One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on July 18, 2010, 06:50:48 PM
-
Cotchin reported for charging Sam Wright during the second quarter. It won't help that Wright had to go off the ground.
How many weeks do you think Cotch will get? :-\
-
I reckon 2 matches.
It wasn't the bravest act out there. For whatever reason Cotch lined him up and wasn't interested in the ball at all.
-
3 - 2 with an early plea and good record.
Not helped by the fact that Wright also got taken to hospital at half time. Watching the replay I reckon he was starting to pull out before he hits him but it was just plain dumb - undisciplined, unprovoked and uncalled for - and it most definitely caused a huge swing in momentum in the game. Very big learning curve was today's game for Cotch.
-
at least two.
-
With the early plea and not having any carry over points (from memory) i think he will only get oe week. :pray
-
none, refer to any of david hilles recent form :shh
-
Nothing ur kidding right ??????
-
A week with an early plea
-
Any vision of this on the net, I missed it buying some drinks..
-
Richmond hopeful on Cotchin report
SAM LIENERT
July 18, 2010 - 7:24PM
Richmond coach Damien Hardwick hopes the AFL match review panel have Essendon's David Hille in their memories on Monday when they assess a charging report laid against Richmond young gun Trent Cotchin.
The exciting 20-year-old midfielder looks likely to miss Saturday's MCG clash with Collingwood, after being booked on Sunday over an incident which left North Melbourne's Sam Wright requiring a hospital visit.
Wright marked in the middle of the ground, before Cotchin arrived late and crashed into him, with the Kangaroos youngster helped from the field with concussion, before being taken to hospital for a check-up.
The Kangaroos goaled from the resultant 50m penalty, sparking a charge which gave them control of the match and coach Brad Scott said the incident had been a spur.
"The guys got a bit of a spark, no one likes to see one of their teammates go down like that," Scott said.
He added there was no lingering ill-feeling towards Cotchin, who he said was a "ball player" and had made a "split-second decision".
Hardwick also emphasised the short timeframe players had to judge whether to make contact.
"It is a hard one and the game is played at breakneck speed," he said.
"From our point of view, we'll just let the tribunal handle it, we just hope (the match review panel maintains) the consistency level that they've adjudicated that one over the course of the season.
"It's very similar to the David Hille incident earlier in the year, so we'll see how that one pans out."
Hille was surprisingly cleared by the panel, after being cited for charging Geelong's Jimmy Bartel in the opening round, one of three incidents this season in which he has been the subject of a match-day report, but reprieved by the panel.
The Tigers will already be missing fellow midfielder Daniel Jackson, as he serves out a suspension, while another centre square player Nathan Foley is out injured for the rest of the season, adding to the significance of the Cotchin decision.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-sport/richmond-hopeful-on-cotchin-report-20100718-10fwt.html
-
Good stuff.
More of it.
stuff 'em.
WGAF?
We're not playing finals and really would benefit from the early pick.
I'm happy that the nth player went to hospital.
Better him than one of us.
-
It was peeweak.
And i think out of character.
He will learn and improve from it, he is a quality kid.
-
hardly touched him and it was only marginally late- the Norf player should get a week for going to hospital and cotch should get off! :gotigers
-
Tiger 'Hille' defence
* Mark Stevens
* Herald Sun
* July 19, 2010
RICHMOND coach Damien Hardwick has urged the match review panel to show consistency after onballer Trent Cotchin was booked for charging.
Cotchin made late contact to North Melbourne's Sam Wright in the second quarter of the MCG clash, forcing him from the ground with heavy concussion.
The fact Wright was sent to hospital for precautionary tests will not help Cotchin's cause as the Tigers prepare to confront the new competition benchmark, Collingwood.
It further soured a 50-point loss to the Kangaroos, but Hardwick was adamant Cotchin should be cut some slack for the heavy hit a split-second after Wright marked the ball.
"We just hope the consistency level that they have adjudicated that one over the course of the season (continues). Very similar I think (to the) David Hille incident, so we'll see how that one pans out," Hardwick said.
"It is a hard one. The game is played at breakneck speed. From our point of view, we will just let the tribunal handle it."
Essendon ruckman Hille was cleared despite making late contact to Geelong's Jimmy Bartel in Round 1.
The decision raised eyebrows at the time and continues to be raised by teams hopeful of getting players off charging reports.
North coach Brad Scott said Wright wanted to return after halftime, but was overruled by medical staff.
"Sam was telling everyone who would listen he was right to go back on the ground, but he couldn't quite tell anyone where he was," Scott said.
"Obviously, you can't risk a player like that. He didn't want to go to hospital, but we just had to err on the side of caution.
"When he got hit, I thought it might have been his shoulder or ribs. When I came in at halftime it was his head. Whether it was when he hit the ground or not, I'm not sure, or just the jolt."
Like Hardwick, Scott was supportive of Cotchin.
"No one likes to see one of their teammates go down like that, (but) nothing against Trent Cotchin. He's a ball player and he goes for the ball," Scott said.
"Sometimes it's a split-second decision whether you go or stay. We didn't think there was anything untoward in it at all."
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/tiger-hille-defence/story-e6frf9jf-1225893668948
-
If the Hillie defense doesn't work they could then try the Chewbacca defense.
-
Tiger 'Hille' defence
* Mark Stevens
* Herald Sun
* July 19, 2010
RICHMOND coach Damien Hardwick has urged the match review panel to show consistency after onballer Trent Cotchin was booked for charging.
Cotchin made late contact to North Melbourne's Sam Wright in the second quarter of the MCG clash, forcing him from the ground with heavy concussion.
The fact Wright was sent to hospital for precautionary tests will not help Cotchin's cause as the Tigers prepare to confront the new competition benchmark, Collingwood.
It further soured a 50-point loss to the Kangaroos, but Hardwick was adamant Cotchin should be cut some slack for the heavy hit a split-second after Wright marked the ball.
"We just hope the consistency level that they have adjudicated that one over the course of the season (continues). Very similar I think (to the) David Hille incident, so we'll see how that one pans out," Hardwick said.
"It is a hard one. The game is played at breakneck speed. From our point of view, we will just let the tribunal handle it."
Essendon ruckman Hille was cleared despite making late contact to Geelong's Jimmy Bartel in Round 1.
The decision raised eyebrows at the time and continues to be raised by teams hopeful of getting players off charging reports.
