Player Watch #50 Marlion Pickett Retirement

Remove this Banner Ad

A Tiger 4 lyf said:
Please get to 100 games





Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Click to expand...
2 more seasons (45 games left)

The club see's the boys just about every day and will be watching them closely as they play footy
we can already see their ball handling skills on display with footy in hand at the club

Tigers will get MP to 100
 
YeOldTiger said:
Still can't believe Marlion copped a suspension for his shepherd on Moore (uninjured, played out the game, free kick at most) and Cripps poleaxes AhChee (Cripps jumps in the air, knocked out, subbed out, concussed, misses the next week) and gets off.

If it isn't corruption it's incompetence.

Take your pick.

Marlion goes near the footy it's a free kick and a 50. Yet he can have his head ripped off and doesn't get a free kick. Wtf !
Click to expand...
Spot on.

Another one to add too. Watching AFL 360 Monday edition and they briefly spoke about the Bulldogs player who got sent straight to the Tribunal for laying a shepherd. There was maybe contact to the head (but minimal and caused by whiplash - maybe caused a concussion), but the GWS player finished the match out. Whateley was saying that this should automatically be thrown out as there was no concussion etc. and you're allowed to lay a shepherd*

*unless you're Marlion Pickett

It's unbelievable how much these blokes forget. They could have rolled the footage of Pickett's shepherd and realize it's a carbon copy = 1 week suspension. Or they could have said that Pickett's suspension was wrong. I'm sure that Whateley and co campaigned for Pickett's suspension. The double standards just baffle me.

#saveSirMarlion
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Pickett is one of those players that every side needs. The unsung heroes of a side. We have the likes of Marlion, KMac and Broad. Guys who are workhorses and just go about their job for the good of the team. True Richmond men who don't get all the accolades, but have a key role to play. What is the old saying.. "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts". Really applies to our side.
 
Do the Dew said:
Tribunal results in from last night just pour more salt on the wound.

Cordy lays a shepherd on Bruhn, concusses him, and escapes suspension.

Pickett lays a shepherd on Moore, no concussion or injury, and gets a week.

What the actual *.
Click to expand...
Cordy layed a perfect bump. Concussion was caused by whiplash and head hitting the ground. This should not have gone to the tribunal and the dick at the AFL who sent the case up should be sacked. It was nothing more than a shepherd. You should not use this to press your point about Pickett being unfairly treated. It has no relevance.
 
sregit said:
Cordy layed a perfect bump. Concussion was caused by whiplash and head hitting the ground. This should not have gone to the tribunal and the dick at the AFL who sent the case up should be sacked. It was nothing more than a shepherd. You should not use this to press your point about Pickett being unfairly treated. It has no relevance.
Click to expand...
Of course it has relevance. Both incidents were football actions with different outcomes and punitive responses. Also how can a "perfect bump" leave a guy concussed? Surely that means it wasn't perfect..

The AFL has harped on for a while about the head being sacrosanct, and yet a guy gets off scot free for incidentally concussing someone (same goes for Cripps). Do I think Cordy should have been suspended? No. But based on the Pickett precedence he has to be.

Last point is the potential to cause injury. AFAIK, only Dusty has ever been done for that for an elbow on a GWS player a few years back. Why wasn't this applied to Cordy? His action had the potential to cause injury and did just that.

It's the inconsistencies in tribunal/AFL rulings that makes me scratch my head. And there's a history here of Pickett being adjudicated extremely harshly while similar actions from other players go unpunished.
 
Do the Dew said:
Tribunal results in from last night just pour more salt on the wound.

Cordy lays a shepherd on Bruhn, concusses him, and escapes suspension.

Pickett lays a shepherd on Moore, no concussion or injury, and gets a week.

What the actual *.
Click to expand...
Because Cordy didn't hit him in the head, the concussion was incidental. Pickett got him high. Bit stiff but hardly surprising.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

rammbo said:
I saw no conclusive proof Pickett did get him high
Click to expand...
Czech Republic Sport GIF by Český olympijský tým
 
Do the Dew said:
Of course it has relevance. Both incidents were football actions with different outcomes and punitive responses. Also how can a "perfect bump" leave a guy concussed? Surely that means it wasn't perfect..

