Analysis 2017 Non-Crows Discussion Thread - Part V for Vendetta

Status
Not open for further replies.

BRL121

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Posts
3,641
Likes
3,766
AFL Club
Adelaide
That'd be me

You can't seriously have thought that Cotchin should have missed a GF for that?

And who cares if it's his daughters bf - has nothing to do with it.

The man has always had a big mouth.
Yes, definitely. The "missing a GF" thing is completely irrelevant. The main point is that the penalties should be completely consistent at any time during the year. I must agree that the AFL is corrupt. Compare the "football action" of Sloane on Ebert last year (no concussion, penalty), and the corresponding Cotchin case (concussion, no penalty). They had to stretch hard to make out that Cotchin was going for the ball, with his right hand tucked in to charge Cotchin with his shoulder. His sole intention was to take Shiel out, then "go for the ball". A large joke.

Round 1 next year, we''l see something similar: then a week's penalty. Let's have some consistency!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

skoobydoo

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Posts
3,364
Likes
2,667
Location
Under the Southern Cross
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Bite Basebal Crystal Brook Roosters
I smile every day knowing Koch is in charge at port power. A genuine nuffie. Clueless.
Well is there anything worse than a drunK Koch hugging Hinkley. How can anyone cope with that as a Chairman ? Of a Club. Obnoxious. Good luck Pear..................

Buffoon is an apt word.
 

cmndstab

Premium Platinum
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Posts
28,299
Likes
16,945
Location
Ingle Farm
AFL Club
Adelaide
Usual AFL stuff. They work out what result they want, then orchestrate a MRP "finding" to ensure it.

In the minor rounds, Cotchin missing a week doesn't matter, so he'd be gone for a week (unless he was the Brownlow favourite at the time!). The head is sacrosanct, after all! But this time around they want Cotchin to play because it's a GF. If he'd been on one strike, they would have definitely fined him. But he was on two, so instead it's no case to answer. Whatever it takes to get the desired outcome.

Not even remotely surprising. But it is annoying, and Shiel has every right to be absolutely furious. I honestly don't think it's a Victorian bias thing, either, if it had been Walker on two strikes running into someone and sending them off with a concussion they'd have let him off too. But they shouldn't. There is no point even having rules if you're going to ignore them and just get the result you want. That's why we end up with shit like the Essendon drugs saga, where the club was completely blindsided when it came to pass that the AFL's orchestrated "result" wasn't allowed to stand. Generally players and clubs know that they can screw up as badly as they want, and if punishing them hurts the AFL then they won't be punished. And players and clubs are more than happy to take advantage of it.

The MRP and the tribunal should be taken completely out of the AFL's hands. But it'll never happen.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

mistylake

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Posts
8,566
Likes
7,596
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood, Canadiens, Maroons.
Be under no illusions about the umpiring storm we will face to keep this Victorian fairy tale going.

Will need to be the 5 goal better side to win by a point.
Yep I'm very worried about the treatment we'll likely get.
So much blabber in the media about how Richmond so deserve this, with virtually no recognition of another team.
If we come out and blitz it, like the last 2 games we'll be ok, but if it's close, well be in for a long frustrating Saturday afternoon.
 

subaru

Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Posts
44,028
Likes
22,869
AFL Club
Adelaide
He has a point

Everyone's saying ooh Cotchin can't miss the GF for that

Well Shiel missed 3/4's of the Prelim as a result.

Yet Cotchin is the victim?
Yes
I get that

But do you really think Cotchins intent was anything other than the ball?
Same as Sloane /Danger?
We complain footy is getting soft and then you have a hard accidental collision and we all "he should miss a gf"!?
 

subaru

Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Posts
44,028
Likes
22,869
AFL Club
Adelaide
Yes, definitely. The "missing a GF" thing is completely irrelevant. The main point is that the penalties should be completely consistent at any time during the year. I must agree that the AFL is corrupt. Compare the "football action" of Sloane on Ebert last year (no concussion, penalty), and the corresponding Cotchin case (concussion, no penalty). They had to stretch hard to make out that Cotchin was going for the ball, with his right hand tucked in to charge Cotchin with his shoulder. His sole intention was to take Shiel out, then "go for the ball". A large joke.

Round 1 next year, we''l see something similar: then a week's penalty. Let's have some consistency!
What about Sloane /Danger then ?

Rorys forearm was raised and got Danger full on.

I feel sorry for Shiel but I also remember the Crows players sitting out matches with concussion - part of the game in a way.
"Take Shiel out then go for the ball " - just the same as a tackle ...
- isn't that the purpose of the bump - which is still a legal action on the field. The bump hasn't been banned has it?

And I do believe Cotchin was going for the ball. The previous stupid incidents were the ones I though were, in the scheme of things, trivial.

Missing a GF ... sorry
No matter who it is, that punishment must be commensurate with the crime. It is relevant - the same as double demerit points on long weekends


Go Crows
 

subaru

Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Posts
44,028
Likes
22,869
AFL Club
Adelaide
Do you not get how the mrp system works now? Very few people are saying cotchin should miss for that act alone, he should miss based on this being the 3rd separate incident that was deemed worthy of a financial penalty this season.

