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

[FooffooValve]

Actually that still looks like high contact was made.

[Smokey]

Regardless of whether it was high or not, it was bloody pivotal to the game.  Big lesson for Cotch in so many ways.

[torch]

Tank

second that!

 

[mightytiges]

High contact?  ???

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  .

[the_boy_jake]

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.

[FooffooValve]

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.

[Penelope]

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.....

[FooffooValve]

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.

[Penelope]

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

[eliminator]

Interesting that Wayne Henwood a barrister was on the jury

[mightytiges]

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.

[Chuck17]

Not too sure how you get very late out of it FooFoo didn't the field umpire even say it was marginally late

[FooffooValve]

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.

[tony_montana]

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

[FooffooValve]

 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.