How many weeks for cotchin's dangerous tackle?

[WhyAlwaysMe]

Three weeks. Could see him getting two though.

 

[theyellowsash]

So we are suspending players for accidental high tackles now are we?

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

It has taken only 3 days for Michael Christans "look of the game" and "Potential to cause injury" to now have a serious test.

 

[Atomboy]

So we are suspending players for accidental high tackles now are we?

No it’s “the potential to cause injury” precedent.

Will be interesting to see whether Christian has the balls to follow up from his decision last week.

 

[Beer n Skittles]

So we are suspending players for accidental high tackles now are we?

Yes. And accidental high bumps. Have you been in a coma since 2007?

 

[backtozero]

So we are suspending players for accidental high tackles now are we?

We're suspending players for sling tackles.

This one just so happened to be around the guys neck.

 

[Maylandsman]

H

Cotchins should of been a 50m penalty, just a high tackle.
Lynch well nothing to see there.

Have to hand it you mate, hands down one of the more sensible posters on BF. Keep up the quality.

 

[Sterge]

Tigers fans and their hypocrisy shining through once again.
Crying it’s only coz we are good that you want blood, I can’t believe the level of hatred “wah wah wah”
Yet they have been dishing out the same level of tall poppy syndrome for the whole 13 years I’ve been on Big Footy.
You reap what you sow.

Most sooky fans in the league it seems, just needed the shoe to be on the other foot to realise this.

Pales compared to Geelong fans, you know the only reason ninthmond is swear filtered is because of cats fans complaining right

 

[WillHayward]

Richmond will be without Cotchin and Lynch next week.

Afl love child.
Fines only.

 

[WillHayward]

How much did Burgoyne get for his sling tackle?

I think Cotchin will get that much

Afl reviewed and changed the rule after that.

 

[Stealth69]

The field umpires didn't see it. Hence not paying 50 metres.

Find me another high tackle like that. You can't because most players realise when they go high, instead cotchins went through with it and tried to break his spine, even though play had stopped. Complete dog act

It was high, it was clumsy... that's all it was


Don't be scared playing us, after all you finished on top, have home ground advantage as have had all year and umpires looked after you...

 

[BF Tiger]

Cheers knuckles - the last photo frame clearly shows Lynch with no eyes for the ball and him caving in the back of Patons head with a cocked elbow

Thanks for posting the image that shows Lynch putting an arm through the back of the other dudes head.

Don't suppose you'd be able represent Lynch and Cotchin at the tribunal this week?

Those last two frames don't actually help your case. In the second last one, Lynch has his arms up in an attempt to mark, and in the last he has his elbow cocked to whack the Saints bloke in the head.

Funny, because I look at these shots and see the only thing that Lynch has eyes for IS the ball, until the Aints defender whacks him in the head making an unrealistic attempt to spoil a mark, and in the process shifts Lynch's right arm into the head of Paton

 

[Virgin Dog]

Since its Cotchin he'll get off, a player for a non Vic club would be looking at 2 weeks.

Ben Long got a week for his bump that others got away with.

Hayden Crozier got a week for a sling tackle, no arms pinned, for "potential to cause injury" when others have performed worse tackles, with arms pinned, and got away with it.

It's not a Vic club privilege, it's a Richmond privilege

 

[Stealth69]

Punished on the ground? How so?

EXACTLY!!!

Thank you for asking, was hoping someone would pick up on that...

umpires were there. They paid a free to Saints, Cotchin tackled b4 he had a chance to not tackle, clumsy and high.

Was never a 50 if anything it would have been that Saints players free, but there was one just picked out and played is deemed as halted... great umpiring

We move on

 

[sobrave]

It was high, it was clumsy... that's all it was


Don't be scared playing us, after all you finished on top, have home ground advantage as have had all year and umpires looked after you...

id rather cotchin plays to be honest.. hes a liability, you'd be a better side without him

 

[sobrave]

So we are suspending players for accidental high tackles now are we?

since apparently you're too stupid to remember what actually happened, here it is again.

play has stopped, as you can see from everyone staring at the ump
tough guy bouffant cotchin then comes in with a coathanger and uses centrifugal motion to try and rip jones' head off.

which part of that is accidental?
the part where he tackles him after play has stopped? the part where it is very obviously high despite jones standing upright? or the part where he continues the tackle even after he knows its high, dragging the player to ground by his neck?

 

[BF Tiger]

since apparently you're too stupid to remember what actually happened, here it is again.

play has stopped, as you can see from everyone staring at the ump
tough guy bouffant cotchin then comes in with a coathanger and uses centrifugal motion to try and rip jones' head off.

which part of that is accidental?
the part where he tackles him after play has stopped? the part where it is very obviously high despite jones standing upright? or the part where he continues the tackle even after he knows its high, dragging the player to ground by his neck?

