Welcome to the Tigers Marlion Pickett!

[DavidSSS]

Yeah there are inconsistencies. But I can't see the logic in 'it didn't cause an injury so fair game.'

Lot's of players get rubbed out without causing injury.

Inconsistencies, is that what you call it?

My point was quite simple: 2 players were cited for incidents, both incidents involved head high contact.

One of the incidents involved a small amount of head high contact and the player was rubbed out for a week for potential to cause injury.

The other incident involved head high contact and caused injury - $2,000 fine.

If you wish to argue that potential to cause injury should attract a higher penalty than causing actual injury then fine, go ahead, apply for a job with the AFL while you're at it.

But my position is quite simple: I simply want to know how the AFL can seriously explain how potential to cause injury with an incident which barely got to head contact can possibly lead to a harsher penalty than actual head contact causing actual injury.

I don't think the AFL have a leg to stand on, but I also don't think they care at all because they are totally unaccountable.

You seem to be arguing "it caused an injury so fair game" - nonsensical.

DS

 

[eZyT]

I don't think the AFL have a leg to stand on, but I also don't think they care at all because they are totally unaccountable.



DS

yes. they've never needed a leg to stand on.

A bunch of *smile* snakes.

 

[bandoftigers]

I think our mistake was plead guilty to a strike and try and argue the contact down from medium to low.
My thoughts would have been to argue it was not a strike and was a high tackle which was penalised with a free kick.

 

[tommystigers]

I know a lot here claim conspiracy, don't think I ever have (although I reckon we are getting badly treated and this has been going on for a few years).

So, let's ignore the conspiracy talk for a moment.

When you compare what Pickett got rubbed out for to incidents in the same round of football, hell, even in the same game, how is this to be explained?

I'll provide some options just to make it easy for everyone:

1. Gross incompetence
2. Massive inconsistency.
3. A professional game being run by a bunch of amateurs.
4. Rule interpretations which are just a joke, eg: potential versus actual harm.

1 to 4 for me Dave.
The Match Review process is typical of AFL practice and philosophy. We don't know what we are doing and we don't really care. Ka-Ching.
No conspiracy against Richmond.

 

[TT33]

Yeah there are inconsistencies. But I can't see the logic in 'it didn't cause an injury so fair game.'

Lot's of players get rubbed out without causing injury.

I've only ever heard the "potential to cause further injury" line rolled out twice, once for Dusty a few years ago & this last time for Marlion.
Every time a player in any game in any league steps onto the ground to play a game of Aussie rules there's a potential for injury to occur,
For the tribunal drongos to trot out that particular line in this incidence is as idiotic as the lack of a suspension for Goldstien for his actions.

No where in my posts have I said "it didn't cause any injuries so fair game".

My beef is with the inconsistencies of the MRO & the tribunal. In the same game that Pickett got cited, there were quite a few other incidents which were of equal or greater intensity but none of them were cited or deemed "to have the potential to cause injury" which imho they should have been.

This among quite a few other issues are quite rapidly causing me to lose my fervour for the game.

 

[leon]

I've only ever heard the "potential to cause further injury" line rolled out twice, once for Dusty a few years ago & this last time for Marlion.
Every time a player in any game in any league steps onto the ground to play a game of Aussie rules there's a potential for injury to occur,
For the tribunal drongos to trot out that particular line in this incidence is as idiotic as the lack of a suspension for Goldstien for his actions.

No where in my posts have I said "it didn't cause any injuries so fair game".

My beef is with the inconsistencies of the MRO & the tribunal. In the same game that Pickett got cited, there were quite a few other incidents which were of equal or greater intensity but none of them were cited or deemed "to have the potential to cause injury" which imho they should have been.

This among quite a few other issues are quite rapidly causing me to lose my fervour for the game.

Blind Freddie could spot what the AFL do and how they manipulate the rules, their power and control over the clubs and all personnel that work in the AFL to obtain or engineer the desirable outcomes that are expedient for their interests - mostly commercial or other, vested, hidden ones.

As I have already posted; same round, Tex slams C. Oliver into turf with a very late sling tackle. Very high "potential to cause further injury" but nothing but a fine becuase luckily he landed mostly on his shoulder without apparent injury although I bet CO would be very sore post-match with a chance of delayed concussion or physical damage.
Now compare it with the Holman legitimate tackle on Duncan where he lays a really fast and ferocious tackle that was given a two-week suspension. Any possible chance that severe outcome was due to the Geelong player copping an injury? An actual injury. [See sentence 1.]

Of course, later thrown out as nonsense by the MRP. Pickett's blow was with an open hand, mostly catching Starcevich with his upper arm (soft compared to a fist or elbow). Was worthy of a fine only - like non-RFC players Goldstein and Walker got.

Farcical, fraudulent injustice. [See sentence 1.] And cost us $10k into the bargain.

 

[TigerMasochist]

I'm not really sure where to find your logic in this one.

An injury doesn't mean someone did something wrong. And an action can be against the rules.

I.e if you punch someone in the face, you'll get weeks, even if they're not hurt. But if you go up for a mark and concuss someone with your knee, you won't.

Which is how it should be, right?

Ummmm.

