Trent Cotchin was going hard for the footy, but the general pattern of adjudication from the 2017 Match Review Panel suggests this is a minor traffic infringement.
Unfortunately Cotchin has run out of demerit points with his previous two penalties from earlier this season, and the first couple of days in GF week is going to be a fascinating tight-rope.
If the AFL is serious about ‘protecting the head’ and ‘duty of care’ – unfortunately in my opinion the panel should come to the conclusion that this is a fine and Cotchin will miss.
Again, I think Cotchin’s intentions were true, my opinion is formed purely on how these types of collisions have been assessed by the MRP this year.
Cotchin makes a bracing action with his leading shoulder – to me that is the biggest worry in this.
This incident led me back to the Round 13 match between the Swans and the Tigers, where Buddy Franklin led in with a shoulder on Connor Menendue.
The MRP verdict is below:
“Lance Franklin, Sydney Swans, has been charged with engaging in rough conduct against Connor Menadue, Richmond, during the second quarter of the Round 13 match between the Sydney Swans and Richmond, played at the MCG on Saturday June 17, 2017. In summary, he can accept a $1000 sanction with an early plea.
“Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the Richmond Football Club, the incident was assessed as careless conduct with low impact to the head. The incident was classified as a $1500 sanction. The player has no applicable record which impacts the penalty. An early plea enables the player to accept a $1000 sanction.”
Given this, and noting the fact that Shiel was concussed, the MRP have got a fascinating debate on their hands.
On the flipside, if the MRP clears Cotchin, it just means they shouldn’t sit following the preliminary final matches. It is pointless.
Trent Cotchin (Photo by Adam Trafford/AFL Media/Getty Images)
We have had too many glossed over for it to have any relevance come grand final week.
As a Swans fan, I recall Andrew Dunkley and Barry Hall got away with some interesting interpretations to play in the last Saturdays in September in 1996 and 2005 respectively.
The old cliche of ‘a bloke can’t miss a grannie for that’ will resonate strongly, as it already has.
With this weight of precedent how can the MRP possibly win?
Hand down the fine, and many pundits will say it is the end of contested footy.
Let Cotchin play, and the whole mantra of protecting the player’s head under the 2017 interpretation will be thrown out the door.
Unfortunately the incident takes away from what we should be talking about – Cotchin should never have been walking the tightrope in the first place.
Cotchin’s two prior charges for 2017 are both punches – one a jumper punch to Fremantle midfielder Lachie Neale’s chin and the other a gut punch to St Kilda’s Jack Lonie.
The sad thing is, I can guarantee if Cotchin did not have these two strikes, he would be fined tomorrow night so they could celebrate Dusty’s Brownlow.
Leonard
Guest
"Cotch 22" Like a lot!!!!
TC
Guest
Look at the video he aims him up for a split second before contact. His total focus wasn't the ball. MRP made an emotional decision sorry. Either take concussion seriously or throw out the concussion rule. McLachlan lost bit of credibility on this one I feel. I know the MRP is independent but its the system he presides over. Prediction that MRP will be reconfigured early next year to hide this stupid decision. Adding to this I would be worried if you are Adelaide supporter about the emotion the MRP made with this one. Hopefully the umpires won't be cheering on Richmond too.
asd
Guest
OK he can play .Thats a bad omen
BillyW
Roar Rookie
I stand corrected but not disappointed......bring on the GF
Pumping Dougie
Roar Guru
Spot on, Martin.
TC123
Roar Rookie
Then pull them out of the sport they obviously enjoy before they get shoulder injuries as well
mickyo
Guest
They are wrong, they cant even get core decisions right about their own rules, let alone weighing in on social engineering. They should put the YES sign back up. YES to head high bumps.
Slane
Guest
Perennial sniper who has been playing footy for his entire life and never been suspended...
Jon boy
Guest
Your right guys ,aren't they ditching the MRP next year for a new system?
Paul D
Roar Guru
They have every right. As do you to disagree with their stance and stop supporting the game, if you feel passionately about SSM marriage being voted down that you can't bring yourself to be party to their corporate stance. or you could just get over it
Paul D
Roar Guru
Good comments from both of you. I agree too that the AFL needs to do is work out in what cases they're going to admit they have a physical game where accidents happen, and not insist on a blind stance that head contact = suspension. This is inconsistent but in terms of ensuring the issue gets killed off and everyone forgets about it in a week or so - well, it's the right decision. The AFL usually gets its PR right, even if they're not always consistent in everything else.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
Totally agree, Dal. I'm not surprised with the decision at all. What I think the AFL needs to do over the summer period is decide what type of game they want. I don't mind bad decision ... it happens. What I don't like are inconsistent bad decisions and ones you don't learn from.
Jon boy
Guest
Great that Cotchin plays but how come now you can just about knock some ones head off and its O.K now.
Buzzwah
Guest
And now there is talk that Ellis might be in trouble for a bump on Whitfield! Please!! These are all professional footballers, and fortunately this sort of contact with an occasional bump to the head is the fabric of the game!!! The game needs a hard contest for the ball in 50/50 contests........else you would end up with 18 uber fit blokes per team wearing Oztag tags!!!
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
It's entirely unsurprising though. Any bit of the coverage on AFL.com was loaded with at least one caveat (however tenuous) for letting him off. It's a GF tradition really. Bit like presidential pardons in Indonesia.
mickyo
Guest
I would agree Rick. Have 2 boys and one girl playing and it makes you see things differently.
Bill Larkin
Guest
As predicted, MRP weak as the proverbial.
mickyo
Guest
Gutless on both issues, the SSM issue they IMO have no right to enter the political domain unless of course they have polled every AFL member because that's who they claim to represent, the other of course is what they should be really dealing with and they just legalised front on contact to the head, when someones head is over the ball in possession of it and playing the ball. Good luck explaining that to the 200,000 odd auskickers next year and also leading up to the under14s - 19's where testosterone really sets in and players are tempted to emulate those very things now - and of course no penalty applies.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
I guess head high contact is allowed now. Any player next year found guilty (by the MRP) for head high contact can now refer to this case. A good lawyer will be able to challenge this now outside of the AFL judicial system and refer to this case each and every time. Well done AFL. In about 20 years time, Shiel's family will be able to sue the AFL for taking zero action on trying to limit concussions should he develop neurological deficit that can be directly related to him playing AFL. I hope they do should this happen.
Liam Salter
Roar Guru
It's official: he's been cleared!