North coach Brad Scott said Wright wanted to return after halftime, but was overruled by medical staff.
"Sam was telling everyone who would listen he was right to go back on the ground, but he couldn't quite tell anyone where he was," Scott said.
"Obviously, you can't risk a player like that. He didn't want to go to hospital, but we just had to err on the side of caution.
"When he got hit, I thought it might have been his shoulder or ribs. When I came in at halftime it was his head. Whether it was when he hit the ground or not, I'm not sure, or just the jolt."
Like Hardwick, Scott was supportive of Cotchin.
"No one likes to see one of their teammates go down like that, (but) nothing against Trent Cotchin. He's a ball player and he goes for the ball," Scott said.
"Sometimes it's a split-second decision whether you go or stay. We didn't think there was anything untoward in it at all."
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/tiger-hille-defence/story-e6frf9jf-1225893668948
The umpires comments will be used to get trent off IMHO. Umpire says that the contact was and I quote " marginally late" You can clearly hear the comments made by the Umpire. The word "marginally" is important to the Cotchin defence.
-
Shouldn't get any because of his good record,the umpires statements,Scotts statements and Hille doing the same thing and getting off a few times.
-
Been offered 3 weeks..
What a farce... What a farce. 3 weeks...
Hows Cambell Browns knock that got 0 week to a guys head over the footy.
-
effing outrageous. Purely states that Richmond is victim of a outrageous weak system :banghead
Motlop got only 2 weeks for something similar
-
Have to challenge that.
3 weeks or 4, no big diff.
-
Trent Cotchin, Richmond, has been charged with a level Four charging offence against Sam Wright, North Melbourne, during the second quarter of the round 16 match between Richmond and North Melbourne, played at the MCG on Sunday July 18, 2010.
In summary, he can accept a three-match sanction with an early plea.
The incident was assessed as reckless conduct (two points), high impact (three points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of seven activation points, resulting in a classification of a level Four offence, drawing 425 demerit points and a four-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 318.75 points and a three-match sanction.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/98541/default.aspx
-
4 WEEKS!!! 3 WITH AN EARLY PLEA?? Do you believe this?? Never mind Cotchin's spotless record. Never mind that it was a split second late. Never mind that even the reporting umpire said it was "marginally late."
What further proof do we need that the MRP system and the umpiring is TOTALLY RIGGED against the struggling clubs? I'm so FILTHY on this I feel like lobbing a molotov cocktail through the AFL's front door. During business hours!!!!
-
Why is everyone so surprised and shocked
This the consistently inconsistent MRP we are talking about, what do you seriously expect
DO I agree? Absolutely not
Am I shocked - sadly not at all :banghead :banghead
-
I'm shocked because I thought, even factoring in the league's obvious anti-Richmond bias in EVERYTHING, that the most Cotchin would get for such a light hit would be a week.
The contact wasn't to the head, he was more likely concussed when his head hit the ground.
A poster on PRE put forward the theory that the TAB is putting a lot of pressure on the AFL to do everything in its' power to ensure we get the wooden spoon, after paying out on us early, so they don't lose a shed-load of $$$. Some may argue that this is paranoid thinking. But really, how else can you explain the treatment we've been getting from the umpires and the MRP in recent weeks??
-
You would reckon we'll challenge even if it is to reduce the charge. The main contact point was to the upper back not the head and the "high" impact can also be contested as Wright is okay. It was fractionally late, it was a free, it was a 50m penalty, but 4 weeks for a first time offender where no one got seriously hurt ..... please! ::). What McKenzie did tunnelling Neagle on the mark is a far more dangerous act as Neagle would not have been expecting contact from behind let alone having his legs taken from under him as he jumped up.
Based on Hille's 3 charging reports Cotch should get off on the challenge if the tribunal is consistent but as we know it and the MRP aren't and that's why it's a joke. WP is right. This sort of penalty is way way too harsh but no surprise. It's pull a random penalty out of the hat at the MRP each and every week :banghead.
-
I'm shocked because I thought, even factoring in the league's obvious anti-Richmond bias in EVERYTHING, that the most Cotchin would get for such a light hit would be a week.
The contact wasn't to the head, he was more likely concussed when his head hit the ground.
A poster on PRE put forward the theory that the TAB is putting a lot of pressure on the AFL to do everything in its' power to ensure we get the wooden spoon, after paying out on us early, so they don't lose a shed-load of $$$. Some may argue that this is paranoid thinking. But really, how else can you explain the treatment we've been getting from the umpires and the MRP in recent weeks??
Jacko copping 2 weeks while Brown copped nothing was a joke. Brown had no intention of going for the ball and he should have gone for rough conduct at least. Jacko retaliating with a slight headbutt though was stupid and then Dr. Death's explanation when the Club challenged and failed was even more stupid.
Jacko was dumb last week with his contact with Ballantyne off the ball. We needed him yesterday in the midfield and he wasn't there.
3-4 weeks for Cotch is way way too harsh. 2 weeks maximum is all he should have got and one week with an early plea.
It's not so much what our guys copped but that other club's high profile players get off for similar if not worse offences. For instance Judd getting off for whacking Pav in the face with a elbow while on the ground, Hille getting off 3 times for late charges from behind, etc...
-
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:Y1jStoJXVoZkPM:http://someonesinthewolf.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/798242_pink_and_white_marshmallows.jpg)
-
club must appeal. if he gets 4 weeks then thats it for this season. start getting him ready for 2011.
-
too me he looks sore anyway, good time for a rest
perhaps we should take it and raise them and challenge
nothing too lose.
until some one makes a stand by club or individual these clowns
will continue to come up with these decisions..
DJ was right it is becoming or has become a pussy sport. :banghead
-
Garbage decision.
Byist decision.
Inconsistent Decision.
-
For the Pro - Tankers.
Who was it that said coaches can manufacture losses. One way is to let the players know they can get away with this sort of behavoiur with no repercussions from the club.
Cant win if you dont have your best players out there. Dont bother appealing the decision, let him rest for 4 weeks then Lids or Martin or someone else can have a rest for a few weeks. At least we will get a name as a tough (albeit dirty) team and will be feared for the next few seasons.
For the Anti - Tankers.
Or on the other hand, appeal with legal council. Precedents have been set and the match review panel are to be held to those or face legal action. Taking it to court if necessary, this will force the AFL to look at the inconsistency of the whole reporting and sanctioning of players. At present they believe they are a law unto themselves and one way or another this has to be stopped.
