MRP / Trib. 2023 MRP Lotto

[Zondor]

Preceident now set is that you can smash the oppositions best player out of a prelim and still play in a GF
If you play for the Victorian feel good story team

No doubt Scotts has gots us primed to be "that" team next season. :stern look

 

[Only Forwards]

The comp is a joke.

A joke that this type of contact is considered anything other than incidental contact.

A joke that by their own butchered rulebook he HAD to be suspended byt STILL brushed it off because it didn't suit their agenda.

They are destroying our once great game and I'm just about done forking out my hard earned and lining the pockets of these corrupt limp dick corporation men.

This sums up my feelings.

They made the rules and the table by which to judge them.

Now they don't apply because reasons.

 

[Only Forwards]

Honestly, this is the shit that should feed everyone on this board and at the club with fuel for the fire. Cos when it's our turn at the top we'll have done it in spite of the AFL's dishonesty, not because of it.

We should look at this shit and hate the f***ing world.

 

[Groin guru]

This isn't inept. It's by design.

You could tell how this was going to work out the moment the media spin went on to high rotation.

Yep. Some players are suspended by half time on friday night due to stevens or mcclure getting into gear. Then question marks on the afl site and sunday footy show.

Compare that to cotchin - AFL posted that both coaches were suggesting he should get off. Ling, darcy and co instantly defending him, and every current AFL journalist went into high gear saying he was innocent. Barrett topped it off by saying that they are enough avenues for the AFL to get him off.

1. Why would the AFL be trying to get him off? 2. Basically saying he could get suspended only for the AFL to let him go when richmond appeal (I'm very surprised they didn't let it go down this path in an attempt to uphold the integrity of the game. Just goes to show they don't give a shit and do whatever they want)

 

[Shermanator]

Haha the AFL agenda machine rolls on.

#helpfindcotchin takes out GWS' most damaging mid whilst being on two strikes and gifts himself a walk up start in the GF.

I hope Tex runs off the line at the opening bounce and buries that little Lego headed looking turd.

Go the Crows - do it for Walshy!

 

[Horace]

I may be wrong on this but I have a view that one of the reasons we may be seeing players have an intent, not entirely towards winning the ball, is the slap on the wrist deterrent of a fine of $1000 for the first transgression and maybe $1500 for a second.

How pathetic are those fines to players on average earning over $300000 a year? It is a joke.

I know if I was earning that sort of money to play football, and the opportunity arose to, for arguments sake, "slightly re-arrange" Puopolo's or Greene's or Treloar's face, I would happily pay the first $1000 and butter up the next time around and pay the $1500.

But if the first transgression cost say $25000 and then the second say $50000, then I may well play with much less carelessness towards such players.

 

[Unity-28]

I may be wrong on this but I have a view that one of the reasons we may be seeing players have an intent, not entirely towards winning the ball, is the slap on the wrist deterrent of a fine of $1000 for the first transgression and maybe $1500 for a second.

How pathetic are those fines to players on average earning over $300000 a year? It is a joke.

I know if I was earning that sort of money to play football, and the opportunity arose to, for arguments sake, "slightly re-arrange" Puopolo's or Greene's or Treloar's face, I would happily pay the first $1000 and butter up the next time around and pay the $1500.

But if the first transgression cost say $25000 and then the second say $50000, then I may well play with much less carelessness towards such players.

or you know what, forget fines (maybe keep for verbal against an ump, etc) and suspend players for cheap shots.
cotchin should have been 2 down to 1 for his bump on sheil. the fact he was cleared, just shows the shamozzle the mrp is.

 

[Groin guru]

I may be wrong on this but I have a view that one of the reasons we may be seeing players have an intent, not entirely towards winning the ball, is the slap on the wrist deterrent of a fine of $1000 for the first transgression and maybe $1500 for a second.

How pathetic are those fines to players on average earning over $300000 a year? It is a joke.

I know if I was earning that sort of money to play football, and the opportunity arose to, for arguments sake, "slightly re-arrange" Puopolo's or Greene's or Treloar's face, I would happily pay the first $1000 and butter up the next time around and pay the $1500.

But if the first transgression cost say $25000 and then the second say $50000, then I may well play with much less carelessness towards such players.

Especially when the result could win you the game. The incident leaves GWS 1 man down for 3 quarters + richmond had an extra week off = big advantage. End result Cotchin free to play, GWS lose, Shiel can't attend the brownlow and could potentially have long term issues.

 

[darko]

Didn't think there was much in Cotchin incident. Then again if that was Ziebell he'd cop 2 weeks.

 

[archereleven]

Especially when the result could win you the game. The incident leaves GWS 1 man down for 3 quarters + richmond had an extra week off = big advantage. End result Cotchin free to play, GWS lose, Shiel can't attend the brownlow and could potentially have long term issues.

Play on!

 

[pupstar]

Play on!

Not much talk about the Sloane high hit on Danger. Reckless high contact to the head only difference Danger was not concussed .

