Opposition Supporters all for Byron Pickett

[Cove Cobra]

Hasn't the control of the game gone WAY FAR OUT OF HAND?

Pickett DOES NOT deserve ANY suspension for the incident on Sunday last.

He turned, tucked and braced himself for the collision. He did EVERYTHING safely, for both HIM AND HIS OPPONENT.

I'm on the opposite side of the fence to you people but when the integrity of OUR game is scruitinised to the point of no contact, well the I'd stick up for ANY player or CLUB.

Fight it, fight it all the way to the Courts.

Better still, challenge the WorkCover rulings in regards to contact in the AFL.

 

[arrowman]

Pickett DOES NOT deserve ANY suspension for the incident on Sunday last.

He didn't get suspended for that incident.

 

[Cove Cobra]

I understand where you are coming from -> man but the decision earlier in the season was too harsh as well, you must admit.

I've reviewed both footage and yes, Pickett took his eyes off the ball and ran past it to collect Begley.

Deserved 2 matches. Before you scream, you need to look at precedence. The new-look tribunal took precenence into account too harshly IMO. Did they look into precedence at all before the introduction of the new system properly, fairly and equitably?

He did EVERYTHING right on Sunday last. He prepared, tucked and DID NOT look at the man prior to collision.

Another argument is this - is it better to RUN through an opposition player or leap?

Areodynamics suggest they are both the same.

Pickett had no time to slow down. Is he expected to run around and provide an extra oportunity for the opposition?

 

[Ford Fairlane]

He didn't get suspended for that incident.

The point is, he shouldn't even have been reported. It was a bump, nothing more.

 

[Jumbo]

Hasn't the control of the game gone WAY FAR OUT OF HAND?

Pickett DOES NOT deserve ANY suspension for the incident on Sunday last.

He turned, tucked and braced himself for the collision. He did EVERYTHING safely, for both HIM AND HIS OPPONENT.

I'm on the opposite side of the fence to you people but when the integrity of OUR game is scruitinised to the point of no contact, well the I'd stick up for ANY player or CLUB.

Fight it, fight it all the way to the Courts.

Better still, challenge the WorkCover rulings in regards to contact in the AFL.

Not sure how to take this after just reading your post on the main board about Roger JAMES' siuation stating, "seriously, who gives a shyte". Well, to answer that, I do!

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Not sure how to take this after just reading your post on the main board about Roger JAMES' siuation stating, "seriously, who gives a shyte". Well, to answer that, I do!

I'll take CC on face value on this one. If an opposition player had been reported for doing that to one of ours, I'd have shook my head in dismay at where the game is heading. That it was one of our own - coincidentally Byron Pickett - has me outraged.

 

[The Hobo]

He didn't get suspended for that incident.

that's another flaw in the system.

Extra penalty should only be added if the offending player was to get at least one week without penatly in the first place.

ie. IF a player would get 1 week, for his offence, WITHOUT any external considerations, then the extra weighting is to be added accordingly.

IF a player would NOT get 1 week for his offence, then no extra weighting is added, and no points are carried over for the next 3 years.

that is how it should be i beleive. Otherwise, anyone that has been suspended, can be suspended again so easily by the tribunal, as we saw with pickett again.

 

[Cove Cobra]

Not sure how to take this after just reading your post on the main board about Roger JAMES' siuation stating, "seriously, who gives a shyte". Well, to answer that, I do!

Who gives a shyte is my answer to a thread that has no substance to it at all.

Look at Macca for us. He is in the same boat. Nurse him and he'll be right. It's all ********-in-bull about that thread if you ask me.





You did notice LMAO before my other comment didn't you?

 

[Cove Cobra]

I'll take CC on face value on this one. If an opposition player had been reported for doing that to one of ours, I'd have shook my head in dismay at where the game is heading. That it was one of our own - coincidentally Byron Pickett - has me outraged.

Thank you F_F. I have replied to that answer already.

The thing that worries me mate is the contact that we all love to see is being taken away.

Why?

Is it insurance costs, WorkCover or other factors?

Pickett IMO (and I'll be bashed when I go back to my board) opitimises the strength and courage of the game. Shyte, you don't get named in the Indeginous Team for nothing do you?

There is an underlying factor in all of this and I am sure it has to do with costings.

I'd rather go and watch the S.F.L. where you see the tough and hard stuff rather than the bullshyte the AFL is trying to turn the CORPORATE Game into.

 

[portentous]

Like I said elsewhere, would barely have been a 25m in the SANFL CC. See it week in week out-tough, hard footy and love it. The AFL is becoming far too precious.

 

[arrowman]

that's another flaw in the system.

Extra penalty should only be added if the offending player was to get at least one week without penatly in the first place.

ie. IF a player would get 1 week, for his offence, WITHOUT any external considerations, then the extra weighting is to be added accordingly.

IF a player would NOT get 1 week for his offence, then no extra weighting is added, and no points are carried over for the next 3 years.

that is how it should be i beleive. Otherwise, anyone that has been suspended, can be suspended again so easily by the tribunal, as we saw with pickett again.

