Cotch freekicks?

[_RT_]

Well Crowley does same thing and Cloke gets that every week and get's no Free Kicks

You complete and utter tool. You started a thread on your board whinging about Cotchin sooking(oh the irony) and yet failed to accurately quote him while doing so.

For those unaware good old TD started a thread using the following quote by Cotchin to suggest he was a sook:

"We know there's been taggers in the game for donkey's years but, just at times, I thought I was being held illegally," Cotchin told Channel 7's Game Day program on Sunday.

What he failed to add in his haste to bag Cotchin was the following in which Cotchin doesn't actually blame Macaffer for his poor game, but rather puts the blame on himself and his teammates instead:

"But the reality is there's three umpires out there, they're doing the best they can and the onus is on myself to win the footy and to have my teammates helping me out."

 

[_RT_]

Some interesting reading for old mate TradeDraft from a 2012 interview from Scott Pendlebury:

http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8460298

In particular the opening paragraph which reads:

Collingwood's Scott Pendlebury wants to see AFL umpires pay more attention to the holding and pushing tactics employed by midfield stoppers such as Fremantle's Ryan Crowley.

Oh dear.

 

[Boggle]

Hardwick - "I'll be showing my players, that's how you tag - he (Macaffer) did a outstanding job."

Try taking the remark in context.

Dimma was clearly disgusted at the tactics employed against Cotch.

What he was saying, basically, was "if that's what you're allowed to get away with, I'm going to have to retrain my blokes because as things stand they don't engage in that sort of play."

In other words, Dimma wasn't approving of what Macaffer did, he was actually acknowledging that Macaffer's behavior goes way past anything Dimma himself has ever thought acceptable in a game of football.

 

[Boggle]

What a bunch of sooks you blokes are. If Jackson had done that to pendlebury you would have loved it......

It's been said before in this thread but...

Try listening to the opinions of non-Richmond people: the fact is that plenty of people think that Macaffer's approach was questionable regardless of which jumper he or Cotchin were wearing.

 

[Boggle]

Haha Caff is on par with a violent criminal now?!

Well, until Marley Williams gets out we won't know if Caff is on par with him or not.

 

[SApies]

Try taking the remark in context.

Dimma was clearly disgusted at the tactics employed against Cotch.

What he was saying, basically, was "if that's what you're allowed to get away with, I'm going to have to retrain my blokes because as things stand they don't engage in that sort of play."

In other words, Dimma wasn't approving of what Macaffer did, he was actually acknowledging that Macaffer's behavior goes way past anything Dimma himself has ever thought acceptable in a game of football.

Posted before I saw presser, read it as a quote from an article.

 

[Boggle]

Posted before I saw presser, read it as a quote from an article.

What? Trusting the media to give a fair account of something somebody said? You silly boy...

 

[smasha]

Good investigating RT.
TD with a bit of humble egg on the face.

 

[TJTIGER]

Well Crowley does same thing and Cloke gets that every week and get's no Free Kicks

If that is in fact the case Cloke should be getting free kicks....I go to the footy to support my club but as an AFL lover I love to see the skillfull players shine, within the rules....

 

[Hank Heavenly]

Havent read all 6 pages of this, but I tell ya what stops this in the first qrt.

With Mcaffer holding cotchin with his back to the ball, Cotch stands still while someone comes from 10m away and runs straight through Mcaffers back.

You will give away 1 free kick, but if you do it properly, he wont be in any shape to tag for the rest of the night.

 

[TJTIGER]

Havent read all 6 pages of this, but I tell ya what stops this in the first qrt.

With Mcaffer holding cotchin with his back to the ball, Cotch stands still while someone comes from 10m away and runs straight through Mcaffers back.

You will give away 1 free kick, but if you do it properly, he wont be in any shape to tag for the rest of the night.

This is exactly what will happen if this tactic by any team is allowed to continue the level of off the ball stuff will escalate. I would think it's the last thing the afl would want to see (but I'm only guessing). I'll certainly be watching to see how it will be dealt with...It's an important issue that if allowed to continue will only lead to real violence onfield as teams try to deal with "tagging" of this type...

