Nick Cotric takes early plea, suspended three weeks
Moderator: GH Moderators
Nick Cotric takes early plea, suspended three weeks
How long can we expect Cotric to be out for? Anyone remember any similar tackles recently?
I think the way he carries on with the tackle once the player is past the horizontal is going to add quite a few weeks.
I think the way he carries on with the tackle once the player is past the horizontal is going to add quite a few weeks.
'I've got 17 blokes in that dressing room that are hurting'
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
I'd imagine at least 4 weeks
Depends how much the send off is included in the punishment
Sent from my CPH1831 using Tapatalk
Depends how much the send off is included in the punishment
Sent from my CPH1831 using Tapatalk
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
If he’d had his hands between his legs it would be much worse.
Grade 2 for me. I think it happened too quick for Cotric to adjust.
Grade 2 for me. I think it happened too quick for Cotric to adjust.
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
Yep, the lack of hands between the legs will help,unfortunately he really does drive him into the ground, which will hurt.
I dont know the charges or the priors/loading and how that'll imapct it, but to me that's a 6 to 8 week initial charge.
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
The send off shouldn't affect the charge should it?
'I've got 17 blokes in that dressing room that are hurting'
-
- John Ferguson
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: March 31, 2018, 9:30 pm
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
I just watched the replay.
He lifted, continued on with the tackle and had another attempt when the player was on the ground.
It’s grade 3 if not 4. You can’t mount really any defence
He lifted, continued on with the tackle and had another attempt when the player was on the ground.
It’s grade 3 if not 4. You can’t mount really any defence
-
- John Ferguson
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: March 31, 2018, 9:30 pm
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
I think also as it was a send off, the NRL will want to make an example of it, so penalty will be on the hard side no matter what
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
At least he will be fresh for the finals
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
Disappointing, but you can't argue with the send off or with a significant period of time out. Obviously it wasn't deliberate but you just can't have those tackles in the game.
-
- John Ferguson
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: March 31, 2018, 9:30 pm
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
Well there is 8 weeks left of normal competitionDr Zaius wrote:At least he will be fresh for the finals
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
- Northern Raider
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 32584
- Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
- Favourite Player: Dean Lance
- Location: Greener pastures
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
Looks like they only have 3 grades.
https://www.nrl.com/operations/the-game/judiciary-code/
Means it's either grade 2 or 3. Being a 1 on 1 tackle and the player being unhurt he might get away with Grade 2. More likely a grade 3 though. 500 points will mean 4 weeks with early plea.
https://www.nrl.com/operations/the-game/judiciary-code/
Means it's either grade 2 or 3. Being a 1 on 1 tackle and the player being unhurt he might get away with Grade 2. More likely a grade 3 though. 500 points will mean 4 weeks with early plea.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
-
- John Ferguson
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: March 31, 2018, 9:30 pm
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
Buzz Rothfield on Twitter called 2 - 4 weeksNorthern Raider wrote:Looks like they only have 3 grades.
https://www.nrl.com/operations/the-game/judiciary-code/
Means it's either grade 2 or 3. Being a 1 on 1 tackle and the player being unhurt he might get away with Grade 2. More likely a grade 3 though. 500 points will mean 4 weeks with early plea.
- Northern Raider
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 32584
- Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
- Favourite Player: Dean Lance
- Location: Greener pastures
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
Assuming guilty plea it will be 2 or 4 weeks for grade 2 and 3 respectively.LastRaider wrote: ↑July 14, 2019, 8:30 pmBuzz Rothfield on Twitter called 2 - 4 weeksNorthern Raider wrote:Looks like they only have 3 grades.
https://www.nrl.com/operations/the-game/judiciary-code/
Means it's either grade 2 or 3. Being a 1 on 1 tackle and the player being unhurt he might get away with Grade 2. More likely a grade 3 though. 500 points will mean 4 weeks with early plea.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
Someone who knows the rules better than I do help out here please. What is the consideration for mistake as opposed to intentional?
Yes, it looks bad because he's driven him into the ground. But looking at the mechanics of the tackle, there is no way I can see there being any intent or malice into it.
To me, going by what damage it could have caused is highly subjective and brings out multiple shades of grey, therefore cannot be the marker used.