-
Garbage decision.
Byist decision.
Inconsistent Decision.
Good call Hutchy Tucky :thumbsup
-
Must challenge, there was no high contact at all
Would suggest they could argue against the high impact also as the damage was done by his head hitting the ground
-
With a foot in each camp, I belive we should play the kid and test those guys who havnt had a go to step up when close such as Browne, Goudis, Cotin Post Grimes etc and if we win fantastic. Win all round as we find out whos worth keeping.
But we should challenge this one, for starters how was it high contact.
-
It's a bigger issue for me.
Short term a shame we're not full strength against the Pies but ah well, it's best we focus on development rather win at all costs.
Long term I fear for the sport.. I've never had less faith then the officials of the AFL as I do now. The GC GWS concessions are a disgrace, The majority of rules is stacks on holding the ball and the MRP lotto.
It's not a huge issue Cotch missing if it happened next year round 1... You get it..
-
A poster on PRE put forward the theory that the TAB is putting a lot of pressure on the AFL to do everything in its' power to ensure we get the wooden spoon, after paying out on us early, so they don't lose a shed-load of $$$. Some may argue that this is paranoid thinking.
It is paranoid and totally incorrect.
1 - It was Sportsbet. Not the TAB.
2 - It was a cheap marketing ploy that was worth a fortune more than what they paid out. They had prime news in all major media for a small outlay.
3 - The people they pay out early turn the money over anyhow at the sportsbook and they are a big chance of winning back there regardless. Not to mention the good will they get for doing it.
4 - It is a common method of advertising used in the UK, and mainly by Paddy Power, who happen to be major owner of sportsbet.
So yeah, basically put, the guy on PRE has NFI and should stick to footy.
And am I guessing? I work fulltime in the sportsbetting industry and personally know the owner of Sportsbet.
-
they paid out $20,000, big deal ::)
-
they paid out $20,000, big deal ::)
Pretty sure it was over $100k
-
they paid out $20,000, big deal ::)
Pretty sure it was over $100k
It was over a 100k. But who cares.
They payout over 100k, they keep clients happy who then bet more at the joint. Not to mention the 100s of K's worth of advertising.
Smart business model that has worked very well in the UK. Over there it is an extremely common thing and done for reasons that the Aussie betting public hasnt been exposed to.
-
they paid out $20,000, big deal ::)
Pretty sure it was over $100k
It was over a 100k. But who cares.
They payout over 100k, they keep clients happy who then bet more at the joint. Not to mention the 100s of K's worth of advertising.
Smart business model that has worked very well in the UK. Over there it is an extremely common thing and done for reasons that the Aussie betting public hasnt been exposed to.
The AFL has done similar with Falou and Hunt. The free publicity savings outweighs the cost of their multi-million dollar contracts.
-
will we really miss cotch?yes i grant you this kid has superstar written all over him,but at the minute he is barely averaging 20 touches a game ,hardly earth shattering..maybe he does off the ball stuff thats helping the cause...But nah as a midfielder his job is to get the pill
-
will we really miss cotch?yes i grant you this kid has superstar written all over him,but at the minute he is barely averaging 20 touches a game ,hardly earth shattering..maybe he does off the ball stuff thats helping the cause...But nah as a midfielder his job is to get the pill
We'll miss Cotch more from a team perspective more. The opposition tag will now move onto Lids and/or Dusty. They don't tag Tucky or even Jacko if he was playing because they aren't that damaging for the many possies they get.
I just saw a replay Andrew Walker's front on bump on FC. That kind of bump is dangerous. What a joke he only copped a reprimand. So typical of inconsistency of the MRP ::) :banghead.
-
Tigers consider appealing Trent Cotchin's three-game suspension
Bruce Matthews
Herald Sun
July 20, 2010
RICHMOND is considering challenging Trent Cotchin's three-game suspension at the AFL Tribunal tonight.
The Tigers will be guided by legal advice on whether they have a case to overturn or at least downgrade the charging offence.
The AFL match review panel assessed Cotchin's late spoiling attempt on North Melbourne's Sam Wright on Sunday as reckless conduct with high impact, resulting in a four-match penalty that can be reduced by one by pleading guilty today.
Cotchin was only three weeks from receiving a heavier sentence as an additional 93.75 demerit points from a 2009 striking conviction had expired after Round 13.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/tigers-consider-appealing-trent-cotchins-three-game-suspension/story-e6frf9jf-1225894326401
-
Appeal it. Nothing to lose. Not high impact. At best negligent. Not reckless.
-
A poster on PRE put forward the theory that the TAB is putting a lot of pressure on the AFL to do everything in its' power to ensure we get the wooden spoon, after paying out on us early, so they don't lose a shed-load of $$$. Some may argue that this is paranoid thinking.
It is paranoid and totally incorrect.
1 - It was Sportsbet. Not the TAB.
2 - It was a cheap marketing ploy that was worth a fortune more than what they paid out. They had prime news in all major media for a small outlay.
3 - The people they pay out early turn the money over anyhow at the sportsbook and they are a big chance of winning back there regardless. Not to mention the good will they get for doing it.
4 - It is a common method of advertising used in the UK, and mainly by Paddy Power, who happen to be major owner of sportsbet.
So yeah, basically put, the guy on PRE has NFI and should stick to footy.
And am I guessing? I work fulltime in the sportsbetting industry and personally know the owner of Sportsbet.
Okay,maybe the guy on PRE (and me by mentioning it) were drawing a bit of a long bow there. But honestly, I'm just flabbergasted and struggling to understand and come up with reasons why we ALWAYS cop the spikey end of the pineapple when it comes to umpires and the MRP.
-
Why is everyone so surprised and shocked
This the consistently inconsistent MRP we are talking about, what do you seriously expect
DO I agree? Absolutely not
Am I shocked - sadly not at all :banghead :banghead
Same with me WP. I wasn't too shocked. They let things go, let things go, then all of a sudden make an example of someone.
It seems to me that it's largely media driven.
Cotchin bowls the guy over and commentators are saying stuff like that is the worst they've seen. He was always going to get a big penalty.
Franklin against Geelong gives a round arm strike to Lonergan which admittedly was high on his shoulder and it slips up and gets him around the chops. Commentators immediately say he has nothing to worry about, and he didn't. I watched it and was just thinking 'what was Franklin trying to do? It wasn't a tackle or a bump, it was a strike'.
