If Cotchin was a Pie
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Piesnchess
piesnchess
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | The correct decision has been made. Plainly, other decisions made during the year were ridiculously wrong (including Grundy's suspension). I don't think the fact that several stupid decisions were made during the year justified suspending Cotchin. Anyway, the MRP reached the correct decision this time. |
NO, The MRP plays favourites, sticks out like dogs balls, Tiges are flavour of the month, so pretty boy cocthin does not even get hit with a wet Kleenex tissue. IF it was a Magpie, pre GF, say Grundy, hed have gotten 2 weeks minimum. FACT. 
_________________
Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.
Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb. |
|
|
|
 |
doriswilgus
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Location: the great southern land
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| RudeBoy wrote: | | 5 from the wing on debut wrote: | | RudeBoy wrote: | | I don't think he's got anything to answer for. He went in low, not to bump, but to get the ball. It was incidental conduct imo. If he was attempting a bump he'd get 2 weeks, but as he went in low it's clear his hands were extended to grab the ball. |
That's not what the video shows. The fact that his hands were not extended to go for the ball when they could have been is what will cause him the problem. He had an alternative to bumping and didn't take that alternative.
Cotchin did what every footballer in the history of the game, until a decade or so ago, would have done. He clenched his right fist, kept his right arm close to his body, turned and bumped to protect the ball. He only reached for the ball after the bump. He tried to get as low as he could but was unlucky in that he hit the head.
Whether he meant to hit him in the head, or whether there was concusssion arising from that or from a later hit, is irrelevant. If the rules are applied as written the issue is whether he is suspended for 1 or 2 games (taking into account the other two incidents this year). The area of uncertainty is whether there will be a Barry Hall type intervention in the process or not. |
The correct decision has been made as I expected.
However, had Cotchin been a Collingwood player, he'd have got 2 weeks. |
That's the rub of it.You've summed it up very well.And let's be honest,had it been a Collingwood player,the media coverage would have been very different.There would have been no overt attempt to get him off,quite the opposite in fact. |
|
|
|
|
woodys_world69
Joined: 04 Jul 2005
Location: Brisbane
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Gerard on 360 has agreed with most of us that the MRP reasoning is plain wrong. |
|
|
|
|
ANNODAM 
Rebel Heart Tour - The Forum, Los Angeles 27/10/2015.
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Location: Eltham, VIC.
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Written by me in the game day thread.
Sat Sep 23, 2017 6:57 pm
^ Are you serious?
No way! He'll get off, the filthy dog!
If it was a COLL player he'd been hung by now...
I rest my case!
_________________
WE WERE ROBBED, RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME, RIGHT IN FRONT OF MEEE!
N.Y METS, N.Y GIANTS, PENRITH PANTHERS & HOBART HURRICANES FAN.
WE ALL LOOK GOOD AT TRAINING, IT'S THE MATCHES THAT COUNT! |
|
|
|
|
Albert Parker
Joined: 13 Dec 2012
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Incorrect but obvious it would pan out that way decision.
AFL is a bit of a farce with its tribunal process.
Commercial interests over Integrity - until it costs them
_________________
One team, one dream - the Pies and this year's premiership |
|
|
|
|
bally12 
Joined: 30 Sep 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Head over the ball is the most vulnerable and dangerous position a football player can be in. It's in this position that a front-on head collision can break his neck. This is the position Shiel was in when Cotchin wrecklessly charged into him.
It's why the tackling player has not only a duty of care, but a responsibility to not hit the other player in the head. It's the reason the AFL made the statement that the head is sacrosant and that if a player was to strike another in the head, whether it be intentional, accidental, or incidental, then that player would bear the consequences of his actions. This is particularly the case if the hurt player has been concussed, and cannot take further part in the game. The severity of the injury would be used as a determinant in assessing the penalty.
So taking the above into account, what kind of logic was used to say that Cotchin has no case to answer? Absolutely disgusting decision. It says the AFL isn't serious in protecting the players from concussions. I hope in future they get hit with a class action from past players. And what if the unthinkable happens and a player ends up in a wheelchair. What then AFL? I guess it would be put down to "bad luck" right? |
|
|
|
|
Piesnchess
piesnchess
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| bally12 wrote: | Head over the ball is the most vulnerable and dangerous position a football player can be in. It's in this position that a front-on head collision can break his neck. This is the position Shiel was in when Cotchin wrecklessly charged into him.
It's why the tackling player has not only a duty of care, but a responsibility to not hit the other player in the head. It's the reason the AFL made the statement that the head is sacrosant and that if a player was to strike another in the head, whether it be intentional, accidental, or incidental, then that player would bear the consequences of his actions. This is particularly the case if the hurt player has been concussed, and cannot take further part in the game. The severity of the injury would be used as a determinant in assessing the penalty.
So taking the above into account, what kind of logic was used to say that Cotchin has no case to answer? Absolutely disgusting decision. It says the AFL isn't serious in protecting the players from concussions. I hope in future they get hit with a class action from past players. And what if the unthinkable happens and a player ends up in a wheelchair. What then AFL? I guess it would be put down to "bad luck" right? |
AND, what message does it send to young kids in the junior leagues, that's its ok to crash into a guy, knock him senseless, concussed, and get clean away with it, what If some young kid now gets seriously brain injured ?? The weak as piss MRP have now opened a very messy can of worms now, a precedent has been set, you can now concuss a player in a big Final, take him out for the rest of the damn game, and get clean away with it. !! Its disgusting and beyond belief, but that's the AFL these days, no wonder folks are walking away from the game in droves. 
_________________
Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.
Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb. |
|
|
|
|
piedys 
Heeeeeeere's Dyso!!!
Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Location: Resident Forum Psychopath since 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| bally12 wrote: | So taking the above into account, what kind of logic was used to say that Cotchin has no case to answer? Absolutely disgusting decision. It says the AFL isn't serious in protecting the players from concussions.
I hope in future they get hit with a class action from past players. |
I'd like to see that! 
_________________
M I L L A N E 4 2 forever |
|
|
|
|
orie 
A MADPIE FOR LIFE
Joined: 11 Apr 2000
Location: Heart and Soul.
|
| Post subject: cotchin | |
|
TYPICAL favouritism.
Lucky not wearing black and white.
I am Furious.
Richmond are the new Bulldogs of the AFL
_________________
'MADE IT LEGENDARY' |
|
|
|
|
Piesnchess
piesnchess
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
|
| Post subject: Re: cotchin | |
|
| orie wrote: | TYPICAL favouritism.
Lucky not wearing black and white.
I am Furious.
Richmond are the new Bulldogs of the AFL |
Yep, spot on, I wonder if the cheating yellow maggots will be instructed by that idiot Mclaughlin to give the Tiges the earth in free kicks ?? Recall last years GF , the frees count was a ludicrous 22-8, the doggies way, the swans were crucified. The Crows would want to win by at least six goals, cos the umps will give the tigers at LEAST four goals from non existant free kicks, count on it. !
_________________
Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.
Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb. |
|
|
|
|
3rd degree 
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Location: John Wren's tote
|
| Post subject: Re: cotchin | |
|
| Piesnchess wrote: | | orie wrote: | TYPICAL favouritism.
Lucky not wearing black and white.
I am Furious.
Richmond are the new Bulldogs of the AFL |
Yep, spot on, I wonder if the cheating yellow maggots will be instructed by that idiot Mclaughlin to give the Tiges the earth in free kicks ?? Recall last years GF , the frees count was a ludicrous 22-8, the doggies way, the swans were crucified. The Crows would want to win by at least six goals, cos the umps will give the tigers at LEAST four goals from non existant free kicks, count on it. ! |
I agree they will get the rub of the green , I hope Betts carves them up!
_________________
" Ohhh Banksy and out comes the Note Book".
www.facebook/the hybernators |
|
|
|
|
eddiesmith
Lets get ready to Rumble
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Location: Lexus Centre
|
| Post subject: | |
|
If that bump happened in the H&A season he is gone, but they couldn't upset the tigers faithful by rubbing out their skipper for a GF...
There is a great still showing Shiel has won the ball and Cotchin has the arm tucked in to bump
I see 2 of the 3 maggots who produced the worst finals umpiring display of all time to help Richmond on Saturday have the GF, easy to see what result the AFL want... |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Piesnchess wrote: | | bally12 wrote: | Head over the ball is the most vulnerable and dangerous position a football player can be in. It's in this position that a front-on head collision can break his neck. This is the position Shiel was in when Cotchin wrecklessly charged into him.
It's why the tackling player has not only a duty of care, but a responsibility to not hit the other player in the head. It's the reason the AFL made the statement that the head is sacrosant and that if a player was to strike another in the head, whether it be intentional, accidental, or incidental, then that player would bear the consequences of his actions. This is particularly the case if the hurt player has been concussed, and cannot take further part in the game. The severity of the injury would be used as a determinant in assessing the penalty.
So taking the above into account, what kind of logic was used to say that Cotchin has no case to answer? Absolutely disgusting decision. It says the AFL isn't serious in protecting the players from concussions. I hope in future they get hit with a class action from past players. And what if the unthinkable happens and a player ends up in a wheelchair. What then AFL? I guess it would be put down to "bad luck" right? |
AND, what message does it send to young kids in the junior leagues, that's its ok to crash into a guy, knock him senseless, concussed, and get clean away with it, what If some young kid now gets seriously brain injured ?? The weak as piss MRP have now opened a very messy can of worms now, a precedent has been set, you can now concuss a player in a big Final, take him out for the rest of the damn game, and get clean away with it. !! Its disgusting and beyond belief, but that's the AFL these days, no wonder folks are walking away from the game in droves. |
The issue revolves around whether Cotchin was diving in low to get the ball or whether he was diving in low to bump. The MRP concluded that it was the former, and that the head contact was incidental to his main objective. I lean towards that view as well, as Cotchin did have one arm outstretched towards the ball, and in fact he came out of the contest with the ball in both his hands. However, a reasonable case can also be made that the side-ways roll of his body was evidence of a deliberate bump. So overall, I think it's a 50/50 call. What is clear however, is that the AFL play favourites, and had Cotchin been a Collingwood player he'd have got 2 weeks without doubt. |
|
|
|
|
Piesnchess
piesnchess
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| eddiesmith wrote: | If that bump happened in the H&A season he is gone, but they couldn't upset the tigers faithful by rubbing out their skipper for a GF...
There is a great still showing Shiel has won the ball and Cotchin has the arm tucked in to bump
I see 2 of the 3 maggots who produced the worst finals umpiring display of all time to help Richmond on Saturday have the GF, easy to see what result the AFL want... |
Precisely, but hopefully the Crows will crap all over them by a big margin, and the corrupt umps CANNOT save em! 
_________________
Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.
Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb. |
|
|
|
|
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Piesnchess wrote: | | eddiesmith wrote: | If that bump happened in the H&A season he is gone, but they couldn't upset the tigers faithful by rubbing out their skipper for a GF...
There is a great still showing Shiel has won the ball and Cotchin has the arm tucked in to bump
I see 2 of the 3 maggots who produced the worst finals umpiring display of all time to help Richmond on Saturday have the GF, easy to see what result the AFL want... |
Precisely, but hopefully the Crows will crap all over them by a big margin, and the corrupt umps CANNOT save em! |
You think so?
If you watched a replay of last year's GF you wouldn't say that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
