll save you the trouble though, there isn't one because it didn't happen. Just because his shoulder is in the same vertical plane as Shiel's head when they were 1.5m apart doesn't mean shoulder to head contact was made. The contact was actually between Cotchin's back and Shiel's chin. It's clear that Cotchin did his best NOT to injure Shiel, apart from not contesting the ball at all.

Yeh and he never punched Neale in the chin.
The jumper did it.
Poor Cotchin.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Shiel can sue the AFL if he ever gets post concussion symptoms later on in life because the AFL didn't do its duty of care to reduce this type of incident.

So if the AFL suspended Cotchin Shiel wouldn’t get post concussion symptoms and then wouldn’t be able to sue the AFL?

 

[Uneik]

So if the AFL suspended Cotchin Shiel wouldn’t get post concussion symptoms and then wouldn’t be able to sue the AFL?

I think the comments are in reference to the rule/s in general, not Cotchin specifically.

Off Thread topic:
Due to the litigious nature/direction now occurring more-so in Australian society and flowing onto Sport, maybe one dramatic rule change should be considered.....Ban the bump!, I think it;s heading that direction anyway when considering other bans or rule changes occurring., diving on ball, jumper punches and so-on.

 

[sprockets]

I think the comments are in reference to the rule/s in general, not Cotchin specifically.

Off Thread topic:
Due to the litigious nature/direction now occurring more-so in Australian society and flowing onto Sport, maybe one dramatic rule change should be considered.....Ban the bump!, I think it;s heading that direction anyway when considering other bans or rule changes occurring., diving on ball, jumper punches and so-on.

What constitutes a bump, in football?

 

[Relton Roberts]

So if the AFL suspended Cotchin Shiel wouldn’t get post concussion symptoms and then wouldn’t be able to sue the AFL?

He could probably sue his own club and medical staff for putting him back on the ground


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Sir_Loin]

He could probably sue his own club and medical staff for putting him back on the ground


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I’m in interested in the line of thinking that somehow Shiels concussion symptoms go away with Cotchin being suspended

 

[kickazz]

What constitutes a bump, in football?

I'd say it's when you use the momentum of your body to change the momentum of another player by deliberately colliding with them, but not grabbing them.

 

[kickazz]

I’m in interested in the line of thinking that somehow Shiels concussion symptoms go away with Cotchin being suspended

Err, wut? Is anyone actually stupid enough to suggest that?

 

[Sttew]

Can't believe this topic is still alive. Just goes to show the football world is divided and that the MRP got it wrong

 

[Aramis]

Love this cartoon from Mark Knight.