The AFL has harped on for a while about the head being sacrosanct, and yet a guy gets off scot free for incidentally concussing someone (same goes for Cripps). Do I think Cordy should have been suspended? No. But based on the Pickett precedence he has to be.

Last point is the potential to cause injury. AFAIK, only Dusty has ever been done for that for an elbow on a GWS player a few years back. Why wasn't this applied to Cordy? His action had the potential to cause injury and did just that.

It's the inconsistencies in tribunal/AFL rulings that makes me scratch my head. And there's a history here of Pickett being adjudicated extremely harshly while similar actions from other players go unpunished.
Click to expand...
You are missing the most important point here, it is legal to bump when the ball is within 5M, as long as no head high contact is made regardless of the outcome.
 
sregit said:
You are missing the most important point here, it is legal to bump when the ball is within 5M, as long as no head high contact is made regardless of the outcome.
Click to expand...

Your post is correct according to current AFL practice, but Do the Dew does have a bit of a point here though.

Pickett bumped with a much safer hip first technique whereas Cordy bumped with a much more dangerous shoulder first technique.

They were both legal situations to lay a bump.

Pickett probably made some secondary impact to the head after body contact was made and no injury or concussion occurred. Cordy makes no direct head contact but his bump certainly caused a concussion to occur.

Pickett gets 1 week, Cordy no penalty.

I think there are a few issues here.

The automatic grading of medium impact if you elect to bump and make any contact to the head is shown to be foolish by the Pickett case. Why create artificial automatic gradings that remove your ability to consider the case on its merits? This is silly. The grading system should fit the incidents, not the incidents made to fit the grading system. So low impact, high contact, careful was the truth of the Pickett bump. But the grading system gave him no leniency for the careful hip first nature of his bump and punished him as if he had been careless and made medium impact, which he didn't.

In the Cordy case, imo this was a much more dangerous bump because his torso was leaning toward Bruhn, meaning the shoulder impacts first and you run the risk of amongst other things, a head clash. So the grading system presumably says he made high impact, but to the body and wasn’t careless. Yet his bump was in reality way more careless than Pickett’s. Whether this played any part in Bruhn being concussed I am not so sure, but it certainly would not have helped.

So imo two things should happen here. First, contact to the head should not be the sole test of whether your bump is careless or not. The AFL would be wiser to say if you bump with the safer hip first to the body technique where it is actually legal to lay a bump, the action will not be considered careless. But if you bump head or shoulder first(as in Stewart on Prestia,) then this will automatically be considered careless. You would of course still have to meet impact and contact clauses to be suspended.

The biggest problem with bumps concussing people is that players simply don’t bump correctly and this is what should be addressed first and foremost. Clearly if the system punishes a carefully layed bump that causes no injury and doesn’t punish a dangerously executed bump that concusses a player….the system is wrong.
 
Meteoric Rise said:
Your post is correct according to current AFL practice, but Do the Dew does have a bit of a point here though.

Pickett bumped with a much safer hip first technique whereas Cordy bumped with a much more dangerous shoulder first technique.

They were both legal situations to lay a bump.

Pickett probably made some secondary impact to the head after body contact was made and no injury or concussion occurred. Cordy makes no direct head contact but his bump certainly caused a concussion to occur.

Pickett gets 1 week, Cordy no penalty.

I think there are a few issues here.

The automatic grading of medium impact if you elect to bump and make any contact to the head is shown to be foolish by the Pickett case. Why create artificial automatic gradings that remove your ability to consider the case on its merits? This is silly. The grading system should fit the incidents, not the incidents made to fit the grading system. So low impact, high contact, careful was the truth of the Pickett bump. But the grading system gave him no leniency for the careful hip first nature of his bump and punished him as if he had been careless and made medium impact, which he didn't.

In the Cordy case, imo this was a much more dangerous bump because his torso was leaning toward Bruhn, meaning the shoulder impacts first and you run the risk of amongst other things, a head clash. So the grading system presumably says he made high impact, but to the body and wasn’t careless. Yet his bump was in reality way more careless than Pickett’s. Whether this played any part in Bruhn being concussed I am not so sure, but it certainly would not have helped.

So imo two things should happen here. First, contact to the head should not be the sole test of whether your bump is careless or not. The AFL would be wiser to say if you bump with the safer hip first to the body technique where it is actually legal to lay a bump, the action will not be considered careless. But if you bump head or shoulder first(as in Stewart on Prestia,) then this will automatically be considered careless. You would of course still have to meet impact and contact clauses to be suspended.