 

[DontArgue4]

hahahah wait, are collingwood supporters seriously in here telling us to stop sooking after a whole week of sooking that poor twavis gets no frees? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH f**king spare me you fools. That spud Macaffer got away with absolute dog tactics, to even insinuate that what he was doing was legal shows a complete lack of knowledge about the game. Holding a player 50m away from play is illegal and there is nothing you can say to prove otherwise. If it was golden boy pendlebury he would have gotten 20 free kicks and the infringing player would be getting torn to shreds by the media. So kindly piss off all you idiot pies supporters.

 

[smasha]

Havent read all 6 pages of this, but I tell ya what stops this in the first qrt.

With Mcaffer holding cotchin with his back to the ball, Cotch stands still while someone comes from 10m away and runs straight through Mcaffers back.

You will give away 1 free kick, but if you do it properly, he wont be in any shape to tag for the rest of the night.

The Tigers of old.

KB used to be fodder for opposition teams as he was a champion player and to stop him,you stopped Richmond but he was guarded by Balmey and Sheeds and others.

 

[TJTIGER]

The Tigers of old.

KB used to be fodder for opposition teams as he was a champion player and to stop him,you stopped Richmond but he was guarded by Balmey and Sheeds and others.

Maybe we can get Balmey out for a game next time ???...

 

[smasha]

Richmond need to get the Richmond back.
Tough,stick up for your team mate and kill the opposition.
Northey made the players fight and he had an average list.
He nearly got them to a grand final with an average list.

I'm not bagging Dimma either.
He has fire in the belly for success.
Just watch him in the coaches box and you can see what it means to him.

 

[smasha]

Try taking the remark in context.

Dimma was clearly disgusted at the tactics employed against Cotch.

What he was saying, basically, was "if that's what you're allowed to get away with, I'm going to have to retrain my blokes because as things stand they don't engage in that sort of play."

In other words, Dimma wasn't approving of what Macaffer did, he was actually acknowledging that Macaffer's behavior goes way past anything Dimma himself has ever thought acceptable in a game of football.

I can bet you all the tea in China,the umpires would have not let our players get away with those tactics employed by MacGaffer.

 

[_RT_]

We've all seen the vision of Maxwells head high hit on Cotchin on Friday night. For those that haven't basically Cotchin was watching as Pendlebury runs away with the ball and Maxwell as usual picks then to deliver a bump to Cotchin which collects him around the neck and head area.

Now the AFLs own guidelines state:

Rough conduct – Head clashes in bumps – The Tribunal Guidelines and DVD will be amended to provide for a player to be cited for Rough Conduct, where in the bumping of an opponent he causes forceful contact to be made to his opponents head or neck – even if that contact is caused by a clash of heads.Umpires will be instructed to award free kicks and report players for rough conduct where necessary. In recent years the Tribunal DVD has proposed that a clash of heads when one player elects to bump an opponent should be regarded as having been caused by circumstances outside of the control of the player which could not reasonably be foreseen. The 2014 guidelines will reinforce to players their duty of care when they elect to bump an opponent, and that a clash of heads is an action that could reasonably be foreseen.

So not only did we have Macaffer mauling and clawing at Cotchin all night we also had a wannabe tough guy sniper in Maxwell trying to take him out as well. The only reason that the sniper got away with it was that he bump wasn't actually hard enough to do any real damage to Cotchin

 

[Equus]

I saw that bump and I was baying for blood. Absolutely ridiculous.

#justiceforcotch

 

[Jimmybob]

#justiceforcotch #niceguysfinishlast #growasettigsandeatemalive

 

[tugga]

 

[Feraligatr]

Close enough

 

[blaisee]

Would really love to be hated and despised for bending and breaking any rule we need to, to win.

Unfortunately that is not us

 

[TheProwler]

Gee Dermie and Eddie both had no issues with it last night, go figure

 

[Rich01]

No issues with the lack of penalty. The fact that the players on field don't really remonstrate when this was done to Cotchin is disappointing. On field leadership seems a real issue at the club.

 

[bigstyletiger]

I'm more worried about what MaCaffer got away with on Trent Cotchin. 5 free kicks were awarded of the possible 40. I don't care if it's Trent, Gary, Stevie J whoever, it's not good for the game to have these sorts of tactics sanctioned. If you're a midfielder and you're not playing the ball while the ball is in dispute then you should almost be called for a free. That was a disgrace.