The Cotchin decision was the right decision and we all know it

Unless Cotchin was bracing himself for some other reason he has decided to bump.. After that he makes high contact and the onus falls on him..He really needs the other player to be intact for the offence to go unpunished.. This puts to one side that Cotchins team had obviously decided to go headhunting from the first bounce..prepare for an eighties style grand final.. The last time their coach played in a Grand Final he unrelentingly went the knuckle for the full hundred minutes..

#mickyo You're not even reading what I write now. Where did I say Shiel dropped his knees. You're the one pushing an agenda here with no interest in the decision making structures in place that dictate what the MRP come up with. As I said - the MRP are very limited in what they can do. However - that doesn't mean Ellis should have got off. Your reference to Leigh Matthews is actually totally irrelevant - that's like quoting Cameron Ling who suggested Himmelberg didn't deserve a 50m penalty early in the game after being bowled over by Grimes (or was it Astbury). You said: "he was first to the ball, was over the ball, had control of the ball while Cotchin flew in turned his body into him and collected him high with a bump." He was nearest the ball first, yes, he far from had control of the ball, that was the problem, he only laid a finger on it a fraction of a second before Cotchin did. The ball bounced away from Shiel, drawing him towards it and into Cotchin's path. Cotchin actually twisted his upper body slightly away from Shiel but couldn't contort his hips - (have a look at the moment of impact where each players hips were - Shiel hadn't committed his body whereas Cotchin had.). "Every other situation you bring up is nothing like that incident." Wrong. I have provided examples of ground ball contested situations with high contact in which frees weren't paid and reports weren't made. That's better than people talking about Dangers tackle on Kreuzer or marking contests etc. I have illustrated that this was NOT a GF special. i.e. it was NOT out of context with previous decisions.

There's certainly a lot of thin-skinned Richmond supporters and bandwagoners around Very little poetry in your soul then Poem for TC123 If Cotchin was more desperate than Shiel Then an Adelaide player more desperate than Cotchin Who accidentally concussed Shiel Who accidentally concusses Cotchin And prevents Cotchin from further play Should get as little on-field scrutiny as Cotchin did And help the game go Adelaide's way

He also claims that Shiel did not protect himself which is false, he also claimed in another post that Shiel was comparable to someone who ducked or dropped his kees ala Selwood which is also false. The claim that Shiel was not protective of himself is an AFL inspired narrative designed to acquit Cotchin of any charge. The links supplied by Perry regarding Boyds concussion are how it occurred are not remotely similar to how Shiel was concussed, it appears to me he is desperately searching for proof that aligns itself with the AFL and MRP. Quite frankly it is just not there and he should admit as much.

Fine line yes Perry, and most of football happens in split seconds. But the video and stills, shows Cotchin blocking and bumping first,, then attack the ball second. Injuring a player in that context is an offence.?

Shiel did not drop his knees, flick the tacklers arm up or duck, he was first to the ball, was over the ball, had control of the ball while Cotchin flew in turned his body into him and collected him high with a bump. Every other situation you bring up is nothing like that incident. You claim you have investigated, but it appears you have investigated as much as the AFL did, Gil was counting the $$ as he said 'no case", he made a phone call to the MRP 'no case' whilst on obviously on Saturday night the word was put out "no case". Sunday morning every footy show - no case, with a bunch of clearly half embarrassed commentators stating 'no case" Matthews even looked at the camera and mumbled something about Cotchin having both hands on the ball. Biggest set you have seen.

Shiel was not doing a Hurley or a Koshztke (SP) big players who don't need as much awareness due to their size or they didnt need to develop it or never had it, if they were mids they wouldn't be playing. Sheil has great awareness, so to compare is wrong, dead wrong. The fact remains Cotchin attacked him from the front, went low to bump and hit him high besides being 2nd to the ball. You must actually work for the AFL with the constant line that you take. Witness Sunday morning football shows where company men like Leigh Matthews for EX said the same thing but really stumbled and bumbled over the pre arranged narrative designed to clear Cotchin. The one that you continue to push

#mickyo I'm not towing the line - I'm investigating what the line is. What I'll say re my opinion. The AFL created this issue by giving too many free kicks to guys who in my mind used up their 'prior opportunity' by ducking/dropping the knees. Kids like Rhys Mathieson came into the system already playing for these frees. The re-calibration now sees less high frees being paid. I'm not even sure this is supposed to be a free or not. I've seen players bent over the ball, trying to pick it up - with front on contact and getting no free. I think you're still allowed to try to pick it up. The shoulder shrug has become an issue too - the Shuey one - it's all a bit confusing and the poor umpires are struggling. The AFL has tended to get a little too reactive and the Commission perhaps is to blame? I'm not defending the ivory towers of AFL House - however, the MRP who are working within a box ticking set of constraints that has been thrust upon them - got this call right - given those parameters.

