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

[wayne]

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  

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'.

[Go Richo 12]

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

[FooffooValve]

I think they will contest the high contact, and rightly so. Contact was to the back, not the head.

Fingers crossed.

[Infamy]

Hopefully they are arguing the high impact also

[one-eyed]

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

[wayne]

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'.

[one-eyed]

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  .

[tony_montana]

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.

[dizza]

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?

[one-eyed]

Appeal failed.

Cotch gets 4 weeks 

[TigerTimeII]

why is everyone shocked, they are idiots for appealing, we never win
they hate us

[tony_montana]

Appeal failed.

Cotch gets 4 weeks 

this is a stuffing joke

[mightytiges]

Absolute joke  


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.

[Infamy]

Unbelievable, how on earth can they argue that was high contact?

[Fluffy Tiger]

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.  

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.