I'm hoping it's the part where he kicks the winning goal next week when he shouldn't* even be playing.


* - according to some fans.

 

[Rich01]

id rather cotchin plays to be honest.. hes a liability, you'd be a better side without him

Your investment in this thread suggests otherwise.

 

[sobrave]

Your investment in this thread suggests otherwise.

1. i believe it should be punished because it was a dog act
2. i don't believe whether he plays or not will have any effect on the outcome next week, in fact i think leaving him out could make richmond a better side

the two things can be mutually exclusive.

 

[pebblesofsand]

I can hear the frustration of the long incident in your tone. I totally get it. And I want consistency too.

But you are wrong that the AFL have introduced ‘visual look’ as criteria for citing, charging and assessing not only the charge, but the appeal as well.

I get the frustration with consistency but the above is just tin foil hat stuff.

Now either I'm right or you're wrong - or possibly Michael Christian doesn't know the rules and makes things up when he does his MRO reports.

No actually its because I'm right.

" Other factors taken into account include the fact he didn't come back onto the ground, the visual look of the incident, but also the potential to cause a more serious injury."

" Taking into account not only that, but also his medical report and the visual look of the incident and the momentum that ...... had built and the force with which he hit"

"In determining impact, taking into account all of those factors including the impact on the player, the visual look, the medical reports for both players and then also applying the potential to cause a more serious injury provisions"

"Taking into account his medical report, the player reaction and the visual look of the incident … we thought the most appropriate grading was low in that particular case."

But if I was looking for a "tin foil hat" type conspiracy theory (rather than a facts based assessment which I prefer) then I reckon you'd agree that if they don't consider the "visual look" of the Cotchin incident and Lynch dropping his knee onto a prone players neck you might be led to thinking that the AFL are more concerned about Richmond to continue on in the finals to boost the ratings in a financially impacted season rather than fairness and equity.

 

[Rich01]

2. i don't believe whether he plays or not will have any effect on the outcome next week, in fact i think leaving him out could make richmond a better side

the two things can be mutually exclusive.

That’s totally understandable for someone who doesn’t watch much of Richmond.

 

[Rich01]

Now either I'm right or you're wrong - or possible Michael Christian doesn't know the rules and makes things up when he does his MRO reports.

No actually its because I'm right.

" Other factors taken into account include the fact he didn't come back onto the ground, the visual look of the incident, but also the potential to cause a more serious injury."

" Taking into account not only that, but also his medical report and the visual look of the incident and the momentum that ...... had built and the force with which he hit"

"In determining impact, taking into account all of those factors including the impact on the player, the visual look, the medical reports for both players and then also applying the potential to cause a more serious injury provisions"

"Taking into account his medical report, the player reaction and the visual look of the incident … we thought the most appropriate grading was low in that particular case."

So if I was looking for a "tin foil hat" type conspiracy theory (rather than a facts based assessment which I prefer) then I reckon you'd agree that if they didn't consider the "visual look" of the Cotchin and Lynch dropping his knee onto a prone players neck you might be led to thinking that the AFL wanted Richmond to continue on in the finals to boost the ratings in a financially impacted season.

Who are you quoting, and when we’re they said?

 

[Bleeeeeeeeep]

since apparently you're too stupid to remember what actually happened, here it is again.

play has stopped, as you can see from everyone staring at the ump
tough guy bouffant cotchin then comes in with a coathanger and uses centrifugal motion to try and rip jones' head off.

which part of that is accidental?
the part where he tackles him after play has stopped? the part where it is very obviously high despite jones standing upright? or the part where he continues the tackle even after he knows its high, dragging the player to ground by his neck?

Seeing it again Cotchin had zero intention of tackling. Saints player was up right, Cotchin went straight for his head. The “tackle” didn’t slip up his arm went straight for the head and then slung him down for good cause.
Pretty dirty sort of act that their coach is even defending.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Tigers fans and their hypocrisy shining through once again.
Crying it’s only coz we are good that you want blood, I can’t believe the level of hatred “wah wah wah”
Yet they have been dishing out the same level of tall poppy syndrome for the whole 13 years I’ve been on Big Footy.
You reap what you sow.

Most sooky fans in the league it seems, just needed the shoe to be on the other foot to realise this.

Whenever one of my players gets into strife, I ask myself "How would I be thinking if it was an opponent who did that to my player?". It gives me a balanced way of looking at it, rather than just blindly flying the flag for my team. I'm pretty sure Richmond fans wouldn't have been too happy if someone did that to Dustin Martin.

 

[DirtySandman]

should get suspended

wont.