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

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

This decision has saved the AFL some headaches this week but will create further much worse problems down the track.

As it stands, you can now clean up an opponent who has his head over the ball and make high contact, as long as you make some show of reaching for the ball yourself.

Except the AFL love to state that the tribunal doesn't have precedents (which is code for we make shit up as we go along).

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

And it would have only been a fine apart from his 2 previous incidents

Are you seriously saying he deserved to sit out a Grand Final for an incident that at worst was only going to attract a fine?

He wasn't missing a GF for that incident. He was missing it for 3 incidents, 2 of which he didn't have to do.

One was a jumper punch to the head off the ball, which the AFL disliked so much that the very next week they introduced a change to the MRP that saw jumper punches punishable with a 1 week suspension.

The other was a punch to the stomach of an unsuspecting player off the ball.

Neither of those incidents were necessary. Cotchin deliberately chose to punch players behind play. He had 3 chances and he used 2 of them on dirty acts.

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

Have you seen those 2 incidents ?
Soft as.
That's why I think Bicks idea is the go.

So you think it's fine for players to punch other players in the head or stomach off the ball, even when the other player isn't even looking?

 

[DJ75]

Sloane is not playing for a Vic team

Not sure what you're trying to say

Sorry I was referring to the number of high hits Richmond players did on GWS players that weren't paid as free kicks.
Completely missed the entire point of your post (Sloane-Danger) and thought it was a carry over of the Cotchin debate.
My mistake.

 

[cmndstab]

He's allowed to bump

And initially the contact seemed to be Shiels shoulder that was causing him the problem
It's a thing of centimeters at full throttle

Look, you've been going on about this for 10 pages now. Is it really so difficult to understand?

Regardless of whether or not you personally think it should be a suspension, the AFL has set an extremely clear precedent. If you elect to bump a player, and that player ends up concussed, you will be suspended. You don't even need to bump them in the head. If you bump them and it results in them landing on their head and becoming concussed, you're still suspended, or at the very least asked to defend yourself at the tribunal.

The AFL has said it very clearly - you have a duty of care to your opponent and if you bump them and they get injured, you have a case to answer. Period. And they've stuck to that interpretation week in, week out for a few years now. And yet this past weekend it didn't happen, for the flimsiest of excuses: "he was going for the ball". As if the fifty players suspended for similar or lesser incidents in the last few years weren't going for the ball as well.

Further to that, the AFL has implemented a system of three fines leading to a suspension, to deal with players who are repeat offenders of minor incidents which individually aren't enough to get suspended. Cotchin was sitting on two fines. In effect, he had already wasted his benefit of the doubt. Borderline issues for which a cleanskin might get off are supposed to see him suspended now. That's precisely how the system is designed to work. And it's clear to everyone that it would have happened if this was round 15 instead of a prelim final.

Nobody is arguing about whether bumping and causing a concussion should be a suspension or not, that's a separate issue. But the problem is that the AFL has set extremely clear precedents for how the system is supposed to work, and they've done a backflip on this week purely because there is a grand final on Saturday. The rules should not change based on how important the next match is.

 

[rocket18]

No
Let's just talk about this one

Sloane hit Danger in the head.
Knocked him out.
Football collision
No free
No report

Common sense - for once .

LOL, he was not knocked out, what a foolish comment. He did his usual dive which most of us have seen dozens of times.

You also said

"It was always going to be a penalty that copped a fine - except for his record ( which having seen those incidents were pretty soft) - I am astounded people think he should have been suspended."

The first part of your comment is correct and it is why most people think this decision is a joke, sounds like you agree it should be a fine. Once you reach this point his record leads to the suspension.

No one has said it was worth weeks, however you choose to bump the onus is ALL on you to make sure you protect the other guys head- accident or no accident IT DOES NOT MATTER.

 

[subaru]

Yes, but having chosen to bump, he carries the duty of care.

As the MRP deemed he was contesting the ball (not choosing to bump) he doesn't carry the same duty of care.

Your sentiment is right but your facts are wrong

Ergo my comment re accidental contact

 

[feenix67]

Ergo my comment re accidental contact

Which only applies if he doesn't elect to bump, which you said he did. Why is this so difficult for you to understand??

 

[subaru]

So you think it's fine for players to punch other players in the head or stomach off the ball, even when the other player isn't even looking?

Of course not
But this wasn't about that is it?

I haven't see anyone claim it was deliberate - careless - perhaps, although Cotchin was going for the ball.

And I'll ask again - a question none of you are keen to answer

If this was a Crows player and the GF - would you feel the same?

I be betting this board would be in full melt mode !

