Finals

[stellation]

I was never all that clear on the Cotchin one, but I really don't get the Ellis one.

[longmile]

Cotchin cleared. Ellis not sighted and no mention of Cotchins hit on Hopper. That's me done with the national game. For to long now the AFL look at the result they want and work backwards. Old saying this is the straw that broke the camels back. I'll be cancelling everything I subscribe to and membership In regards to the national game. Thank you for having me here and I've enjoyed all your company n I hope you all enjoy Richmonds win on Saturday. Cheers


Liz I understand your are the moderator of this forum. Could you please delete my membership/subscription if possible please. As I would prefer not to recieve any notifications from this sight as I will have no interest in the AFL from here on. Thank you

Hey at least we are not in the GF this year against the tigers. Really couldn't handle 2016 again

[stevoswan]

AFL will instruct MRP via smoke signals that it was an accidental head clash, nothing more, clear to play.
No way known will they allow their 2017 love team to lose their captain for the Granny.
Tiger fans would go berko and they actually need to win or lose this Granny with their full team.
They would have won even if Shiel was able to play out the game.

Adding to that, the issue is now clouded by a second incident with Astbury just before quarter time where they can now argue Shiel was concussed in that incident and not the Cotchin one. I still believe under the rules as they stand ie: choosing to bump and collecting the head is to be punished (Cotchin's shoulder collected Shiels jaw in a big way), that he should get a week but the MRP will go in to the case knowing if they suspend him, it will go straight to the Supreme Court and he'll get off due to the collision with Astbury.....so they'll conveniently but wrongly argue that he 'was going for the ball and the contact was incidental. Predictably skewed, conveniently flawed Victorian football league logic.....PS: I was a bit slow getting this post up....I see he's already been cleared......predictably adjudged as "going for the ball", what a joke.....it could be argued he went for the ball via the oppositions best players head but that would involve common sense, one thing the AFL doesn't possess as it doesn't lead to 'desired outcomes that suit our agenda'.

[barry]

Corrupt to the bone. This kills any notion of national competition.

[S.S. Bleeder]

Its clear to me that there are different MRP rules for the GF, especially for a fairytale club. I hope our players take note n ext year and take out our opponents best player at the start of the match.

[stevoswan]

I love the MRP's explanation....it is virtually word for word what Matthew Richardson argued after the game on Seven......complete stitch up. "Going for the ball" and "Cotchin braces for contact", a fanciful joke. This line is particularly interesting, "It was the view of the panel that Cotchin was seeking to win possession as his line of direction was always towards the ball and not his opponent" Complete fantasy....anyone viewing the incident will see he did not take the natural angle to the ball, he angled across to Shiel's face then down to the ball as a secondary motion once Shiel had reeled away, concussed. This 'mickey mouse' league continues to display a complete disdain for logic and anything which falls outside their and Victorian footy fans desires.....the feral heartland wins yet again.

[RogueSwan]

I thought is was a free kick and that's all.
I would hate for one of our boys to be suspended for a similar incident.

[stevoswan]

I thought is was a free kick and that's all.
I would hate for one of our boys to be suspended for a similar incident.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.....but the precedent has now been set. It will be interesting to see how a similar incident is treated next season. I suppose it will depend on what team the offending player is from.

[AnnieH]

Didn't we get barry hall out of gaol with a barrister before the 2005 game?
There was really nothing in it. Shiel is just a bit soft.
MRP did the right thing.

[liz]

I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.....but the precedent has now been set. It will be interesting to see how a similar incident is treated next season. I suppose it will depend on what team the offending player is from.

Except that it's already been pointed out earlier in this thread that there are plenty of similar instances where a similar judgement has been made, some of which involved Swans players. I don't think precedent has been set by this example. More that this example follows precedent set in previous, similar instances.

[ScottH]

Not sure why all the whinging.
Hall was extremely lucky to play in the 2005 GF.
The Dunkley case back in 1996 was a fiasco.

We've had our fair share of luck in Grand Finals.

[dejavoodoo44]

They may not even get onto the field on Saturday. Martin contracting a serious infection at the tattoo shop whilst getting yet another
goofy slogan, and Cotchin suffering a delayed concussion after having a run-in with his stylist and an out-of-date bottle of hair gel at
the salon next door.

Yes, well, my preseason prediction, was that Dusty would be in jail before the end of the season: so I suppose that can still happen before Saturday.

[Plugger1300]

I believe Cotchin to be very very lucky but as said on here previously we have had our luck with the MRP this year and in GF's
Let him play. We can now move on and not worry about appeals etc

[Jimitron5000]

Cotchin is very lucky, but we have had some in the past too.
Back to 1996, Dunkley was reported based on a video that I think Optus was making, following James Hird around the entire match. He was reported by video evidence on the Wednesday and was supposed to establish a case to be cleared by the following day.

[Scottee]

What happened in the past is irrelevant, players need to have their heads protected. The medical science is clear, it is the highest priority.

You also can't look at this incident in isolation, the fact is that over a number of years in finals one team gets the protection of umpires and the other doesn't.

I can't think of a sport on the planet where the rules are so arbitrary and inconsistent.I can virutally never remember a basketball game where the refs were canned, they are hardly ever blamed for bias. Gridiron, soccer , the rules are clear, even though with the low scoring of soccer the stakes are very high for the refs. Even NRL is by comparison predictable.

But AFL, my God!

A reading of the rules shows that there are 32 occasions in which the words "in the opinion of the umpire" are used to describe a rule. No wonder the rules are treated differently from team to team from game to game and from final to final. There is enormous room for bias in the rules themselves, the umpires can never be wrong. The game has absolutely no future as a world code because it is so poorly codified.I don't think that there is a game in the world that is so wide open to corruption because no-one can be held accountable.

The rules are now being interpreted in such a way that the wellbeing of the players is compromised, and it is being done in a way that favours one team over the other on too many occasions. It appears to be organised and planned. I live in hope that we will get to see a fair grand final but I am not holding my breath and I have little hope that the AFL will ever make itself genuinely accountable. I'm afraid the AFL/VFL is saying it is trying to expand the code but is in reality adopting a contraction mentality.

Sick to death of it.