MRP / Trib. Kossie Pickett hit on Bailey Smith

[PrisonBars4life]

Should have been a minimum of 4. Very ordinary act.

Quickly becoming a very easy to dislike player. Try hard Byron.

As someone who was a big fan of Byron and with Pickett potentially gettable for us, I should be into him. I really dislike the guy. Byron might have ironed out guys everywhere, but he wasn't in your face, he wasn't punching people, and talking shit. Pickett is starting to get into Hodge territory of these nasty off the ball actions (that don't get suspensions) and is a Heath Shaw level troll. Super talented, but if he was he wasn't at a top Vic club he'd be spoken about more negatively.

 

[gordo2016]

As someone who was a big fan of Byron and with Pickett potentially gettable for us, I should be into him. I really dislike the guy. Byron might have ironed out guys everywhere, but he wasn't in your face, he wasn't punching people, and talking s**t. Pickett is starting to get into Hodge territory of these nasty off the ball actions (that don't get suspensions) and is a Heath Shaw level troll. Super talented, but if he was he wasn't at a top Vic club he'd be spoken about more negatively.

Yer, good point Prison. Just let your footy do the talking, no need for the mouthing off. Things won't go his way all the time and it will come back to bite him on the arse.

 

[Hoops]

They didn't for Frankling and Pickett.

They were graded as careless when both are clearly and 100% intentional.

The bump was intentional, but you are allowed to bump. The head high contact being intentional is hard to prove.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

The bump was intentional, but you are allowed to bump. The head high contact being intentional is hard to prove.

Please, these are clear intentional hits. Picket literally lifts off the ground and jumps INTO smith, does he think by jumping off the ground he is going to hit smiths' mid-section?

If you choose to bump when you can tackle than players should lose the ability to argue intent.


Everyone who watches footy knows the difference between an intentional hit (IE to cause damage) and a football act. Neither of these bumps was a football act.

 

[GWT6]

Please, these are clear intentional hits. Picket literally lifts off the ground and jumps INTO smith, does he think by jumping off the ground he is going to hit smiths' mid-section?

If you choose to bump when you can tackle than players should lose the ability to argue intent.


Everyone who watches footy knows the difference between an intentional hit (IE to cause damage) and a football act. Neither of these bumps was a football act.

I think the point was that intent is hard to prove and normally ends up in appeals, so they call it careless and get it done.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

For mine Franklin's should have been 3, McAdam 3-4, Pickett 6. Pickett's is the dirtiest bump in years, very solid contact and only sheer luck that he didn't knock Smith out.

I do think Christian is a *******, but I think the table is also completely wrong. Intentional is only given +1 week when I think it should be x2. It's a joke that careless severe gets only 3+ versus intentional severe as 4+. Intentional/ Severe is the worst thing on the field you can do. It should start at 5-6 weeks.

Grading is definitely up the creek. Not like they haven't had time to get this right. Other than a strike, it's nearly impossible to get graded intentional.
Needs to be careless, reckless, then intentional.

Personally, I think Pickett's and McAdam's are the same. The only slight difference is that Smith had disposed of the ball, while the other bloke still had it, but both made no attempt to tackle or spoil and elected to bump vulnerable players front on while leaving the ground.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

If you choose to bump when you can tackle than players should lose the ability to argue intent.

Fair point.

I think the point was that intent is hard to prove and normally ends up in appeals, so they call it careless and get it done.

May seem a tad harsh, but how would this look for gradings (dependent on other factors)?
Careless - 1-3 weeks
Reckless - 3-5 weeks
Intentional - 5-7 weeks
Extreme cases - straight to tribunal - 7+ weeks

 

[Outback Footy]

Based on Stewart getting 4 weeks then yes, but Stewart went to the tribunal. Based on the matrix - they got it right.

Nobodys questioning whether this is a correct application of the matrix, thats black and white. The matrix was designed to remove subjectivity.
There are 2 questions being asked
The first question is how in gods green earth did they (he) arrive at the criteria in Pickets case? Careless? For jumping straight at a guy? he had time to smother, or tackle and chose this action. Asa hawks fan said, he didnt "slip" upwards off the ground
Same question in Buddys case
Second question is are the matrix penalties adequate/corrcet - consensus here seems to clearly be no they are insufficient. Particularly when head related.
And outcome should be excluded from consideration. Yes Baz got stright up. Luck? Ticker? Cement head? Would Paddy McCartin or Liam Picken have gotten up again from the same action? Probably not and it shouldnt matter.

Seems very subjective.

 

[Sttew]

Second question is are the matrix penalties adequate/corrcet - consensus here seems to clearly be no they are insufficient. Particularly when head related.
And outcome should be excluded from consideration. Yes Baz got stright up. Luck? Ticker? Cement head? Would Paddy McCartin or Liam Picken have gotten up again from the same action? Probably not and it shouldnt matter.