-
Richmond are appealing the suspension
Cotchin to contest charge
9:25 AM Tue 20 July, 2010
Thu, Apr 23, 09Today's videosRichmond will head to the AFL tribunal tonight to contest a charging offence on midfielder Trent Cotchin.
The Tigers will attempt to have the charge downgraded in a bid to reduce the four-game penalty handed out by the Match Review Panel (MPR).
The Club chose not to take the early guilty plea offered by the MPR, which would have reduced the suspension to three matches.
The incident was assessed as a level four charging offence against the Kangaroos’ Sam Wright during the second quarter of Sunday’s match.
The incident was assessed as reckless conduct (two points), high impact (three points) and high contact (two points).
This is a total of seven activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Four offence, drawing 425 demerit points and a four-match sanction.
for richmondfc.com.au
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/blogarticle/tabid/14215/newsid/98549/default.aspx
-
I think they will contest the high contact, and rightly so. Contact was to the back, not the head.
Fingers crossed.
-
Hopefully they are arguing the high impact also
-
Anyone else see this ::)
Comparing collisions is off the mark
* Bruce Matthews
* From: Herald Sun
* July 20, 2010
DAMIEN Hardwick's attempt to soften the fall for his young midfielder Trent Cotchin is the reason why cries of inconsistency in the tribunal system are generally wrong.
The Richmond coach's assertion that Cotchin's charging offence was similar to Essendon ruckman David Hille's early in the season was way off the mark.
And the fanciful comparison is just another example of why precedent can never be a defence for footballers.
The match review panel dismissed Hille's report for charging Geelong's Jimmy Bartel in the opening round on the basis the Bombers' ruckman was getting set for a regulation chest mark.
When Bartel cut across Hille's path to intercept the ball, the ruckman turned, braced himself and made contact to the Cat's upper body and shoulder.
Significantly, there was no head contact. Bartel was momentarily shaken, but played out the rest of the game.
Cotchin ran from behind North Melbourne's Sam Wright on Sunday in what was, no doubt, an attempt to spoil the mark. But he arrived late, kept going and barrelled into the unsuspecting Roo.
Wright didn't pick himself up and dust himself down like Bartel. Doubled over in pain and throwing up, he was assisted from the ground by trainers and sent to hospital as a precaution against damage more sinister than heavy concussion.
Sensibly, the AFL match review panel assessed each case in isolation, given the differing circumstances -- Hille's collision was a legitimate marking attempt, Cotchin's a clumsy spoil.
And Bartel played the next week. Not sure the docs at Arden St can risk Wright against Essendon on Saturday night.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/comparing-collisions-is-off-the-mark/story-e6frf9jf-1225894321056
-
Anyone else see this ::).........
Just on that, Andy Maher on SEN was saying something along the lines of it's ok to do it but make sure you don't hurt the opposition player.
Dermie then said 'then what is the point of doing it then'.
-
Cotch giving evidence before the tribunal right now.
He's pleaded guilty to the rough conduct and high impact charges but is contesting the high contact charge wanting it reduced to body contract. So it's down to whether he cops a 2 week suspension if the appeal succeeds or 4 weeks if it fails. Richmond doctor Dr Hickey is also to give evidence to "help" Cotch. If it's anything like Jacko's tribunal hearing then Cotch doesn't have much hope :-\.
-
WTF is going on in the AFL?
why aren't the incredible inconsistencies of the MRP being exposed in a witch hunt by the media? How can that be 4 weeks and Hille's be 0? HTF did Judd not get booked? How did Baker get 10 weeks? How dd C.Brown not cop it for getting jackson head high when jackson had head over the ball? Why was dusty booked when he actually MISSED the sydney players head?
I can see why TV ratings are down 25% this season. Ppl have had enough of the over umpirng, the silly rules and the waythe game has changed in the last 3-4 years, I can't watch nutral games anymore, I find them borng as batshit! Saints v pies only drew a TV audience of 285k, the lowest this season is 225k. The AFL better be careful bc once fans stop caring as much you never get them back.
-
if Cotch doesn't get at least a reduction on his suspension, it will only be further proof that the whole AFL judiciary system is a complete farce (although we already know that for a fact!). do they just roll a dice to determine how many weeks any given offence will be?
-
Appeal failed.
Cotch gets 4 weeks :banghead
-
why is everyone shocked, they are idiots for appealing, we never win
they hate us
-
Appeal failed.
Cotch gets 4 weeks :banghead
this is a stuffing joke
-
Absolute joke :banghead
Can I ask why Dr Death was at the tribunal? Twice now he's been utterly useless ???. As soon as SEN said he was there to help Cotch you knew Cotch had no chance. Why didn't we have a legal mind there instead to put the onus on the tribunal to show proof of high contact because from the vision I still don't see it no matter what the North doctor said.
-
Unbelievable, how on earth can they argue that was high contact?
-
I dont normally comment on such stuff but are these guys looking at the same vidoe I have seen over and over again. At no stage did he hit HIGH. This is one of the worse decisions I have ever seen. :banghead :banghead
Sitting here shaking my head, I am stunned, could somebody plese explian to me what they concider high, I would of thought it was over the sholder.
Just stunned, Silly thing to do Cotch but not 4 weeks worth of Silly. Another lesson learned by a youngster and a chance for somebody else to step up for 4 weeks are the only possitives I can think of from this.
-
Now i'm even gladder he smashed him.
Should have punctured his kydney the stuffing weak dog.
-
why is that hille gets nothing for all his charges and when nick maxwell broke some kids jaw he gets nothing and cotchin gets 4 weeks for a hit on the lower back?
just dont understand
-
Unbelievable, how on earth can they argue that was high contact?
I thought in our legal system the onus is on the prosecution to prove the defendant committed an illegal act rather than the defendant having to prove his innocence. Oops I forgot this is the AFL MRP and tribunal system :banghead. Having said it didn't sound like we had a QC at the appeal hearing to push the fact there was no evidence of high contract from the vision. Instead we had Dr Death there with his zero from two record at the tribunal :help.
-
north say he has amnesia and a hundred other things and will miss up to two weeks.
Pigs stuffin Ars !!
He'll play this week.