 

[domiroo]

Remember Jason Macartney in 99 he got a week for less the comp is a joke and it's getting worse . They are trying to create an EPL type league with 3 or 4 teams who fight it out for the glory . A joke I tell you a ****ing joke . You knock someone out and sidelined for the game but the perpetrators get off . Piss off AFL and match review panel ..

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Not much talk about the Sloane high hit on Danger. Reckless high contact to the head only difference Danger was not concussed .

That's the whole point, and you keep missing it.

The way they've set up the system is they no longer sanction bad intent. They look at the outcome. In the Sloane case, no concussion = no charge. In the Cotchin case, concussion = fine at a minimum.

It's a crap system and we all hate it, but they've rammed it down our throats for two years and now the only honorable thing to do would be to stick with it.

Which they didn't do. Of course.

 

[archereleven]

That's the whole point, and you keep missing it.

The way they've set up the system is they no longer sanction bad intent. They look at the outcome. In the Sloane case, no concussion = no charge. In the Cotchin case, concussion = fine at a minimum.

It's a crap system and we all hate it, but they've rammed it down our throats for two years and now the only honorable thing to do would be to stick with it.

Which they didn't do. Of course.

Exactly... I think pupstar is a lost pupstar on this issue...

It seems some posters want what the AFL wants- different rules for different players. ****ing outrageous!!

 

[ferball]

Not much talk about the Sloane high hit on Danger. Reckless high contact to the head only difference Danger was not concussed .

Did you see the hit LT went for playing for Werribee? The second one - that got him a week.

 

[pupstar]

That's the whole point, and you keep missing it.

The way they've set up the system is they no longer sanction bad intent. They look at the outcome. In the Sloane case, no concussion = no charge. In the Cotchin case, concussion = fine at a minimum.

It's a crap system and we all hate it, but they've rammed it down our throats for two years and now the only honorable thing to do would be to stick with it.

Which they didn't do. Of course.

So you think Cotchins intent was to concuss him only my opinion but he only had eyes for the ball. Not trying to justify the AFL in the slightest but if he had not been concussed like Dangerfied wasnt we would not even be having this discussion . I see umps like that most weeks and if the player is not injured it does not get a second mention . Not saying that is right it is just the way it is . Once again only my opinion i could be wrong.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

No, FFS, I don't think that was Cotchin's intent.

Read my lips - they IGNORE intent if there is an injury outcome. They punish the outcome, not the intent.

 

[Horace]

Did you see the hit LT went for playing for Werribee? The second one - that got him a week.

Yeah well there are rules (stuffed up ones true) and then there are rules that apply solely to LT. (And watch your step Jack, because when LT retires, you will quickly replace him)

 

[Horace]

No, FFS, I don't think that was Cotchin's intent.

Read my lips - they IGNORE intent if there is an injury outcome. They punish the outcome, not the intent.

Essentially if the rules were fair, the punishment would be wholly and solely based on intent. In other words if a player enters a contest with intent only for the ball and the opposition player is concussed or suffers injuries to the head (the so called sacrosanct area), then there should be no penalty, but if the player enters the contest with an intent only partly for the ball and the opposition player suffers no or negligible injury, the offending player should still be fined/suspended.

Its never going to work that way though.

 

[pupstar]

Exactly... I think pupstar is a lost pupstar on this issue...

It seems some posters want what the AFL wants- different rules for different players. ******* outrageous!!

As i said not trying to justify the AFL at all Just dont want to see any player from any team miss any games for an incidents like Cotchins Its AFL not NETBALL no disrespect to NETBALL.

 

[pupstar]

Essentially if the rules were fair, the punishment would be wholly and solely based on intent. In other words if a player enters a contest with intent only for the ball and the opposition player is concussed or suffers injuries to the head (the so called sacrosanct area), then there should be no penalty, but if the player enters the contest with an intent only partly for the ball and the opposition player suffers no or negligible injury, the offending player should still be fined/suspended.

Its never going to work that way though.

Perfectly put thank you.

 

[pupstar]

Did you see the hit LT went for playing for Werribee? The second one - that got him a week.

I agree with you should have got off.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Didn't think there was much in Cotchin incident. Then again if that was Ziebell he'd cop 2 weeks.

If Ziebell had bumped Shiel he would still be in hospital.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Essentially if the rules were fair, the punishment would be wholly and solely based on intent. In other words if a player enters a contest with intent only for the ball and the opposition player is concussed or suffers injuries to the head (the so called sacrosanct area), then there should be no penalty, but if the player enters the contest with an intent only partly for the ball and the opposition player suffers no or negligible injury, the offending player should still be fined/suspended.

Its never going to work that way though.

Well, of course.

That is also essentially the point I'm making - the rules aren't fair and it's a ridiculous state of affairs. The AFL have f***ed up by not punishing what is punishable, but focusing on the outcome of accidents.

On your last point, I think it will work out when (if?) they concede that it's a contact sport and accidents are inevitable. I don't mind that there's a higher duty of care in relation to hits to the head, but it has to be in the context of the way the ball is being played.

 

[hilly]

Can't wait to see teams slug it out in next year's prelims.