Whether the Richmond captain plays in the grand final or not will turn on the match review panel making their mind up about what was in Cotchin's mind.

Was Cotchin going for the ball or for Dylan Shiel? He got both of them so what was his real aim?

Cotchin will most likely be cleared to play but there is a case to say he shouldn't. It just isn't as strong a case as the one arguing he should.

The charge he would face is making forceful front on-contact, not a high bump. The rules state that such high contact, when the other player has their head down over the ball, will be regarded as careless unless the player was playing the ball and did not have a realistic alternative.

So, was Cotchin trying to get the ball? And did he have a realistic alternative way to try to take possession?

The question turns on Cotchin's last steps before the contest, when he tucks his right arm into his body rather than reaches out for the ball.

Does this mean he was running in to bump Shiel, in which case he should be banned for several weeks? Or was he bracing once he knew contact was imminent? It appeared the latter. He did end up with the ball, and no free kick was paid.

The second question is, did Cotchin have a realistic alternative? The rules assume you are entitled to contest the ball even if another player gets injured in the process. There is nothing in the rules to say only players who get injured are contesting the ball.

The other way he could have gone for the ball was for the two players to bang heads, and the rules don't ask that of players. Cotchin would have to have let Shiel take possession of the ball, and then tackle him. That is not contesting the ball; it is precisely the opposite. It is waiting and not contesting it.

The AFL tribunal guidelines provide a schedule of examples of both guilty and not guilty acts to provide guidance as to what is and isn't a reportable offence. But those examples provide mixed messages where the Cotchin incident is concerned.

All players who were cleared had their hands out for the ball and a collision was unavoidable.

The examples where players were suspended tended to follow a pattern where the first intent of the player appeared to be to bump.

There are some examples, however, that are worrisome for Cotchin. Lachie Weller's collision with Taylor Hunt from round 16 last year has a similarity to Cotchin's though Weller was probably aiming to bump more than brace for contact.

The most worrying is Lin Jong's collision with Matt Buntine in round nine last year, for which the Bulldogs player was found guilty of careless conduct, which was judged to be high contact and high impact.

The two players were running at the ball from opposite directions. Buntine bent low, Lin didn't, but nor did he brace with his arm and shoulder; he just reached for the ball. He was banned. Ordinarily you would look at it and argue he should have been cleared, but in fact this is a case the AFL holds up as an example of what not to do. That is problematic for Cotchin.

Since Saturday it has wrongly been argued that Cotchin would normally be fined for this act but because he has twice been fined this year for low-grade careless acts a third fine for this would instead draw an automatic suspension.

Yes, a third fine does draw an automatic suspension but Cotchin could never expect to be fined for this act if the MRP thought he was guilty.

A player is only fined if the act was careless and the impact was low or to the body, not the head. Cotchin got Shiel in the head. Shiel suffered concussion and missed most of the rest of the game. (The concussion was almost certainly from the Cotchin hit and not Dave Astbury's mild later bump to the body.)

So if Cotchin was to be guilty of an offence it could not be considered low grade and draw a fine. He would be banned whether it was his first offence for the year or his third. So forget the fines furphy.

Neither is this a Barry Hall case. Hall threw a punch but somehow the will to let him play in a grand final saw a technicality farcically but successfully argued. Cotchin has a good case whether it is grand final week or the first week of the JLT pre-season series.

There is, however, a good argument that a player should only miss a final for an intentional offence.

Careless acts are those that straddle the line of a reportable offence. An intentional act is by definition one in which the player wanted to commit a reportable offence. To ban a player for a grand final for a careless act would be, well, careless.

Townsend set to keep spot

Dan Butler (left) and Jacob Townsend show their joy. Photo: AAP

Jacob Townsend came into the Tigers' side and kicked 11 goals in two games but has had a quiet finals series for goals. Still, he will probably keep his place for the grand final as a defensive forward on Adelaide's Jake Lever.

The Tigers would not expect the Crows' dangerous intercept marker to go to Jack Riewoldt so would most likely use Townsend as the player to frustrate Lever. If Lever were to zone away from Townsend, the instruction to Richmond would be to play through Townsend wherever possible.

Shai Bolton is an electrifying talent who is creative and attacking, and would team well with the in-form Daniel Rioli against the Crows.

He was very good in Sunday's VFL grand final, especially in the first term, but finding a place for him in a winning preliminary final side is difficult. Jason Casatagna was lively on Saturday though did not convert a few chances he should have. Still, his pressure was excellent and it's hard to see him being replaced.

If Trent Cotchin is suspended, Anthony Miles would seem a better like-for-like replacement than Bolton.

How to curb the Crows

Charlie Cameron of the Crows celebrates a goal with Eddie Betts. Photo: AAP

To beat Adelaide you have to stop them scoring heavily. To beat Richmond you have to be able to score heavily. Richmond are hard to score against and Adelaide are hard to stop scoring.

Charlie Cameron and Eddie Betts (pictured) are more attacking than Richmond's small forwards, who hunt the player to create opportunities from turnovers. So who takes Betts and Cameron? It will probably not be one player each. Richmond backs a system, not a player. They will roll defenders from one player to the next.

Dylan Grimes beat Toby Greene on Saturday but this week will get a third tall in Andy Otten or Mitch McGovern. Alex Rance and David Astbury will take Tom Lynch and Taylor Walker.

Nick Vlastuin, Brandon Ellis (presuming he clears the MRP) - Bachar Houli will work on the small forwards. This hurts Richmond, as they will have to be more defensive this week.

Bartlett's common sense

Kevin Bartlett makes a fair point when he argues that the Richmond clash jumper fiasco isn't just about the Tigers, and that no team needs clash jumpers.

For several years Adelaide and Richmond have worn clash jumpers but no one really noticed or cared as it only happened in low-profile games.

Richmond will wear their canary jumper on Saturday because of a hastily invoked argument about the higher finishing team.

The Tigers are not going to clash with the AFL over it because basically this week they have bigger concerns, but they are not happy.

On Sunday the Tigers played the VFL final in the canary jumpers against Port Melbourne who wear bright royal blue and red. The only clash appeared to be with good taste.

Is it a big issue? No. Does it matter? Not if you win, but that doesn't take the emotion out of of for thousands of Tiger fans who want to see their players run out in their traditional jumper for their first grand final in 35 years.