Yes, it looks bad because he's driven him into the ground. But looking at the mechanics of the tackle, there is no way I can see there being any intent or malice into it.
To me, going by what damage it could have caused is highly subjective and brings out multiple shades of grey, therefore cannot be the marker used.
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
The best answer, as far as ive seen with the judicary is, it's a lottery. I agree, there is no malice or intent but the driving is a problem. We'll see where it lands i guess and hope we come on the right side of the coin flipafgtnk wrote: ↑July 14, 2019, 8:32 pm Someone who knows the rules better than I do help out here please. What is the consideration for mistake as opposed to intentional?
Yes, it looks bad because he's driven him into the ground. But looking at the mechanics of the tackle, there is no way I can see there being any intent or malice into it.
To me, going by what damage it could have caused it highly subjective and brings out multiple shades of grey, therefore cannot be the marker used.
- Northern Raider
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 32584
- Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
- Favourite Player: Dean Lance
- Location: Greener pastures
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
You're asking us to understand how the MRC thinks. Anybody who claims they can is lying.afgtnk wrote: ↑July 14, 2019, 8:32 pm Someone who knows the rules better than I do help out here please. What is the consideration for mistake as opposed to intentional?
Yes, it looks bad because he's driven him into the ground. But looking at the mechanics of the tackle, there is no way I can see there being any intent or malice into it.
To me, going by what damage it could have caused is highly subjective and brings out multiple shades of grey, therefore cannot be the marker used.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
- Northern Raider
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 32584
- Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
- Favourite Player: Dean Lance
- Location: Greener pastures
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
In normal circumstances yes. In this case they may come down harder to justify the send off.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
No idea, but unlike high tackles there's only one category of dangerous throwafgtnk wrote:Someone who knows the rules better than I do help out here please. What is the consideration for mistake as opposed to intentional?
Yes, it looks bad because he's driven him into the ground. But looking at the mechanics of the tackle, there is no way I can see there being any intent or malice into it.
To me, going by what damage it could have caused is highly subjective and brings out multiple shades of grey, therefore cannot be the marker used.
Sent from my CPH1831 using Tapatalk
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
To me the driving comes as a result of his intent, which is to drive Lafai onto his back. Because of his body position and Lafai stepping back on the inside, he can't muster enough strength to do so which sees his arms slide lower and subsequently make it dangerous.PigRickman wrote: ↑July 14, 2019, 8:37 pmThe best answer, as far as ive seen with the judicary is, it's a lottery. I agree, there is no malice or intent but the driving is a problem. We'll see where it lands i guess and hope we come on the right side of the coin flipafgtnk wrote: ↑July 14, 2019, 8:32 pm Someone who knows the rules better than I do help out here please. What is the consideration for mistake as opposed to intentional?
Yes, it looks bad because he's driven him into the ground. But looking at the mechanics of the tackle, there is no way I can see there being any intent or malice into it.
To me, going by what damage it could have caused it highly subjective and brings out multiple shades of grey, therefore cannot be the marker used.
Although I admit my upkeep of RL's reguarly changing rules isn't great these days, I thought send-offs and more severe punishments reserved for when a defender picks someone up lower on the legs fom the outset, with the intention to drive them head first thus made clear.
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
I'd have said a grade one, hands around both legs, tackled player was in motion, I fail to see any intentional driving, send off already a punishment - guilty plea 100 points with 25 % discount. And anyone thinking Klein is somehow a legitimate arbiter, take a long hard look at yourself - he sent Cotric off because Ashley knows he's an inch away from being sacked as a first grade ref for his inability to see the blindingly obvious despite all the hi tech the bunker can provide...PigRickman wrote: ↑July 14, 2019, 8:37 pmThe best answer, as far as ive seen with the judicary is, it's a lottery. I agree, there is no malice or intent but the driving is a problem. We'll see where it lands i guess and hope we come on the right side of the coin flipafgtnk wrote: ↑July 14, 2019, 8:32 pm Someone who knows the rules better than I do help out here please. What is the consideration for mistake as opposed to intentional?
Yes, it looks bad because he's driven him into the ground. But looking at the mechanics of the tackle, there is no way I can see there being any intent or malice into it.