I want to punch on with brad scot
-
wtf are we going in with no QC?
simple argument - prove with vision that Cotch hit him high, otherwise we are arguing concussion caused by severe whiplash (can happen!)
we should appeal this, this is just not right! there is no vision/proof FFS! i have no legal experience but even I can see that without vision, we simply take in an INDEPENDENT doctor to discuss merits of whiplash concussions and throwenough doubts on their presumption of head high contact. THIS IS BULL.poo!
Edit: swear filter
-
why is that hille gets nothing for all his charges and when nick maxwell broke some kids jaw he gets nothing and cotchin gets 4 weeks for a hit on the lower back?
just dont understand
bartel who Hille smashed kept playing on till the end of the game and played the week after.
This North softie went strraight off to hospital.
Maxwell well thats just plain bull poo
-
wtf are we going in with no QC?
simple argument - prove with vision that Cotch hit him high, otherwise we are arguing concussion caused by severe whiplash (can happen!)
we should appeal this, this is just not right! there is no vision/proof FFS! i have no legal experience but even I can see that without vision, we simply take in an INDEPENDENT doctor to discuss merits of whiplash concussions and throwenough doubts on their presumption of head high contact. THIS IS BULL.poo!
I agree TM but is there another means to appeal? I thought if you appealed again you could only do so provided you had new/fresh evidence (say a different camera angle of the collision that hadn't been seen before).
-
A bad decision by Cotchin to drop the shoulder into his opponents back. An even worse one by the MRP panel to offer him three. And just when you think it couldn't get any worse the MRP upholds that as high?
What is the definition of high? WTF?
This is crap.
If you bump someone with what we know as a fair bump, in the side, and their head 'whiplashes', is that now high contact as well?
And on the topic too many players from all clubs copped it from commentators on the weekend for attacking an opponent head on. But on each occasion the ball was in the middle of the two players and the opponent only beat them to the ball by a fraction of a second. Although this doesn't apply to the Cotchin case I feel that this will be the next 'example' set by those bastards at the MRP. Geez I hate them. They are ruining the game. Umpires are umpiring to try and reflect their decisions. They are not required to justify their decisions nor the reasons for dismissing appeals. The AFL is continually defending their independence but they are making complete fools of them at AFL HQ.
-
How the stuff was that high contact.
This is why all employees of the AFL should be tested for recreation drugs, not just the players.
A diabolical disgrace by a bunch of half wits. This is not even the result of a kangaroo court but a sheltered workshop.
In article today a Nth player said that the players association were close to asking for the whole system to be reviewed.
If they decide to strike to get this, they will my 100% backing
I've seen some stupidity in my time but classing that as high contact and then leaving it that way when their stupidity is pointed takes the cake.
I really want to say another word for vaginas, but I can't.
:chuck :chuck :chuck :chuck :chuck
-
How the eff was that high contact.
This is why all employees of the AFL should be tested for recreation drugs, not just the players.
A diabolical disgrace by a bunch of half wits. This is not even the result of a kangaroo court but a sheltered workshop.
In article today a Nth player said that the players association were close to asking for the whole system to be reviewed.
If they decide to strike to get this, they will my 100% backing
I've seen some stupidity in my time but classing that as high contact and then leaving it that way when their stupidity is pointed takes the cake.
I really want to say another word for vaginas, but I can't.
:chuck :chuck :chuck :chuck :chuck
The thing is Al, vagina's are both beautiful and functional. Conversely these effing idiots on the MRP are both repugnant and totally useless!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
We did have a QC :P
Cotchin out for four
By Adam McNicol
7:00 PM Tue 20 July, 2010
RICHMOND'S Trent Cotchin will miss the Tigers’ next four matches after the tribunal upheld the match review panel's original finding for charging North Melbourne's Sam Wright.
Cotchin pleaded guilty to making reckless and forceful contact with Wright, but he contested the match review panel’s finding that the contact was also high.
However, Cotchin’s effort to have his penalty downgraded was undermined by a medical report lodged by North Melbourne club doctor, Con Mitropoulos.
Dr Mitropoulos stated that when he left the field following the collision, Wright had complained of a sore jaw and cheekbone.
He also had no recollection of where he was, which way North Melbourne was kicking, or what had happened in the collision with Cotchin.
After being taken to hospital for a CAT scan, Wright was found to have suffered concussion.
Cotchin’s player advocate, Michael Tovey QC, argued that Wright could have been concussed when he hit the ground, but the tribunal disagreed and ruled that Cotchin’s shoulder had struck Wright’s head.
After the finding was handed down Cotchin said he was “very disappointed with the outcome”.
If he had lodged an early plea and not taken the case to the tribunal, he could have escaped with a three-game ban.
The Tigers are unlikely to lodge an appeal.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/98624/default.aspx
-
We did have a QC :P
Cotchin out for four
By Adam McNicol
7:00 PM Tue 20 July, 2010
RICHMOND'S Trent Cotchin will miss the Tigers’ next four matches after the tribunal upheld the match review panel's original finding for charging North Melbourne's Sam Wright.
Cotchin pleaded guilty to making reckless and forceful contact with Wright, but he contested the match review panel’s finding that the contact was also high.
However, Cotchin’s effort to have his penalty downgraded was undermined by a medical report lodged by North Melbourne club doctor, Con Mitropoulos.
Dr Mitropoulos stated that when he left the field following the collision, Wright had complained of a sore jaw and cheekbone.
He also had no recollection of where he was, which way North Melbourne was kicking, or what had happened in the collision with Cotchin.
After being taken to hospital for a CAT scan, Wright was found to have suffered concussion.
Cotchin’s player advocate, Michael Tovey QC, argued that Wright could have been concussed when he hit the ground, but the tribunal disagreed and ruled that Cotchin’s shoulder had struck Wright’s head.
After the finding was handed down Cotchin said he was “very disappointed with the outcome”.
If he had lodged an early plea and not taken the case to the tribunal, he could have escaped with a three-game ban.
The Tigers are unlikely to lodge an appeal.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/98624/default.aspx
bloody greeks tore us a new one again. hahaha
-
[
The thing is Al, vagina's are both beautiful and functional. Conversely these effing idiots on the MRP are both repugnant and totally useless!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah I know Rolls, that why I didn't just call them that. Although the C word is another term for a wonderful thing, it does have different connotations when describing such .....people.
-
I guess you could say that once again Richmond was "conned" :P
-
rubbish decision ... cotch should have ruined the prick for 4 weeks. he hit him in the back not the head. the tribunal can get stuffed the dogs.