 

[subaru]

Look, you've been going on about this for 10 pages now. Is it really so difficult to understand?

Regardless of whether or not you personally think it should be a suspension, the AFL has set an extremely clear precedent. If you elect to bump a player, and that player ends up concussed, you will be suspended. You don't even need to bump them in the head. If you bump them and it results in them landing on their head and becoming concussed, you're still suspended, or at the very least asked to defend yourself at the tribunal.

The AFL has said it very clearly - you have a duty of care to your opponent and if you bump them and they get injured, you have a case to answer. Period. And they've stuck to that interpretation week in, week out for a few years now. And yet this past weekend it didn't happen, for the flimsiest of excuses: "he was going for the ball". As if the fifty players suspended for similar or lesser incidents in the last few years weren't going for the ball as well.

Further to that, the AFL has implemented a system of three fines leading to a suspension, to deal with players who are repeat offenders of minor incidents which individually aren't enough to get suspended. Cotchin was sitting on two fines. In effect, he had already wasted his benefit of the doubt. Borderline issues for which a cleanskin might get off are supposed to see him suspended now. That's precisely how the system is designed to work. And it's clear to everyone that it would have happened if this was round 15 instead of a prelim final.

Nobody is arguing about whether bumping and causing a concussion should be a suspension or not, that's a separate issue. But the problem is that the AFL has set extremely clear precedents for how the system is supposed to work, and they've done a backflip on this week purely because there is a grand final on Saturday. The rules should not change based on how important the next match is.

Wow...who's changed the rule ?
He was sitting on 2 fines.
He hasn't been reported for this incident.
No rule has been changed.

Should not change how "important the next match is ?"

And yet you still have not included in your thesis how you'd react if this was Sloane.

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

Kane Cornes in fine form:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...s/news-story/83faf1393a572c6db07476a77e22d6f4

AGENDAS

For any neutral supporter who witnessed Sunday’s SANFL grand final, it was clear the competition didn’t want an AFL-based team holding up the premiership cup for the first time.

The final free kick count of 21-14 in favour of the Double Blues only tells part of the tale.

To have 39,813 fans packed into the Adelaide Oval, the most in a grand final since 1998, says the fans are not so anti-AFL.

The SANFL must realise how reliant the league is still to having a strong Port Adelaide Magpies. So treat them with the respect they deserve.

 

[GROTTO]

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:

Patrick Dangerfield says preliminary final loss to Sydney will sting Geelong players for a long time
​

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.

What will burn in that campaigners head forever is that at the end of this year he could have walked to the Cats as a Free Agent without costing the Cats a single pick had he stayed at the AFC for another 2 years. They didnt win the flag or play in a grand final because of him.

In October 2017, Moggs Creek is still there. However his chance to have taken a premiership medal and a liftetime memory of grand final day is gone forever. He will never ever get back. He made a terribly poor football decision. His ego would have bigger than this country and it would have been justified in his head had he stayed with us and won with us a grand final.

 

[spexau]

Kane Cornes in fine form:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...s/news-story/83faf1393a572c6db07476a77e22d6f4

AGENDAS

For any neutral supporter who witnessed Sunday’s SANFL grand final, it was clear the competition didn’t want an AFL-based team holding up the premiership cup for the first time.

The final free kick count of 21-14 in favour of the Double Blues only tells part of the tale.

To have 39,813 fans packed into the Adelaide Oval, the most in a grand final since 1998, says the fans are not so anti-AFL.

The SANFL must realise how reliant the league is still to having a strong Port Adelaide Magpies. So treat them with the respect they deserve.

How about he blasts the team for their lack of composure in key moments? Was it Dougal-Howard or Marshall who threw the Sturt forward out of the way and gave away the game winning goal?

 

[subaru]

Which only applies if he doesn't elect to bump, which you said he did. Why is this so difficult for you to understand??

He's bumped and caused accidental contact. Are you saying it was deliberate ?

What about spoiling ?
Last year
Sloane spoiled a ball - accidental contact to Ebert - he got a match

This board MELTED .
And rightly so

It's the hypocrisy here I find quite amazing

 

[subaru]

How about he blasts the team for their lack of composure in key moments? Was it Dougal-Howard or Marshall who threw the Sturt forward out of the way and gave away the game winning goal?

He should get his media accreditation suspended for that.

 

[DD#23]

Wow...who's changed the rule ?
He was sitting on 2 fines.
He hasn't been reported for this incident.
No rule has been changed.

Should not change how "important the next match is ?"

And yet you still have not included in your thesis how you'd react if this was Sloane.

read the last paragraph again, SLOWLY...

this is about precedents and the AFL ignoring them to look after Cotchin.

