Cotch reported and cops 4 weeks!!! [update: appeal fails]

[Infamy]

 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

[mightytiges]

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.

[RollsRoyce]

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.         

[Con65]

maybe the club should just rest him for the rest of the year...and get him back early not on a modified program.

[TheUmpire]

The MRP are either corrupt or incompetent, and however you see it, none of its current members should be there next year.

[tony_montana]

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..

[Chuck17]

Well said RR very hard to argue against that

[mightytiges]

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.

[one-eyed]

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.

[FooffooValve]

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.

[wayne]

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!!