-
Dr Mitropoulos stated that when he left the field following the collision, Wright had complained of a sore jaw and cheekbone.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/98624/default.aspx
Hang on a sec, impact was from behind wtf does that have to do with a sore jaw and cheekbone?
-
hey ramps, nths doctor is greek. he is a disgrace to all greeks
hille gets off always bec everyone knows he is a girl; ;) ;) ;)
-
I can't believe it
I mean I can believe it, but I can't
The fact that Walker got off with a reprimand but Cotchin gets 4 weeks is just staggering
The administrators of this game are officially screwed
-
Since when were the Greeks experts on impact from behind?....
Oh, wait.....
-
I can't believe it
I mean I can believe it, but I can't
The fact that Walker got off with a reprimand but Cotchin gets 4 weeks is just staggering
The administrators of this game are officially screwed
Summed it up perfectly Infamy
Staggering decision
-
Since when were the Greeks experts on impact from behind?....
Oh, wait.....
gold
-
Cotchin’s player advocate, Michael Tovey QC, argued that Wright could have been concussed when he hit the ground, but the tribunal disagreed and ruled that Cotchin’s shoulder had struck Wright’s head.
If Cotchin's shoulder had hit Wright's head then it would've been the back of the head as the collision was from behind. So would the tribunal care to explain how did Wright ended up with a sore jaw rather than a sore back of the head ???. Must have been a magic bullet hip and shoulder leapt from a grassy knoll :whistle.
-
Maybe hes a stuffing picasso painting coz I cant figure it out either MT....
-
Tank
-
Tank
I think the word "tank" should be a word that is blocked by the swear filter!
-
I can't understand how a legal entity failed to prove Trents case...
Whats embarrassing is sanctions are determined on the injury sustained by the opponent. Which is completely wrong.
Trent gets suspended for 4 weeks cause he hit Sam Wright who is the size of a water bottle. Yet if it were Campbell Brown or Jim Bartel they would have got straight up laughing and nothing would have happened.
Did no-one think to bring up that if Trent elected to go to wrap up Wright that it would have been 50 metres cause he wasnt in the contact? Whats he meant to do run past him with his inertia and let him play on? I'm sick of it.
I'm sick of the AFL being so reactive and shifting the target audience to 5 year old kids and Mums. Its a contact sport.
In todays game Matthew Whealan would have been reported for negligent contact to Nathan Browns broken leg. Its pathetic.
Well said Daniel Jackson. The game is a pussy sport, thanks to everyones favourite stay at home dad Demetiou...
-
I can't understand how a legal entity failed to prove Trents case...
Did no-one think to bring up that if Trent elected to go to wrap up Wright that it would have been 50 metres cause he wasnt in the contact? Whats he meant to do run past him with his inertia and let him play on? I'm sick of it.
Four weeks seems very harsh, but you are kidding yourself if you think that Trent had no option but to barrel Wright. Let's be honest, he lined him up and put him down, and had the option to pull up or make it look like an attempted spoil.
So...the current rule, whether we like it or not, is that if you elect to bump and have other options, then you must be prepared to run the risk of doing incidental or accidental damage to your opponent, and paying the consequences.
Should have taken the 3 in the current climate, even though it is clear that the initial contact wasn't high.
-
Four weeks seems very harsh, but you are kidding yourself if you think that Trent had no option but to barrel Wright. Let's be honest, he lined him up and put him down, and had the option to pull up or make it look like an attempted spoil.
So...the current rule, whether we like it or not, is that if you elect to bump and have other options, then you must be prepared to run the risk of doing incidental or accidental damage to your opponent, and paying the consequences.
Should have taken the 3 in the current climate, even though it is clear that the initial contact wasn't high.
Trent wasn't trying to get off, I think he deserved some weeks, he was trying to get it downgraded.
It was classed as high contact, but he didn't touch his head. That's the problem here.
-
It was classed as high contact, but he didn't touch his head. That's the problem here.
And that's the point I'm making...under this rule, if you elect to bump when you have other options, and the other player ends up concussed — whether accidental or not — then you are going to get a decent suspension. It doesn't matter whether you actually make contact high...you could bump him into the fence, but if you had another option, you'll go.
-
High contact? ???
(http://oneeyed-richmond.com/images/richmond/cotchbump.jpg)
-
Actually that still looks like high contact was made.
-
Regardless of whether it was high or not, it was bloody pivotal to the game. Big lesson for Cotch in so many ways.
-
Tank
second that!
:)
-
High contact? ???
(http://oneeyed-richmond.com/images/richmond/cotchbump.jpg)
Actually that still looks like high contact was made.
Disagree FFV. Wright's head would've be pushed forward along with his body if he had been hit in the back of the head as well as the body. However in the photo his head recoils backwards as the collision with his upper torso pushes his body forward. In other words whiplash and if severe enough possibly the cause of his concussion. I don't know why our QC said Wright's head hit the ground as it didn't look like that happened either :-\.
-
Disagree FFV. Wright's head would've be pushed forward along with his body if he had been hit in the back of the head as well as the body. However in the photo his head recoils backwards as the collision with his upper torso pushes his body forward. In other words whiplash and if severe enough possibly the cause of his concussion. I don't know why our QC said Wright's head hit the ground as it didn't look like that happened either :-\.
In any case, North are dogs for fronting the tribunal with this line.
-
Disagree FFV. Wright's head would've be pushed forward along with his body if he had been hit in the back of the head as well as the body. However in the photo his head recoils backwards as the collision with his upper torso pushes his body forward. In other words whiplash and if severe enough possibly the cause of his concussion. I don't know why our QC said Wright's head hit the ground as it didn't look like that happened either :-\.
Looking at that photo, it seems possible that Cotchin's shoulder made contact with the side of Wright's head. I think that is undeniable — that is looks possible.
Looking at the incident in slow-mo, it doesn't really look like it, but it is possible.
Seems more likely that the whiplash caused the concussion, but as I've said numerous times, once you decide to bump when you clearly have other options, you become responsible for the damage caused, whether or not the damage was "accidental" or not caused by the initial impact. You don't have to like the rule, but that's how it is.
I actually support the rule as it is now written. People whinge about the game becoming netball etc, but in the old days, shepherding and blocking were never intended to be taken as opportunities to knock your opponent into next week. They were opportunities to impede your opponent and give your own player time and space to dispose more effectively. The force with which some blocks and shepherds are dished out these days is excessive and unnecessary in many cases — the intention has become to maim rather than impede.
