Buddy's appeal fails / His counsel accused Cotchin of acting (afl site)

[one-eyed]

Robbo's article from the weekend:

--------------------------

Mark Robinson: Time we stopped pretending Lance Franklin was victim in Trent Cotchin strike

Lance Franklin’s strike on Trent Cotchin might not have been cowardly, as the AFL has admitted. But as Mark Robinson writes, it’s time we stopped pretending Franklin is the victim.

Mark Robinson
HeraldSun
4 June 2022

Please, Lance Franklin is not the victim here and he hardly warranted an apology from the AFL.

His hit on Richmond’s Trent Cotchin was described as a cowardly act by AFL counsel Andrew Woods, a description which ruffled feathers at Sydney, and you’d think a phone call between the aggrieved Swans and AFL headquarters on Thursday might’ve helped caress those ruffled feathers.

The outcome was the AFL apology to Franklin.

True, it wasn’t cowardly. If Cotchin wasn’t looking at Franklin and Franklin swiped him from behind, then cowardly would be appropriate.

No, it was a good ol’ fashioned cheap shot, delivered spontaneously in anger to a person who rightfully shouldn’t have expected it.

Not sure that’s cowardly, but it’s close to it. It was certainly a free hit to the chin of a bloke who wasn’t shaping up for a fight.

You have to wonder if the AFL would’ve apologised if Franklin’s punch flushed Cotchin and broke his jaw? Or knocked him out?

Of course, they wouldn’t have. So, once again, the outcome rather than the act played a role in the proceedings.

If anyone required an apology for what took place last Friday night and for the ill-mannered comments made by Sydney’s counsel Duncan Miller on Wednesday night, it is Cotchin.

Cotchin was the one who got a clip to the jaw, yet it was Cotchin who had his character questioned by Miller at what turned out to be a spicy tribunal hearing.

Miller accused Cotchin of acting.

“I’m tempted to say he might be invited to the Logies and not the Brownlow this year,” he said during proceedings.

“The exaggerated head movement back and the rest of the pictures show exactly what it was — there’s a wry smile on Mr Cotchin’s face.”

What a crock.

Cotchin has earnt the right to be treated with respect by anyone associated with football, including courtroom lawyers wanting to be dramatic with their arguments.

The three-time premiership captain is hardly a stager and the events later in the game, when he placed himself in front of a rampaging Franklin, is evidence enough that Cotchin is not a shirker, either.

It was a pathetic choice of words from Miller and although the Tigers were disappointed with the comments, they chose to not let it ruffle their feathers. Publicly, at least.

The sort of punch which Franklin threw is, thankfully, a rarity in football.

Even more rare was that it came from Franklin. He’s aggressive and he has a penchant for tackling players with a swinging arm to his opponent’s head, but punching is not in his kit bag.

But the fact is he did it and somehow Cotchin was made to look like the villain.

If anything, the AFL apologised to the wrong man.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/mark-robinson-time-we-stopped-pretending-lance-franklin-was-victim-in-trent-cotchin-strike/news-story/66373d6530acfabb68f2234e5ddf539b

[WilliamPowell]

👆👆👆👆👆👆

  

[georgies31]

Shows the afl hypocrisy never seen a organisation apologise to player going to the tribunal for dirty act yet the other player is accused of staging .Franklin always been a protected species rules a different for him.

[one-eyed]

Dimma was asked about this today:

Hardwick said Cotchin and Franklin are future Hall of Famers and “we don’t want to be using those word choices to describe two greats of the game”.

“I think both advocates wish they had their time again and probably used different word choices,” he said.

Hardwick had not fronted the media since the stinging loss to the Swans, coming after a controversial finish when the Tigers were not paid a 50-metre penalty when the siren sounded.

Dion Prestia was awarded a free kick 65m from goal, a split second after the final siren sounded, prompting Swans midfielder Chad Warner to take possession and boot the ball into the crowd.

The Tigers felt a 50m penalty should have been paid but umpire John Howarth told Richmond players at the time that Warner “couldn’t have heard, common sense, OK?” Prestia’s shot on goal fell well short.

Hardwick took to social media the morning after to post: “Common sense. Sorry, what?”

On Monday, he joked his dog had sent the tweet, but said his players now had clarity.

“Clarity is always something we crave. Once again, we can understand [why] the decision was made. Big crowd noise, the game appeared to be over … there are going to be times again when 50s are decided by whether the umpire thinks they [players] hear the whistle or they don’t,” he said.

The AFL had immediately backed the umpire’s call.

Source: The Age

[JP Tiger]

Ive been thinking about that 50mtr penalty at the end of the Swines game & an example came to mind just now.  Geel Vs Melb at GMHBA in 2020 - game going down to the wire with Geelong leading by a point (I think) when a kick from a Geelong player goes OOTF on the wing.  The final siren goes just as the free is given but the ball is in the hands of Geelong's Close.  Close raises arms in triumph & boots the ball into the crowd only to see the umpire paying the OOTF free & 50mtrs for kicking the ball away!  Max Gawn lines up from 25 out directly in front & kicks the winning goal after the siren! 
There was no hesitation in the decision to award a 50 & common sense suggested the ruling was spot on correct.
So why was that made so hard & so incorrect in Sydney?  Two different ruling from exactly the same situation!     

[FooffooValve]

The difference in that situation is that Close is aware that a free kick has been awarded, doesn't he? The argument for no 50 in our case was that Warner couldn't reasonably be aware that a free kick had been awarded. Not arguing whether the decision was right or wrong, just pointing out a difference.

[JP Tiger]

The difference in that situation is that Close is aware that a free kick has been awarded, doesn't he? The argument for no 50 in our case was that Warner couldn't reasonably be aware that a free kick had been awarded. Not arguing whether the decision was right or wrong, just pointing out a difference.

The biggest problem with that is that Warner has been been given a massive let off from a penalty simply because he plays for Sydney?  The field umpire wanted to pay the 50 but got over-ruled under the guise of 'common sense'. 
How many times have we seen an incident when the crowd noise is so loud that nobody can hear anything?  But on every occasion EXCEPT FOR THIS ONE the rules are still applied!  Where is the 'common sense' when it's needed?   'Common sense' would have seen the penalty paid because it was there, because it has been paid before & correctly so.     

[Andyy]

The difference in that situation is that Close is aware that a free kick has been awarded, doesn't he? The argument for no 50 in our case was that Warner couldn't reasonably be aware that a free kick had been awarded. Not arguing whether the decision was right or wrong, just pointing out a difference.

Not up to the umps to decide who knows or understands or hears what.

Just pay the rule.