Seems very subjective.

What about the long term accumulative effect. In a week when all the talk is about a class action for long term consequences of repeated head trauma, the MRO essentially downgraded the penalty because Smith got up straight away.

The AFL is so far behind the eight-ball it deserves to cop a caning in court.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

May seem a tad harsh, but how would this look for gradings (dependent on other factors)?
Careless - 1-3 weeks
Reckless - 3-5 weeks
Intentional - 5-7 weeks
Extreme cases - straight to tribunal - 7+ weeks

In today's age that's pretty much bang on though I'd increase everything by 1

2-4 weeks Careless
4-6 weeks reckless
6-8 weeks reckless
Referred 9+ weeks

We need to come down hard on these bumps and players can't be getting fines for high bumps

 

[HBFlanker]

As someone who was a big fan of Byron and with Pickett potentially gettable for us, I should be into him. I really dislike the guy. Byron might have ironed out guys everywhere, but he wasn't in your face, he wasn't punching people, and talking s**t. Pickett is starting to get into Hodge territory of these nasty off the ball actions (that don't get suspensions) and is a Heath Shaw level troll. Super talented, but if he was he wasn't at a top Vic club he'd be spoken about more negatively.

A reasonable Port fan. Extraordinary stuff.

I cant recall Byron ever lipping off or carrying on. Even when he went straight through Biglands in the showdown it was almost like he was a little apologetic. What a player he was. One of the best talents I've ever seen.

Kozzie needs a clip around the ear.

For what its worth, im certain he will be at the power next season.

 

[Ambrosia]

I know every supporter will have similar stories but in 2020 Shiel got two weeks for laying a clean bump with head contact while trapping the ball and his opponent didn’t even leave the ground.

The inconsistency is mind boggling

 

[Mannol]

If Toby Green performed any of those hits on the weekend he would of been out for months not weeks. Is there any noticeable difference between Toby and the 3 players reported over the weekend? I'm trying to figure it out although i know Lance has got of many times in the past.

 

[Sentinel]

If Toby Green performed any of those hits on the weekend he would of been out for months not weeks. Is there any noticeable difference between Toby and the 3 players reported over the weekend? I'm trying to figure it out although i know Lance has got of many times in the past.

The so called 'Toby Tax' is the biggest myth in football. Remember when he was let off with a fine for eye gouging an opponent, and a separate incident when he kicked his opponent jn the face? Or receiving 3 weeks for bumping an umpire in anger (only increased to 6 after the AFL appealed)? 1 week for elbowing an opponent in the throat?

That's not to say Pickett didn't get off very lightly, in my opinion.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

I think the point was that intent is hard to prove and normally ends up in appeals, so they call it careless and get it done.

you should lose ability to argue intent when you choose to bump in a non-football act.

neither of these actions was a football act. Both franklin and Pickett made contact with the aim to cause damage, not play for the football. They are completely different to a typical football act IE making a play to gain possession of the ball.

Both should have been graded intentional which adds 1 week onto each. Pickett gets 3 weeks and Franklin gets 2. Most people would be happy with that and it sets the precedent in round 1 that if you decide to bump in a non-football act, it will be graded as intentional.

 

[00Stinger]

I know every supporter will have similar stories but in 2020 Shiel got two weeks for laying a clean bump with head contact while trapping the ball and his opponent didn’t even leave the ground.

The inconsistency is mind boggling

Cripps won a Brownlow for having a suspension over turned in a similar incident. Except that the Brisbane player was concussed and unable to play for a month

 

[00Stinger]

The so called 'Toby Tax' is the biggest myth in football. Remember when he was let off with a fine for eye gouging an opponent, and a separate incident when he kicked his opponent jn the face? Or receiving 3 weeks for bumping an umpire in anger (only increased to 6 after the AFL appealed)? 1 week for elbowing an opponent in the throat?

That's not to say Pickett didn't get off very lightly, in my opinion.

Not sure about a Toby tax, but there sure as **** is a Cotchin discount

 

[Sentinel]

you should lose ability to argue intent when you choose to bump in a non-football act.

neither of these actions was a football act. Both franklin and Pickett made contact with the aim to cause damage, not play for the football. They are completely different to a typical football act IE making a play to gain possession of the ball.

Both should have been graded intentional which adds 1 week onto each. Pickett gets 3 weeks and Franklin gets 2. Most people would be happy with that and it sets the precedent in round 1 that if you decide to bump in a non-football act, it will be graded as intentional.

It's a good point. It's extremely difficult to see how a bump made after the player had disposed of the ball can be considered a 'football act' and any incident outside of a football act should be dealt with considerably more harshly.