-
Following that line of thought Foo Fooo, any bump that injures an opponent then leaves you liable for scrutiny, even if the bump is otherwise legal? (no im not saying cotchins bump was legal). As Mt (i think) said, if the contact was high his head would have been propelled forward, but that did not happen, only his body.
The fact that contact was ruled high initially and then not changed even when challenged I find stunning. I'm not one for getting into this this the umps/MRP have got it in for RFC bull crap, but gee.....
-
Following that line of thought Foo Fooo, any bump that injures an opponent then leaves you liable for scrutiny, even if the bump is otherwise legal? (no im not saying cotchins bump was legal). As Mt (i think) said, if the contact was high his head would have been propelled forward, but that did not happen, only his body.
The fact that contact was ruled high initially and then not changed even when challenged I find stunning. I'm not one for getting into this this the umps/MRP have got it in for RFC bull crap, but gee.....
Not any bump - just the ones where you had another option eg tackle, spoil etc.
In Cotchin's case, Wright was entitled to expect no contact because Cotchin was very late. That's why the whiplash was so bad I think — he was relaxed and not braced for a bump — a bit like Gia on Kosi.
-
The only time you bump but there is no option is when shepherding. Any other time there is always an option, not necessarily a better option, but still an option.
Two weeks ago Gus twice received bumps to his unprotected ribs that hurt, hurt a lot. Legal bumps, but ones that caused injury. The same withe Webberly early in the season. Should those players responsible fronted the tribunal for neglecting their duty of care?
As for Cotchin's bump I agree it was late and crude. If that had happened to a Richmond player everyone here would be calling for the culprits head on a stick. My issue is the call of high contact when it wasn't. You cant justify incorrectly laying charges just because of the nature of the injury sustained. If so you might as well go back to the old system where these sort of things were the discretion of the tribunal. This whole system was bought in in an attempt to get more consistency but somehow these clowns continue to stuff things up and the inconsistencies are as common as ever
-
Interesting that Wayne Henwood a barrister was on the jury
-
Looking at that photo, it seems possible that Cotchin's shoulder made contact with the side of Wright's head. I think that is undeniable — that is looks possible.
Looking at the incident in slow-mo, it doesn't really look like it, but it is possible.
Seems more likely that the whiplash caused the concussion, but as I've said numerous times, once you decide to bump when you clearly have other options, you become responsible for the damage caused, whether or not the damage was "accidental" or not caused by the initial impact. You don't have to like the rule, but that's how it is.
I actually support the rule as it is now written. People whinge about the game becoming netball etc, but in the old days, shepherding and blocking were never intended to be taken as opportunities to knock your opponent into next week. They were opportunities to impede your opponent and give your own player time and space to dispose more effectively. The force with which some blocks and shepherds are dished out these days is excessive and unnecessary in many cases — the intention has become to maim rather than impede.
What Cotch did was wrong and I'm not saying Wright didn't suffer concussion as a result of Cotch's bump. However the MRP system works but awarding activation points depending on the categories the charge falls in. The MRP shouldn't be allowed to guess. Saying it's possible is guessing. Legally you can't find someone guilty of something without clear evidence. There is no clear evidence from all the different tv angles that Cotch collected Wright in the head. I would argue there is no evidence at all and the biomechanics of both players in the collision is at odds with any hit to the back or side of Wright's head (his head wasn't propelled forward as al said). Mind you our QC representing Cotch was stupid trying to argue Wright suffered concussion from hitting his head on the ground. Another guess as there's no evidence from the tv vision that Wright's head hit the ground. No wonder the tribunal threw that argument out ::).
If Cotch's charge was exactly the same but with 'body contact' instead then I have no doubt Cotch and the RFC would've have accepted it and taken the early plea. Incidently with body contact and an early plea Cotch would've got 2 weeks (a fair punishment).
What is mainly getting fans up in arms is the inconsistency of these MRP decisions. How Andrew Walker can get off after his front on bump while a Swans' player was bent head first over the ball (a far more dangerous bump and one the League claimed to be cracking down heavily on) while Cotch got 3 and now 4 weeks is a joke. Then add how Hille can bump with the shoulder tucked in like Cotch yet get off because (unlike Wright who is a stick) Bartel is solidly built and tough as and played on. It was just as possible that Hille as a 200cm ruckman would've collected Bartel (almost a foot shorter) in the back of the head. As Dimma said all we ask for is consistency. Otherwise the system is a farce with Animal Farm rules.
-
Not too sure how you get very late out of it FooFoo didn't the field umpire even say it was marginally late
-
Not too sure how you get very late out of it FooFoo didn't the field umpire even say it was marginally late
It was late enough for Cotchin to have done something other than what he did. That's all that matters.
-
Not too sure how you get very late out of it FooFoo didn't the field umpire even say it was marginally late
It was late enough for Cotchin to have done something other than what he did. That's all that matters.
it shouldn't have been 4 weeks end of story
2weeks fine.
well said MT
-
Saying it's possible is guessing. Legally you can't find someone guilty of something without clear evidence. There is no clear evidence from all the different tv angles that Cotch collected Wright in the head.
If Cotch's charge was exactly the same but with 'body contact' instead then I have no doubt Cotch and the RFC would've have accepted it and taken the early plea. Incidently with body contact and an early plea Cotch would've got 2 weeks (a fair punishment).
What is mainly getting fans up in arms is the inconsistency of these MRP decisions. How Andrew Walker can get off after his front on bump while a Swans' player was bent head first over the ball (a far more dangerous bump and one the League claimed to be cracking down heavily on) while Cotch got 3 and now 4 weeks is a joke. Then add how Hille can bump with the shoulder tucked in like Cotch yet get off because (unlike Wright who is a stick) Bartel is solidly built and tough as and played on. It was just as possible that Hille as a 200cm ruckman would've collected Bartel (almost a foot shorter) in the back of the head. As Dimma said all we ask for is consistency. Otherwise the system is a farce with Animal Farm rules.
You are confusing my observation about what contact might have been made, and what the MRP made their own decision on. I was never arguing that the MRP did anything based on what possibly happened. I was just observing that it was possible that Cotchin's shoulder made contact with the side of Wright's head.