The biggest problem with bumps concussing people is that players simply don’t bump correctly and this is what should be addressed first and foremost. Clearly if the system punishes a carefully layed bump that causes no injury and doesn’t punish a dangerously executed bump that concusses a player….the system is wrong.
Click to expand...
Great post. I think we can all agree on the fact that the system is wrong, hence why there is such inconsistency within the same season. The matrix for how they report incidents has to be reworked as it still overwhelmingly punishes outcome rather than intent - except for the Cripps case which is still baffling. There needs to be a healthy balance of both.

Bit of a tangent here, but even fines for staging are completely inconsistent. How was Mitch McGovern's blatant dive when Melksham took a mark with a couple of minutes left in the Melbourne v Carlton game? Did a bit of digging and I'm pretty sure he wasn't fined. But if that was Grimes then he'd 100% be out of pocket.
 
Meteoric Rise said:
Your post is correct according to current AFL practice, but Do the Dew does have a bit of a point here though.

Pickett bumped with a much safer hip first technique whereas Cordy bumped with a much more dangerous shoulder first technique.

They were both legal situations to lay a bump.

Pickett probably made some secondary impact to the head after body contact was made and no injury or concussion occurred. Cordy makes no direct head contact but his bump certainly caused a concussion to occur.

Pickett gets 1 week, Cordy no penalty.

I think there are a few issues here.

The automatic grading of medium impact if you elect to bump and make any contact to the head is shown to be foolish by the Pickett case. Why create artificial automatic gradings that remove your ability to consider the case on its merits? This is silly. The grading system should fit the incidents, not the incidents made to fit the grading system. So low impact, high contact, careful was the truth of the Pickett bump. But the grading system gave him no leniency for the careful hip first nature of his bump and punished him as if he had been careless and made medium impact, which he didn't.

In the Cordy case, imo this was a much more dangerous bump because his torso was leaning toward Bruhn, meaning the shoulder impacts first and you run the risk of amongst other things, a head clash. So the grading system presumably says he made high impact, but to the body and wasn’t careless. Yet his bump was in reality way more careless than Pickett’s. Whether this played any part in Bruhn being concussed I am not so sure, but it certainly would not have helped.

So imo two things should happen here. First, contact to the head should not be the sole test of whether your bump is careless or not. The AFL would be wiser to say if you bump with the safer hip first to the body technique where it is actually legal to lay a bump, the action will not be considered careless. But if you bump head or shoulder first(as in Stewart on Prestia,) then this will automatically be considered careless. You would of course still have to meet impact and contact clauses to be suspended.

The biggest problem with bumps concussing people is that players simply don’t bump correctly and this is what should be addressed first and foremost. Clearly if the system punishes a carefully layed bump that causes no injury and doesn’t punish a dangerously executed bump that concusses a player….the system is wrong.
Click to expand...
Pickett got done from memory because his bump had the 'potential' to cause injury. In other words he made some contact with the head but not enough to cause any damage, but it could have. Pretty slippery slope.
 
Congratulations Marlion on another year!
 
Very happy to have Marlion again. very very happy
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Player Watch #50 Marlion Pickett Retirement

Similar threads

_RT_
No Oppo Supporters Marlion Pickett Arrested
32 33 34 35 36
Replies
892
Views
44K
All Aust
All Aust
RFCGloryJC
Toast Mark "Robbo" Robinson retires
Replies
19
Views
411
sabso
sabso
Truetiger
Universal Love Martin Retirement
20 21 22 23 24
Replies
579
Views
18K
Ceehook
C
beema limapep
Are we in in for a 0 win season with <50% ?
2 3 4 5
Replies
109
Views
4K
59Stanley
5
_RT_
Player Watch #50 Campbell Gray
11 12 13 14 15
Replies
357
Views
18K
Tigerbob
Tigerbob
Lsta062
  • Poll
Strategy Selling the farm vs Retiring Premiership players at Richmond
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
THE THIN MAN
THE THIN MAN
tugga
Universal Love Oh captain, my captain: Cotchin retires. There will never be another.
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
262
Views
9K
tiger_tough
tiger_tough

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top