#Ben The clubs certainly are more likely to challenge - even to the courts (Dunkley in '96) - during GF week. However - I don't see Cotchin as a GF special. I do for Ellis.

Keep towing the company line, anyone with a modicum of football knowledge and impartial can see exactly what it was. So yer I am not satisfied with the outcome, who cares in the end - no one except the football community lower down where coaches and parents of kids and teenagers try to impart a duty of care. The AFL has what it wants, but IMO to the detriment of the game as s whole. Another reason why it actually should not run football besides its own comp.

#Razzar Cotchin's left hand is seeking out the ball. Cotchin is throwing his whole body over the top of the ball and the left hand connects. So - he hasn't gone past the ball - this is very important. There are other examples (Hannebery v Hurley 2014, Thompson v T.Boyd this year) of various contact in these contested ball situations. The 'bump' vs 'brace for contact' is a fine line. Contesting the ball or running past the ball is generally the key concern - Cotchin was close, I think the bounce of the ball did neither player any favours.

#mickyo Running with the flight of the ball No - wrong example. You have different options of body contact for a loose ground ball compared to a marking contest. That's the problem - you aren't looking at the specifics of the situation.

#mickyo I don't have to try harder. I'm satisfied that the MRP on this one have followed their due process (arguing about the validity of that process is another discussion entirely). I'm satisfied that this particular incident was handled consistent with other examples that were mostly similar (far more than a sling tackle!!). As a neutral I'm kinda pleased both teams will be as strong as possible this Saturday. As a neutral I DO feel that the Giants were a little hard done by in the Prelim. I don't like games decided by injury and it's a shame Shiel was out of the game by half time. And Richmond largely dominated after the main break. The Giants had some chances and stuffed them - Stevie J in particular. Perhaps Devon Smith should've been in the side. Anyway - I'm satisfied. You're not - I don't care. You need to find a safe place for yourself and your angst - I don't. Enjoy the GF!!

#Mickyo Try this one then - from 2014 - Hannebery on Hurley. The reality is that Hannebery approached a contested ground ball situation correctly. He got side on and brace for impact (you might call that preparing to bump - - it's also preparing TO be bumped). Hurley has a shocking technique - turning head on he gets collected. Hurley has done nothing to protect himself. Out of that - Dan.H has been coached well. Michael.H has either not been coached well or is slow on the uptake. I put it to you - watch the replay again and asked what Shiel should have done. Cotchin prepared himself to be bumped - he tucked in his right shoulder/elbow whilst still going for the ball with his left arm - and he won it. Shiel was doing a Hurley. Shiel got it all wrong. The defence stands that Cotchin was contesting the ball. You really need to get more familiar with this - - the rough conduct or forceful front on contact charges go out the door when it is deemed a reasonable contest for the ball. It was interesting in theAge - they ran the case for and the case against Cotchin. Sam McClure argued the case against - and brought up Dangerfields tackle on Kreuzer. Wrong. You can't compare totally unrelated incidents. The Greg Baum defence of the decision was better - and - at the end of the day, take note that Cotchin's direction was at the ball - never toward the body/hips/centre of gravity of Shiel. Accidents MUST still be allowed to happen. We've all been wanting the MRP to remember this fact. They get it right - and they get abused. Had they gone the other way there would be an outcry about the death of the game.

Good luck to you if you think that Cotchin had no intention of hurting Shiel. Of course we know what his intention was and linking that to the umpires knowing a player's intention when he kicks a ball that goes toward the boundary is ridiculous and no an argument.

Cotchin was late, second to the ball and bumped, you cannot dive into a player the way he did without causing injury, he has a duty of care. And yes you should grow up and see it for what it was. Your links attempting to justify his actions are not remotely similar. Try harder

Running with the flight of The ball is similar, you twist your body to face the ball at the last minute of someone is under or running into the meet the ball, if you happen to make contact the free goes to the player who is watching the ball, It's very simple but Cotchin was second, late and bumped head high. No amount of spin from you the AFL or MRP can change this

Perry, your links are nothing similar, you go out of your way to push an AFL and media narrative that is not the truth, the AFL manipulated this outcome and I have no idea why you continue to back their line. Vic bias perhaps or more than likely unable to see independently.

Yeah, that sounds the natural progression from my comments. Geez, do you people even try to think when you respond? Have a go at trying to understand my point.

Ben, have a look at the photo, The Age Sept 26. In greg Baum's article, Cotchin is in bump possition, with no hands attempting to grab the ball. Bumping a player & causing injury to head is an offence....i think.