At least in the Franklin incident the ball was still in dispute so he could at least argue he was competing for it (even if his bump was away from the ball itself), unlike Pickett's bump.

 

[Sentinel]

Not sure about a Toby tax, but there sure as * is a Cotchin discount

I won't argue with that.

 

[BringFevBack2021]

Cripps won a Brownlow for having a suspension over turned in a similar incident. Except that the Brisbane player was concussed and unable to play for a month

Cripps should've missed but it's not the same incident, Cripps was competing for a live ball and misjudged his run. Still, should've been 1 at a minimum and more likely 2 due to the outcome.

Kossi smashed a bloke late after disposing of the footy with no intent to compete for a live ball. Regardless of the outcome, he should miss at a minimum 2 and preferably 3.

The whole system is broken though. That's why we're all in this thread questioning whether or not it's just punishment based on prior events that set precedent.

Cripps, ball in area and has already left the ground before Ah Chee took possession.


Pickett, ball has well and truly been disposed of as Kysaiah cannons into Smiths head

 

[Toump Ass]

So exact same bump on Paddy McCartin and he probably misses 8+ weeks if he’s fit to ever return to the game, and how many weeks does Pickett miss?

2.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

It's a good point. It's extremely difficult to see how a bump made after the player had disposed of the ball can be considered a 'football act' and any incident outside of a football act should be dealt with considerably more harshly.

At least in the Franklin incident the ball was still in dispute so he could at least argue he was competing for it (even if his bump was away from the ball itself), unlike Pickett's bump.

I dont think it is hard to differentiate a football act from a non-football act.

1) anything but a shoulder-to-shoulder bump.
2) running past the ball to make contact IE not making a play on the ball.
3) hitting a player AFTER the ball has been disposed of

Franklin, could have easily made a play for the ball and won it in a contest, he decided not to take possession but opt for contact. He should wear the risk of that. His intent was clear. Contact before possession.

The bump is not dead, the shitty execution of it should be. Players should wear the risk that if they decide to prioritise contact, and they do so with a shit technique they wear the risk of it being graded as intentional contact.

 

[00Stinger]

I dont think it is hard to differentiate a football act from a non-football act.

1) anything but a shoulder-to-shoulder bump.
2) running past the ball to make contact IE not making a play on the ball.
3) hitting a player AFTER the ball has been disposed of

Franklin, could have easily made a play for the ball and won it in a contest, he decided not to take possession but opt for contact. He should wear the risk of that. His intent was clear. Contact before possession.

The bump is not dead, the shitty execution of it should be. Players should wear the risk that if they decide to priotise contact, and they do so with a s**t technique they weart the risk of it being grded as intentional contact.

Number 3 can be tricky. Sometimes a player has committed and hits a fraction of a second late, that is a football act. If it is clearly after the ball has left then it isn't, but I don't know where you draw the line in terms of being late

 

[00Stinger]

Cripps should've missed but it's not the same incident, Cripps was competing for a live ball and misjudged his run. Still, should've been 1 at a minimum and more likely 2 due to the outcome.

Kossi smashed a bloke late after disposing of the footy with no intent to compete for a live ball. Regardless of the outcome, he should miss at a minimum 2 and preferably 3.

The whole system is broken though. That's why we're all in this thread questioning whether or not it's just punishment based on prior events that set precedent.

Cripps, ball in area and has already left the ground before Ah Chee took possession.
View attachment 1635460

Pickett, ball has well and truly been disposed of as Kysaiah cannons into Smiths head
View attachment 1635461

Not identical but both late, high highs where they left the ground.

Both wanted to hurt the opposition player, one really did and one didn't really

But I agree they aren't exactly the same. And I don't have an issue with Pickett getting rubbed out tbf. But **** me some of the shit that has been sprouted on here and the media over the past few days is laughable

 

[Sentinel]

I dont think it is hard to differentiate a football act from a non-football act.

1) anything but a shoulder-to-shoulder bump.
2) running past the ball to make contact IE not making a play on the ball.
3) hitting a player AFTER the ball has been disposed of

Franklin, could have easily made a play for the ball and won it in a contest, he decided not to take possession but opt for contact. He should wear the risk of that. His intent was clear. Contact before possession.

The bump is not dead, the shitty execution of it should be.

In general though there does need to be room for allowance between poor intent and poor execution.

Number 3 can be tricky. Sometimes a player has committed and hits a fraction of a second late, that is a football act. If it is clearly after the ball has left then it isn't, but I don't know where you draw the line in terms of being late

True, it's often difficult to draw the line because a late hit is usually only late by an absolute split second. In the example of Pickett on Smith, he only left the ground AFTER Smith had disposed of the ball so in this particular case it's clear.