To me, going by what damage it could have caused it highly subjective and brings out multiple shades of grey, therefore cannot be the marker used.
- FuiFui BradBrad
- Bradley Clyde
- Posts: 8651
- Joined: May 3, 2008, 10:23 pm
- Favourite Player: Phil Graham
- Location: Marsden Park
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
2 weeks, plus 4 weeks Raiders loading
Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Feel free to call me RickyRicky StickStick if you like. I will also accept Super Fui, King Brad, Kid Dynamite, Chocolate-Thunda... or Brad.
Nickman's love of NSW
Nickman's love of NSW
- NSW has done a superb job - 18/12/2020
- NSW has been world-class with their approach to date, that's a fact. - 04/02/2021
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
No. 100, 300 and 500 points.-TW- wrote: ↑July 14, 2019, 8:49 pmNo idea, but unlike high tackles there's only one category of dangerous throwafgtnk wrote:Someone who knows the rules better than I do help out here please. What is the consideration for mistake as opposed to intentional?
Yes, it looks bad because he's driven him into the ground. But looking at the mechanics of the tackle, there is no way I can see there being any intent or malice into it.
To me, going by what damage it could have caused is highly subjective and brings out multiple shades of grey, therefore cannot be the marker used.
Sent from my CPH1831 using Tapatalk
- Rick
- Steve Walters
- Posts: 7598
- Joined: August 11, 2008, 3:56 pm
- Favourite Player: Daley
- Location: Darwin
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
Kris went off injured today too yeah?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
Yeah, i think Cotric will referred directly to the Judicary and that will be the rough argument they make. They'll argue Cotric's actions were safe and it's just an unfortunate situation of circumstance... we'll see how it goes. As i said, that judicary situation feels like a genuine lottery and a lot might come down to how the media cover it if we're being honest.afgtnk wrote: ↑July 14, 2019, 8:51 pmTo me the driving comes as a result of his intent, which is to drive Lafai onto his back. Because of his body position and Lafai stepping back on the inside, he can't muster enough strength to do so which sees his arms slide lower and subsequently make it dangerous.PigRickman wrote: ↑July 14, 2019, 8:37 pmThe best answer, as far as ive seen with the judicary is, it's a lottery. I agree, there is no malice or intent but the driving is a problem. We'll see where it lands i guess and hope we come on the right side of the coin flipafgtnk wrote: ↑July 14, 2019, 8:32 pm Someone who knows the rules better than I do help out here please. What is the consideration for mistake as opposed to intentional?
Yes, it looks bad because he's driven him into the ground. But looking at the mechanics of the tackle, there is no way I can see there being any intent or malice into it.
To me, going by what damage it could have caused it highly subjective and brings out multiple shades of grey, therefore cannot be the marker used.
Although I admit my upkeep of RL's reguarly changing rules isn't great these days, I thought send-offs and more severe punishments reserved for when a defender picks someone up lower on the legs fom the outset, with the intention to drive them head first thus made clear.
I'll be stoked if he gets less than 6 weeks.
- Northern Raider
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 32584
- Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
- Favourite Player: Dean Lance
- Location: Greener pastures
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
Would be incredibly harsh to refer that straight to the judiciary. Basically saying it's beyond the highest grading.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
Regardless of the punishment, I’d imagine the club won’t dispute it. To be honest, they shouldn’t! It would be a bad look and they know it. They’re taking this one on the chin.
Whilst not appearing to be intentional, it’s a really bad tackle, and one that the game has had recent negative press from (McKinnon). A harsh suspension should not surprise anyone.
Ideally you’d never see another spear tackle in the game ever again - the consequences can be sickening. The send off was fair, and the suspension will be fair. We should acknowledge and move on.
And I’d be shocked if Cotric was anything other than completely remorseful. Hopefully the club get around him and we see him back to his best on the park before finals.
Whilst not appearing to be intentional, it’s a really bad tackle, and one that the game has had recent negative press from (McKinnon). A harsh suspension should not surprise anyone.
Ideally you’d never see another spear tackle in the game ever again - the consequences can be sickening. The send off was fair, and the suspension will be fair. We should acknowledge and move on.
And I’d be shocked if Cotric was anything other than completely remorseful. Hopefully the club get around him and we see him back to his best on the park before finals.
