MRP 2019 MRP Lotto - Christian loves Cunnington

(Log in to remove this ad.)

roos_fanatic08

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Posts
18,332
Likes
24,171
Location
Vic
AFL Club
North Melbourne
We'll see the AFL make an exception here, they don't want a golden child brownlow winner like Trent Cotchin missing a grand final because of a hit like that.

Yet if it was Ziebell or Cunnington they would get weeks for sure. A Minimum 2 I would of thought considering it Concussed Dylan Shiel
 

roos_fanatic08

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Posts
18,332
Likes
24,171
Location
Vic
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Unbelieveable, All of Ziebell and Cunners suspensions have been direction of the ball, in some cases they even took posession.

How can their be a set of rules for some players and a totally different set for another.

I wouldn't want Cotchin to miss a grand final over that, but if the MRP had any sort of consistency he would of gone, especially considering the outcome was a concussion.
 

remfan101

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Posts
1,574
Likes
4,416
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Its the MRP thats the problem, not Cotchin. Everyone who's ever played footy knows that what Cotchin did was just good tough footy, winning a hard ball as you'd want your captain to do, and its that kind of attack on the ball that has Richmond playing in a grand final. The problem is that the MRP put themselves in a corner by handing out ridiculous outcome based suspensions, which frankly would be unlawful in any genuine trial. Then, predictably, they take the easy way out and let him off because he would have missed a grand final which (rightly) would have been a disgrace.

The system needs to change immediately, firstly by ensuring that it is the illegal action that is assessed first, not the outcome, and secondly to allow precedent so that players actually have a chance when challenging. And this system needs to be consistent, not allowing tribunal members to pick and choose. I reckon the best way to do it would be to take the likes of Bartel off the panel, and make it purely assessed by lawyers and analysts within the pre-determined rules laid out by the AFL. Its the only way I can see to ensure consistency and fairness.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Scoopar

Team Captain
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Posts
461
Likes
635
Location
Long Way from Arden St
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Hearts of Midlothian, GB Packers.
Well said remfan101.

We want the best players out there. No excuses then.

But gee, this Cotchin decision is highly inconsistent with other decisions we've seen.

Anyway, for the first time ever I'm supporting an Adelaide team in the GF. Anyone who has memories of Richmond and North from the 1970's - would understand why I have deep dislike of Richmond.

Crows have been the best team all year - no handouts in terms of draft picks, lost a well respected coach in tragic circumstances and have showed enormous grace and dignity with none of their supporters mouthing off like Richmond's have.

So, for (hopefully) the only time in my life I ever say this prior to a grand final* but - Go the Crows.

* Until Crows meet Collingwood perhaps......
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2015
Posts
107
Likes
227
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Its the MRP thats the problem, not Cotchin. Everyone who's ever played footy knows that what Cotchin did was just good tough footy, winning a hard ball as you'd want your captain to do, and its that kind of attack on the ball that has Richmond playing in a grand final. The problem is that the MRP put themselves in a corner by handing out ridiculous outcome based suspensions, which frankly would be unlawful in any genuine trial. Then, predictably, they take the easy way out and let him off because he would have missed a grand final which (rightly) would have been a disgrace.

The system needs to change immediately, firstly by ensuring that it is the illegal action that is assessed first, not the outcome, and secondly to allow precedent so that players actually have a chance when challenging. And this system needs to be consistent, not allowing tribunal members to pick and choose. I reckon the best way to do it would be to take the likes of Bartel off the panel, and make it purely assessed by lawyers and analysts within the pre-determined rules laid out by the AFL. Its the only way I can see to ensure consistency and fairness.
The problem has been they look at the result not the action.
 

TruRoos7

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 4, 2013
Posts
2,184
Likes
2,072
AFL Club
North Melbourne
I was right and so were 99% of the people who follow footy, that the mrp would do jack shit and let him off.
Not even a fine, oh wait yeah due to his impeccablely "clean" record of 2 prior incidents, this year, accruing fines he would have gone for a week...
 

Zondor

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Posts
15,663
Likes
13,924
Location
Hell
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Leigh Brown
LOL. It seems that some of you are upset that Cotchin has been cleared to play in the GF. Why? He may do his knee in the first 5 minutes of the GF. Wouldn't that be more beneficial to the NMFC? :stern look
 

LuvtheKangas

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Posts
13,823
Likes
25,763
Location
Bottom of the ladder
AFL Club
North Melbourne
LOL. It seems that some of you are upset that Cotchin has been cleared to play in the GF. Why? He may do his knee in the first 5 minutes of the GF. Wouldn't that be more beneficial to the NMFC? :stern look
I know you're joking, Z, but from a pure football sense Cotchin should be playing, so in that sense it's the right outcome. I wish him and his knees all the best of luck.

But in terms of equity across the competition, this is an absolute disgrace. The AFL have manufactured this increasingly farcical, unrealistic, braindead set of criteria for judging the guilt of a player (outcome based, not intent, so yes, completely farcical), but leave themselves discretion to not apply it when they don't want the outcome.

This is a multi-billion dollar industry now, and it is run by a set of unethical prats who change rules on the go to meet their objectives (i.e. what's best for their annual bonus). It has come at the cost of equity. If the AFL was a listed entity, they would have been charged with serious offences long ago.
 

Only Forwards

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Posts
17,415
Likes
37,166
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
All I want in football is consistency.

If a forward is getting held at one end and a forward is being held at the other then I want the two different umpires to educate it the same way.

If a player drops the ball and is done for incorrect disposal, I want the next player that drops it done for it as well.

I want the AFL to judge through the MRP impartially. Regardless of who or when.

I love my team, it is part of who I am, it is part of my family and how I raise my kids.

The product that the AFL are selling, I'm really starting to dislike.
 

SpiderBurton22

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Mar 17, 2012
Posts
6,211
Likes
16,789
Location
Caught in the web.
AFL Club
North Melbourne
The Cotchin one is getting all the airtime, but fact is what Ellis did, and also to get off, is even more absurd.

I have no doubt that come round 1, player/s after incidental contact to the head will be straight back having 2+ week holidays.

They had to let Ellis off after the Cotchin decision otherwise the MRP would have been accused of double standards. :rolleyes:
 
Top Bottom