 

[StickerMan]

Wow...who's changed the rule ?
He was sitting on 2 fines.
He hasn't been reported for this incident.
No rule has been changed.

Should not change how "important the next match is ?"

And yet you still have not included in your thesis how you'd react if this was Sloane.

Above are the guidelines that the MRP abide by.

Both Sloane and Cotchin's incidents were classed as 'incidental' and as such were thrown out.

The only issue I have is that previously, if you choose to bump (as Cotchin did) and you concuss someone that is 99% of the time classed as 'Careless' as the player has failed in his 'duty of care'.

Now, if you look at the impact - Shiel was concussed, so it has to be Medium

Look at Contact: Cotchin got him high. 2 matches, down to 1 every other day of the year..

Now, lets look at Sloane and say he was Careless (which I don't think he was. I class that as incidental).

Sloane's contact on Danger was possibly high (still, don't agree), but the impact was low as Danger continued the game. At worst, Sloane gets a fine.

It really is that cut and dry all year, apart from this week.

 

[subaru]

LOL, he was not knocked out, what a foolish comment. He did his usual dive which most of us have seen dozens of times.

You also said

"It was always going to be a penalty that copped a fine - except for his record ( which having seen those incidents were pretty soft) - I am astounded people think he should have been suspended."

The first part of your comment is correct and it is why most people think this decision is a joke, sounds like you agree it should be a fine. Once you reach this point his record leads to the suspension.

No one has said it was worth weeks, however you choose to bump the onus is ALL on you to make sure you protect the other guys head- accident or no accident IT DOES NOT MATTER.

Fact - no report was lodged.
It was never an incident that would have cost a match.

Is that better ?

If this was one of our players you all would have gone NUTS !

 

[subaru]

read the last paragraph again, SLOWLY...

this is about precedents and the AFL ignoring them to look after Cotchin.

I ask again
What RULE has been changed ?

 

[subaru]

View attachment 420776

Above are the guidelines that the MRP abide by.

Both Sloane and Cotchin's incidents were classed as 'incidental' and as such were thrown out.

Go through every match and slow the footage down and there would be literally dozens of incidents where high contact is made .

Didn't Laird (?) have stitches in head Friday night ?

Determining the reportability of an incident based on the resulting injury to the player - and I cite Sloane on Ebert last year - had everyone up in arms.
Anyway
Enough
I'm glad a lad hasn't lost the chance to play in a GF because of a couple of soft incidents through the year
/ the end

 

[DD#23]

I ask again
What RULE has been changed ?

not familiar with common law?

 

[subaru]

not familiar with common law?

Which rule has been changed ?

 

[StickerMan]

Go through every match and slow the footage down and there would be literally dozens of incidents where high contact is made .

Didn't Laird (?) have stitches in head Friday night ?

Determining the reportability of an incident based on the resulting injury to the player - and I cite Sloane on Ebert last year - had everyone up in arms.
Anyway
Enough
I'm glad a lad hasn't lost the chance to play in a GF because of a couple of soft incidents through the year
/ the end

All the incidents you reference above would have been assessed and classed as 'incidental contact' - i.e. football collisions.

The fact is Cotchin chose to bump, whether the ball was his object or not, and therefore he had a duty of care not to hit in the head. He did, and it should have been assessed accordingly. It was Careless, not incidental.

I agree with you in that incident itself is not worthy of missing a GF and I for one am glad he is playing, however the AFL have completely disregarded the guidelines they set themselves to contrive the result to avoid the controversy and the circus that would have followed.

Whately last night captured it correctly in that he should have been cited and then left it to the tribunal to rule on whether he would have got off or not.

 

[DD#23]

Which rule has been changed ?

there are hardly any "rules" at all, that's why I refer to common law.

every action directly responsible for a concussion that causes a player to miss the rest of the game this year has resulted in a report. Every player has a duty of care to protect the head of their opponent, that has been made very clear.

 

[feenix67]

He's bumped and caused accidental contact. Are you saying it was deliberate ?

What about spoiling ?
Last year
Sloane spoiled a ball - accidental contact to Ebert - he got a match

This board MELTED .
And rightly so

It's the hypocrisy here I find quite amazing

Last post, because you really are just being idiotically belligerent on this one.

If you bump, you cant get away with accidental head high contact.

If you're contesting the ball, you can.

You said Cotchin elected to bump, but you don't think he should have gotten a penalty.

You can only think he doesn't deserve a penalty if you think he was contesting the ball, not electing to bump.

Stop contradicting yourself.