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
You guys are crazy. I see that tackle penalised every couple of weeks. The hoopla around the send off is something only the Raiders r other punching bag team would cop- and tinfoil hats off, records bear this out with send offs and binnings.
8 weeks for a standard lifted tackle gone wrong, no hand between the legs, player puts their hand up to shield? I've watched Hodgo alone cop 3 of those this year with no long suspensions for it. Why are you so sure Cotric should cop it? Crazy.
2 weeks is plenty. I'd prefer to fight if it's longer than that and just sit thr judiciary down to a 5 minute montage of tackles this season alone that have had NO SUSPENSION. Let alone also a send off.
8 weeks for a standard lifted tackle gone wrong, no hand between the legs, player puts their hand up to shield? I've watched Hodgo alone cop 3 of those this year with no long suspensions for it. Why are you so sure Cotric should cop it? Crazy.
2 weeks is plenty. I'd prefer to fight if it's longer than that and just sit thr judiciary down to a 5 minute montage of tackles this season alone that have had NO SUSPENSION. Let alone also a send off.
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
There is something crazy going on here.BadnMean wrote: ↑July 14, 2019, 9:04 pm You guys are crazy. I see that tackle penalised every couple of weeks. The hoopla around the send off is something only the Raiders r other punching bag team would cop- and tinfoil hats off, records bear this out with send offs and binnings.
8 weeks for a standard lifted tackle gone wrong, no hand between the legs, player puts their hand up to shield? I've watched Hodgo alone cop 3 of those this year with no long suspensions for it. Why are you so sure Cotric should cop it? Crazy.
2 weeks is plenty. I'd prefer to fight if it's longer than that and just sit thr judiciary down to a 5 minute montage of tackles this season alone that have had NO SUSPENSION. Let alone also a send off.
(Spoiler alert, its you)
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
Yep, i think they'll take what ever is given to them if they have the opportunity to do so without a direct referral to the judicary.
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
This is a post McKinnon world. And it's the worst spear tackle we've seen since that IMONorthern Raider wrote: ↑July 14, 2019, 9:00 pm Would be incredibly harsh to refer that straight to the judiciary. Basically saying it's beyond the highest grading.
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
Intentional, careless and reckless high tackle?Lui_Bon wrote:No. 100, 300 and 500 points.-TW- wrote: ↑July 14, 2019, 8:49 pmNo idea, but unlike high tackles there's only one category of dangerous throwafgtnk wrote:Someone who knows the rules better than I do help out here please. What is the consideration for mistake as opposed to intentional?
Yes, it looks bad because he's driven him into the ground. But looking at the mechanics of the tackle, there is no way I can see there being any intent or malice into it.
To me, going by what damage it could have caused is highly subjective and brings out multiple shades of grey, therefore cannot be the marker used.
Sent from my CPH1831 using Tapatalk
Sent from my CPH1831 using Tapatalk
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
I thought it looked far worse than it was. No way shouldve been sent off. For the record, no player has been sent off for a lifting tackle since 1995!
As has been said, he was trying to make a dominant 1 on 1 tackle, lafai stepped and it meant he caught him awkwardly. Pretty sure he has a clean record. Should get 2 weeks, but with the raiders loading, he'll prob get six
As has been said, he was trying to make a dominant 1 on 1 tackle, lafai stepped and it meant he caught him awkwardly. Pretty sure he has a clean record. Should get 2 weeks, but with the raiders loading, he'll prob get six
-
- John Ferguson
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: March 31, 2018, 9:30 pm
Cotric and the Judiciary
I don’t think the player being hurt or unhurt should come into it. It’s needs to be judged on the risk to the player, intent and seriousness of the action.
BTW Stuart is blowing up in the presser apparently about being a send off.
- Northern Raider
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 32584
- Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
- Favourite Player: Dean Lance
- Location: Greener pastures
Re: Cotric and the Judiciary
It should and it does. Like any crime, the result dictates the severity of the charge.LastRaider wrote: ↑July 14, 2019, 9:16 pmI don’t think the player being hurt or unhurt should come into it. It’s needs to be judged on the risk to the player, intent and seriousness of the action
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.