I reckon 2 or 3 weeks was appropriate - 4 is stretching the friendship, but I think we are all being very slow to pick up on the fact that the AFL want to crack down hard on excessive force being used when bumping. Clearly they are very sensitive about concussion and head injury stats in a very competitive environment with regard to other football codes.
-
Saying it's possible is guessing. Legally you can't find someone guilty of something without clear evidence. There is no clear evidence from all the different tv angles that Cotch collected Wright in the head.
If Cotch's charge was exactly the same but with 'body contact' instead then I have no doubt Cotch and the RFC would've have accepted it and taken the early plea. Incidently with body contact and an early plea Cotch would've got 2 weeks (a fair punishment).
What is mainly getting fans up in arms is the inconsistency of these MRP decisions. How Andrew Walker can get off after his front on bump while a Swans' player was bent head first over the ball (a far more dangerous bump and one the League claimed to be cracking down heavily on) while Cotch got 3 and now 4 weeks is a joke. Then add how Hille can bump with the shoulder tucked in like Cotch yet get off because (unlike Wright who is a stick) Bartel is solidly built and tough as and played on. It was just as possible that Hille as a 200cm ruckman would've collected Bartel (almost a foot shorter) in the back of the head. As Dimma said all we ask for is consistency. Otherwise the system is a farce with Animal Farm rules.
You are confusing my observation about what contact might have been made, and what the MRP made their own decision on. I was never arguing that the MRP did anything based on what possibly happened. I was just observing that it was possible that Cotchin's shoulder made contact with the side of Wright's head.
I reckon 2 or 3 weeks was appropriate - 4 is stretching the friendship, but I think we are all being very slow to pick up on the fact that the AFL want to crack down hard on excessive force being used when bumping. Clearly they are very sensitive about concussion and head injury stats in a very competitive environment with regard to other football codes.
I understand, but the Walker decision then go and completely contradict you
-
I reckon 2 or 3 weeks was appropriate - 4 is stretching the friendship, but I think we are all being very slow to pick up on the fact that the AFL want to crack down hard on excessive force being used when bumping. Clearly they are very sensitive about concussion and head injury stats in a very competitive environment with regard to other football codes.
You're right FFV. No doubt that's the message the AFL has conveyed over the past couple of years. However that message isn't been consistently conveyed by the MRP and tribunal when Hille can escape without any penalty for 3 late bumps in a single season as does Walker who gets off with the type of front on bump on a player with his head over the ball that the AFL explicitly said they would not tolerate at all given how dangerous it is. Even AFL players have publicly said they are confused by it all because from week to week and from case to case you don't know how severely or leniently the MRP will treat reports.
As for Cotch my issue isn't with him copping weeks for the late bump. He did the crime so he does the time. However if the League wants to get tough on such bumps then they should make the penalty points greater so a high activation level is reached for such an incident. They shouldn't guess and make out something (high contact in this instance) occurred that three or so tv angles show no clear evidence of, just to boost the activation points so the penalty is greater.
-
It's the inconsistency that infuriates me. The three Hille incidents:Nothing. Judd gashes Pavlich's forehead with an elbow:Nothing.Maxwell runs past the ball to collect an Eagle's players, and shatters his jaw:Nothing.
Yet King and Jackson are both outed without even video evidence. Jackson is wiped out for retaliating with Campbell Brown after being KO'd by him (and not even earning a free for it),then being taunted as he's helped from the ground. Now Cotchin gets extra weeks for head high contact, when the video replay shows no contact was made with the head.
The only consistency with the MRP is that their rulings consistently go against the Tigers.
-
maybe the club should just rest him for the rest of the year...and get him back early not on a modified program.
-
The MRP are either corrupt or incompetent, and however you see it, none of its current members should be there next year.
-
It's the inconsistency that infuriates me. The three Hille incidents:Nothing. Judd gashes Pavlich's forehead with an elbow:Nothing.Maxwell runs past the ball to collect an Eagle's players, and shatters his jaw:Nothing.
Yet King and Jackson are both outed without even video evidence. Jackson is wiped out for retaliating with Campbell Brown after being KO'd by him (and not even earning a free for it),then being taunted as he's helped from the ground. Now Cotchin gets extra weeks for head high contact, when the video replay shows no contact was made with the head.
The only consistency with the MRP is that their rulings consistently go against the Tigers.
spot on but you forgot the mcguire one where he knocked himself out along with the other bloke & cops 2 weeks, that was the worst decision of the season and thats really saying something..
-
Well said RR very hard to argue against that
-
I wonder if Hams and Waite will be charged by the MRP with high contact and cop 3-4 weeks for their front on bumps. Hams bump caused Armfield to go to hospital to have his neck vertebrae checked out.
-
Similar front on bumps but Hams got 4 weeks (similar reasoning to Cotch's report) while Waite got off ???. It seems you only get reported if you injure an opponent
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/99039/default.aspx
Ashton Hams, West Coast, has been charged with a level four engaging in rough conduct offence against Dennis Armfield, Carlton, during the second quarter of the round 17 match between West Coast and Carlton, played at Subiaco on Saturday July 24, 2010.
In summary, he can accept a three-match sanction with an early plea.
The incident was assessed as reckless conduct (two points), high impact (three points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of seven activation points, resulting in a classification of a level four offence, drawing 425 demerit points and a four-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 318.75 points and a three-match sanction.
The match day report laid against Carlton’s Jarrad Waite for engaging in rough conduct against West Coast’s Adam Selwood was assessed. The panel said that Selwood had kicked the ball when Waite made contact with a bump. Contact was made to Selwood’s shoulder area and the action was not considered to be a reportable offence. No further action was taken.
-
Similar front on bumps but Hams got 4 weeks (similar reasoning to Cotch's report) while Waite got off ???. It seems you only get reported if you injure an opponent
Well, to be fair, if someone gets carted off on a stretcher and no report is laid, then questions will be asked. Hams deserved the severe sanction and the right decision was made with Waite — a free down-field was the appropriate outcome. Waite did not blindside Selwood and while a bit late, Selwood could have expected contact and had a small opportunity to brace himself. Not so with Cotchin on Wright.
They don't get everything right, but this one adds up to me.
-
while Waite got off ???. It seems you only get reported if you injure an opponent
Waite was right in getting off, it was a late bump, not high and should of just been a down field free kick.
Campbell Brown gets 2 weeks for a no look back hander and Chris Judd got off for exactly the same thing!!