If you're Goldstein n punch someone in the head and split them open, it's a fine.
If you're Fish n you roughly tackle someone over the shoulder yet don't cause any injury at all, it's a week because you potentially might have hurt someone
If you're some Brisvegas player and you hook Fish around the neck n almost decrapitate him it's play on, nothing to see here.


You need to open your eyes n turn the cogitating matter on first if you wish to find some logic.

 

[TigerMasochist]

I wonder if Pickett has ambitions to get back to WA at some point.

We are going to have to make some really hard decisions to create space at the end of the season, he might be a good one to move on as part of a deal for Cerra.

Give him a chance to make better money than he ever will at Richmond.

Interesting question TBR. Would certainly hate for the Pickett at Tigerland fairy tale to end, but it could certainly be a win win win option for all concerned.

 

[spook]

No way.

 

[Dont Argue]

I wonder if Pickett has ambitions to get back to WA at some point.

We are going to have to make some really hard decisions to create space at the end of the season, he might be a good one to move on as part of a deal for Cerra.

Give him a chance to make better money than he ever will at Richmond.

I like it.
Fish with minimum chips.
He’s got possible 2 more years.
Goes home and gets payed appropriately.
We give his games to RCD, HRS and the relatively forgotten Dow.
Marlion and our 1st pick for Fremantle’s 1st pick or Cerra ( although I don’t believe we really need him)
Win/Win

 

[Coburgtiger]

Ummmm.

If you're Goldstein n punch someone in the head and split them open, it's a fine.
If you're Fish n you roughly tackle someone over the shoulder yet don't cause any injury at all, it's a week because you potentially might have hurt someone
If you're some Brisvegas player and you hook Fish around the neck n almost decrapitate him it's play on, nothing to see here.


You need to open your eyes n turn the cogitating matter on first if you wish to find some logic.

Or if you're Hawkins and jumper punch someone in the chin, you get weeks.

It's easy to be pissed off about inconsistencies when they don't go our way.

The MRO is a joke but it's one of the few areas where I haven't seen us too hard done by. I'm as one eyed as anyone, and pissed off about the fact they've changed all the rules to knock us off the perch, while refusing to pay us free kicks on game day. But the MRO won't ever be 'was there an injury or not'. It'll be some system of arbitrary points garbage that spits out entirely random outcomes.

 

[T-Shirt Tommy]

But the MRO won't ever be 'was there an injury or not'.

Then why do they always ask for the victims medical report?

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Or if you're Hawkins and jumper punch someone in the chin, you get weeks.

It's easy to be pissed off about inconsistencies when they don't go our way.

The MRO is a joke but it's one of the few areas where I haven't seen us too hard done by. I'm as one eyed as anyone, and pissed off about the fact they've changed all the rules to knock us off the perch, while refusing to pay us free kicks on game day. But the MRO won't ever be 'was there an injury or not'. It'll be some system of arbitrary points garbage that spits out entirely random outcomes.

They decide the outcome first, taking into account whatever external factors, then work back and retrofit the criteria to the penalty. It's the only explanation that makes sense.

e.g. "North fans will lose hope if Goldstein is suspended and the crowd figures will take a hit, so we need to come up with a fine for Goldy. Let's see... Low impact will do it."

 

[Mr Brightside]

Best tackler we’ve had since D Kellaway , I’m resting my case on MP , hes a lock in the best 22 and it’s not that hard to see why, however imvho I just don’t think he’s all that great, good not great, Love a lot of what he does and it’s easy to see why he has some very astute fans , however for me he’s not that special a all round footballer, definitely a Richmond man

 

[RUNVS]

Does a lot of things that get unnoticed. I like him in the side.

 

[Dev Tiger]

He is important because of his running power. When the Bombers came back it was on the back of midfield run and carry. Our midfield is a bit underdone in being match fit at the moment. It will help when Lambert is back.

 

[bigwow]

Does a lot of things that get unnoticed. I like him in the side.

McGrath certainly noticed him last night.

 

[Streak]

I must say though, he isn't a ruckman. Lets stop that farce.

The idea he can do a Grigg is fanciful, and fails to recognise the footy intelligence of Grigg to be able to do what he did.

Marlion is a good player with a great leap, but he isn't able to impact things like Grigg after the initial tap. That, I believe, is because Grigg didn't really commit to the ruck contest, only doing the bare minimum to keep the opposition ruckman honest.

Marlion over commits in the ruck trying to win it, and so is not there when the ball hits the ground like Grigg was.

 

[Mycotchinrules]

Absolutely critical player for us now

Looks comfortable at AFL level and still has upside. He's a gun

 

[year of the tiger]

I must say though, he isn't a ruckman. Lets stop that farce.

The idea he can do a Grigg is fanciful, and fails to recognise the footy intelligence of Grigg to be able to do what he did.

Marlion is a good player with a great leap, but he isn't able to impact things like Grigg after the initial tap. That, I believe, is because Grigg didn't really commit to the ruck contest, only doing the bare minimum to keep the opposition ruckman honest.

Marlion over commits in the ruck trying to win it, and so is not there when the ball hits the ground like Grigg was.

Agree but I also think there was a lot of shock value with Grigg, it took quite a while before other teams knew how to counteract it - they just didn’t know what to do.

It worked for Pickett the first game he did it, but not much after that - opposition rucks now know how to counter this tactic.