I disagree. In your scenario (if I hear you correctly) a player could commit a "reprimand" offence every week of the seasom and never be suspended.

I think the carry over penalties are too harsh and they should reduce with time, rather than be fixed for 3 years. I would do something like - off the top of my head - 5% loading for every game suspended in the last 12 months, 3% fr every game in the previous 12, 2% for the third year. So a guy who copped 3 games gets +15% for 12 months, then +9%, then +6%. 6% is a pretty light loading but on the other hand if you've kept a clean sheet for 3 years...

 

[Cove Cobra]

I disagree. In your scenario (if I hear you correctly) a player could commit a "reprimand" offence every week of the seasom and never be suspended.

I think the carry over penalties are too harsh and they should reduce with time, rather than be fixed for 3 years. I would do something like - off the top of my head - 5% loading for every game suspended in the last 12 months, 3% fr every game in the previous 12, 2% for the third year. So a guy who copped 3 games gets +15% for 12 months, then +9%, then +6%. 6% is a pretty light loading but on the other hand if you've kept a clean sheet for 3 years...

SO you agree the system is indeed flawed ->man.

Did you have a quick look into the precedence of the game? If you did you would have encountered the same research as I did.

If Port challenged in the Courts they would win, there is NO doubt.

No doubt that they are already onto it as well.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Mike Sheahan's written a terrific article on the topic

Don't take physical contact out of game
11 August 2005 Herald Sun

THE AFL's match review panel cited 16 players on 21 charges from the weekend. It also considered a further 10 incidents.

If you were following the competition from afar via media reports, you might suspect anarchy had swept the football fields of Australia.

The crackdown on physical contact in the game is out of control. It threatens to change both the way football is played and appreciated by millions of followers.

Of all the incidents that have been reported or studied by the review panel this year, not one of them would have been considered worthy of inclusion in Violent Saturday, the dubious highlights package from the 1970s.

Not one. Violent Saturday depicted the ugly face of football of its time, but it does serve to remind us just how much the game has changed in 30 years.

We have over-corrected. The thugs are gone, yet the authorities are more zealous than ever.

The Herald Sun issued a back-page warning after Round 6 that football was in danger of tarnishing its reputation in the wake of the Fraser Gehrig suspension for striking Collingwood's Jason Cloke.

That warning still stands.

Contact that players regard as incidental, contact that supporters regard as fundamental in a sport that demands so much of the physical and emotional courage of its participants, is being marked way too hard.

It's a tough game, a game in which physical presence and intimidation both are relevant and acceptable.

It's a game that makes us hold our breath when the gladiators come from opposite directions at 100mph with eyes only for the ball.

Yet when we see a violent collision between two blokes going for a mark, it seems the umpires feel the need to decide one of them was out of line.

Then there's Byron Pickett.

The man deemed to have committed this year's most serious offence is in danger of being driven out of the game.

Pickett was suspended for six games for rough play during Port Adelaide's Wizard Cup game against Adelaide.

He mowed down James Begley as the Adelaide player fumbled the ball at ground level, his head over the ball. It was a stiff penalty, but players in that position had been guaranteed protection and we understood.

There have been several incidents of a similar nature since, yet no penalty of anywhere near the same weight.

This week, Pickett copped a further two matches for rough play in a marking contest in the game against Carlton at the MCG on Sunday.

What was Pickett to do as Simon Wiggins hurtled towards him, running with the flight of the ball?

It was inspiring stuff from Wiggins, yet Pickett did little more than arrive a little late, turn side on, brace himself for contact, and put Wiggins on his back.

Contact of sorts was inevitable. What was his alternative? Peel off? Return to stand the mark?

The Pickett of five years ago would have put Wiggins on his back -- and in Epworth Hospital.

The sensitivity of the authorities to so-called violence needs to be kept in check.

Pickett hits people with his shoulders. He doesn't raise his arms; he's just exceptionally quick and strong, and adept at bumping.

Tribunal chairman David Jones emphasised to the jury of former players it must put Pickett's reputation aside in its deliberations.

After all, he had been suspended only once (for one game) until this year.

It is time to let the players play. To ignore minor encounters.

In their endeavours to say to the world, "Look how clean we are", the authorities inadvertently are telling everyone we have a problem. We don't.

 

[Cove Cobra]

There it is in a nutshell (without saying it).!

Where is the precedence?

There is none. In Court you go on precedence for every case, not on individual merit.

If Port fight this they will win. I want you to win. I'd rather take on you guys full-strength than otherwise.

 

[The Hobo]

excellent excellent article! wow sheehan has gained a new respect from me after that

someone actually dared to critisize!

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I disagree. In your scenario (if I hear you correctly) a player could commit a "reprimand" offence every week of the seasom and never be suspended

No arrowman, you have heard incorrectly, haven't read or don't understand the 2005 Tribunal Reform documents.

EDIT I think I misinterpreted your response arrowman. I thouht you were intepreting the current situation not deeps proposal . I shouldn't start a response then take a break.. But I have left the info on how the system works .
The total demerit points after the allocation of Activation Points for a Reportable Offence is:
1. Demerit points allocated from the Table of Offences
Add
2. 30% for any suspension of 3 or more games in the last 3 years
3. 20% for any suspension of 2 games in the last 3 years
3. 20% for any suspension of 1 game in the last 3 years
4. Demerit points carried forward from a previous charge (reprimand(s) and/or suspension(s)) for 12 months from date of allocation
Less
5. 25% discount if a player hasn't been found guilty of any Reportable Offence or taken an early plea in the last 5 years
6. 25% discount for an early plea.

So apart from the penalties that you get a monetary fine for, such as Melee, Wrestling, Negligent contact with an umpire, etc there is only one charge from the Table of Offences that doesn't generate any demerit points and that is an Level 1 Attempted Striking Charge.

For every other charge the minimum demerit points for a Level 1 charge is 75 points.

So if a player committed this offence and had a 5 year+ good record and accepted an early plea he would get
75pts - 25% good record = 75 - 18.75 =56.25
56.25 - 25% = 56.25 - 14.0625 = 42.1875. These points are carried forward.

If the next week he commits the some offence his net result is
75 + 42.1875 carried forward = 117.1875
118.1875 - 25% early plea = 118.1875 - 29.5469
= 88.6406 points carried forward and no suspension.

If in the third week he gets charged for the same thing, his net result is
75 + 88.6406 = 163.6406
163.6406 - 25% early plea = 163.6406 - 40.9101
= 122.7305 pts ie 1 game plus 22.7305 points carried forward for 12 months.

THE PICKETT DECISION IS CRAP BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING NEGLIGENT ABOUT HIS ACTIONS, THEREFORE IT SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD ANY ACTIVATION POINTS ALLOCATED AND HIS PREVIOUS RECORD WOULD THEREFORE BE IRRELEVANT.

 

[Malibu#27]

Does anyone know if the rumour I just heard of Port hiring two lawyers is correct ?

 

[Sandola]

Well, I certainly hope so! Serious suits! Expensive big-city lawyers! And Mr Meaner!!
(No, with a name like that, maybe not.)

 

[MrMeaner]

Well, I certainly hope so! Serious suits! Expensive big-city lawyers! And Mr Meaner!!
(No, with a name like that, maybe not.)

Don't let my name fool you, I am an expensive big-city lawyer. Very expensive. Just ask my clients.

I'm not on Choppy's legal team though.

 

[*PAF]

Don't let my name fool you, I am an expensive big-city lawyer. Very expensive. Just ask my clients.

I'm not on Choppy's legal team though.

I too am getting meaner and more expansive with each and every year that goes past.

 

[birdmanptr]

.

THE PICKETT DECISION IS CRAP BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING NEGLIGENT ABOUT HIS ACTIONS, THEREFORE IT SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD ANY ACTIVATION POINTS ALLOCATED AND HIS PREVIOUS RECORD WOULD THEREFORE BE IRRELEVANT.

Byron got done on what the tribunal thought he was thinking of doing or what he COULD HAVE done.

NOT WHAT HE DID.

 

[*PAF]

Byron got done on what the tribunal thought he was thinking of doing or what he COULD HAVE done.

NOT WHAT HE DID.

We can argue all we want about why he got done.
After 20 or so weeks, we now definitely and conclusively know he got screwed. He is now getting done over again by the same turkeys.
Lightning never strikes twice? Yeah well.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Byron got done on what the tribunal thought he was thinking of doing or what he COULD HAVE done.

NOT WHAT HE DID.

Another reason why the decision is incorrect. No other decision this year has considered the "potential to cause serious injury".

Miller's hit on McGregor had the potential to cause severe damage but this was ignored. The MRP allocated activation points on what happened not the potential, and the two games were accepted by Miller within 20 minutes of the decision and the tribunal never got the chance to consider the potential damage.

Potential damage is so subjective that it should be ignored. Every striking charge where a clenched fist has been used and strong force has been applied has the potential to knock someone out and even kill them but the tribunal has never considered this in it's deliberations this year. If you think killing some one is an over reaction, remember it took one punch to effectively kill David Hookes and render him brain dead.

 

[power_86]

Everyone on the Footy Show agreed that there was nothing in it. There was a bit of a debate going on about it. Sam Newman was fuming, saying how the tribunal is pathetic and how the game has changed for the bad etc etc. It's one of the only times i've agreed with him. He was actually saying sensible things, that doesn't happen too much with him! lol

 

[Toots Hibbert]

Everyone on the Footy Show agreed that there was nothing in it. There was a bit of a debate going on about it. Sam Newman was fuming, saying how the tribunal is pathetic and how the game has changed for the bad etc etc. It's one of the only times i've agreed with him. He was actually saying sensible things, that doesn't happen too much with him! lol

Apparently the criticism from many commentators has been noted. Just heard on the radio Andrew Demetriou saying he has some sympathy for Byron but his record goes against him! What, a suspension which was generally believed to be excessive early in the year and then a bump which should have been penalised by a free but wound up at the tribunal counts as a bad record! LOL.