The afl has now stupidly decided it can pick and choose when a concusssion is deemed as worth a suspension or in this case not even a fine. Every player that copped a suspension this season (including Dangerfield) should feel hard done by if it was driven by the fact another player ended up with concussion.
Please don't patronize me.

I am fully aware of the previous incidents

If one of our players missed a GF for that - same situation - you'd be ok with it ?
See my post above
 

subaru

Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Posts
44,028
Likes
22,869
AFL Club
Adelaide
He has a point

Everyone's saying ooh Cotchin can't miss the GF for that

Well Shiel missed 3/4's of the Prelim as a result.

Yet Cotchin is the victim?
I agree
It's a shitty thing that happened - but it happens !!!

Who's saying Cotchin is the victim?
I think he's lucky - but I think the MRP and AFL for once showed common sense.
 

BRL121

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Posts
3,641
Likes
3,766
AFL Club
Adelaide
What about Sloane /Danger then ?

Rorys forearm was raised and got Danger full on.
No, disagree. Rory was trying to tackle/block handpass. He did nothing to protect himself and was cannoned into by Dangerfield, who headbutted his shoulder. All he could have done was to jump out of the way, but no time for that. It is instructive that the MRP report on this one was exactly correct! They didn't need to embroider/twist the truth.

I feel sorry for Shiel but I also remember the Crows players sitting out matches with concussion - part of the game in a way.
"Take Shiel out then go for the ball " - just the same as a tackle ...
No. You tackle when the oppo have the ball.

- isn't that the purpose of the bump - which is still a legal action on the field. The bump hasn't been banned has it?
No it hasn't, but if you do it, you have the "duty of care" to not get them in the head! If you do, then you are up for panalties.

And I do believe Cotchin was going for the ball. The previous stupid incidents were the ones I though were, in the scheme of things, trivial.
Not directly. He didn't have two hands out to jump on it.

Missing a GF ... sorry
No matter who it is, that punishment must be commensurate with the crime. It is relevant - the same as double demerit points on long weekends
If there's a week for an action, there's a wek for an action! So, I totally agree that there should be no double-demerits points on long weekends, and that you and I should both pay the same price for an apple! ;)

Go Crows
Right on!
see above
 

subaru

Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Posts
44,028
Likes
22,869
AFL Club
Adelaide
Perhaps try to quote properly and then I might get what you're on about.

Fact is, Danger was hit by Sloanes raised forearm which was raised by Sloane to protect himself. I never inferred Sloane raised his arm to get Danger.
Danger "head butted " Sloanes forearm ? Are you kidding ?
Danger had the ball !

(I was referring to the tackle being legal to take a player out of the contest - the same as a bump/ hard shepherd is legal to take a player out of the contest within what - 5 meters is it? - of the ball.)

It was a football collision!


Absolutely no case to answer as it was in play and no free kick paid.
And Danger got knocked out.

The Cotchin thing was really no different. In play , Cotchin was going for the ball.
Careless at worst - no intent - bump is legal - no free kick - Shiel I reckon hurt his shoulder initially - and you can bet your life, if everyone arcs up about it, the first person to miss a GF because of carry over penalties it will be a Crows player.
 
Last edited:

OutofTownCrow

Premium Platinum
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Posts
9,421
Likes
16,192
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
New York Rangers, Dodgers, Redlegs
Good to see Dangerfield's yearly article about the "pain of losing a prelim" is up. He said the same thing last year, and nothing changed ...

Here's one of the related articles from last year:

And the pain is back for another round:

Pain of prelim loss may keep Danger from GF
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-09-25/pain-of-prelim-loss-may-keep-danger-from-gf
... The group's disappointed; the group's owned it. We've won together and lost together this year – it's disappointing, but there's also life and sport."​

I did notice his attitude of "life goes on" as the underlying story though ... I'm sure it "burns" but the comfortableness of his life in Moggs is as important as anything to him, and I can't help wonder if he has the drive or desire that others in the AFL do? If you asked the question of an AFL player "What would you give up to be in GF?" - I think most of them would answer "almost anything", well Danger has a whole list of things that he wouldn't give up. I'm sure he'll have a very comfortable life, that he can look back on a be content with ... but without that absolutely singular focus you will always be held back from your true potential. Danger seems to be not "all in" to me.
 

skoobydoo

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Posts
3,364
Likes
2,667
Location
Under the Southern Cross
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Bite Basebal Crystal Brook Roosters
What about Sloane /Danger then ?

Rorys forearm was raised and got Danger full on.

I feel sorry for Shiel but I also remember the Crows players sitting out matches with concussion - part of the game in a way.
"Take Shiel out then go for the ball " - just the same as a tackle ...
- isn't that the purpose of the bump - which is still a legal action on the field. The bump hasn't been banned has it?

And I do believe Cotchin was going for the ball. The previous stupid incidents were the ones I though were, in the scheme of things, trivial.

Missing a GF ... sorry
No matter who it is, that punishment must be commensurate with the crime. It is relevant - the same as double demerit points on long weekends

Recoil'
Go Crows
Quite honestly I saw Sloanes forearm as a defensive action bracing for the collision and not 'armed' to attack Danger.. Also, the arm was at Danger's upper chest and then was higher only after impact and at the 'recoil' of momentum. No case. They got this one right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom