MRP / Trib. Pickett elbow on Soligo

[SplintWhisky]

I get supporting your club and its players but how on earth do you reasonably look at the Maynard one and go he needs a long ban, and Pickett you say "nothing to see here, move along".

Like we've gone from being a one-eyed supporter to being an actual blind one.

Have you heard about the story about Fleas? The story is that they have the ability to jump a certain height. I am not certain the numbers but lets say it is 30cm or so but if you put them in a jar that is 10cm for a while then let them back out they will only jump 10cm.

We as a football public have been conditioned by the AFL to look at outcome only because that is what they preached for the last decade or so. Potentially the AFL legal team has had a chat and advised them that intent/action may be more important for future litigation and now we making the change again.

 

[MisterMarcus]

Was pretty funny last night seeing David King try to pull the "Not much in that - good bloke Kozzi' defence.....and all the other commentators were straight up "Nah he's in trouble for that one".

 

[schmuttt]

Should get a week it was silly and he did lean into it. Minor impact should ensure not more than that.

 

[TY24]

Arms raised for the Spoil
View attachment 1950273

Arms down and pinned down to make contact
View attachment 1950274

Twists the body and positions elbow to be flush with the face. Elbow is now behind the the side on of his torso where in the above picture is was in line
View attachment 1950278

That doesn’t suit his narrative though

 

[Fat Tony!]

I am still not sure what players are meant to do in this instance. Pickett jumped pretty much straight up in the air in response to the handball to smother. His action to tuck his elbow in is required to protect his vital bodily organs. Should he leave himself open and cop three broken ribs like Steven May

1

Steven May

Age

33

Ht

193cm

Wt

101kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.7

4star

K

10.5

4star

HB

4.2

3star

M

5.1

5star

T

1.5

3star

MG

307.3

4star

D

15.5

4star

K

12.1

5star

HB

3.4

2star

M

3.4

3star

T

0.5

1star

MG

378.4

5star

D

12.4

4star

K

8.8

4star

HB

3.6

3star

M

3.2

4star

T

1.8

4star

?

Sure Pickett occasionally crosses the line with his bumps but I don't see this one as a careless act at all.

I think he will get a week but he has a good case to get it down to a fine based on the contact being graded as low. Soligo did not get concussion or go off the ground.

 

[Sentinel]

I am still not sure what players are meant to do in this instance. Pickett jumped pretty much straight up in the air in response to the handball to smother. His action to tuck his elbow in is required to protect his vital bodily organs. Should he leave himself open and cop three broken ribs like Steven May?

Sure Pickett occasionally crosses the line with his bumps but I don't see this one as a careless act at all.

I think he will get a week but he has a good case to get it down to a fine based on the contact being graded as low. Soligo did not get concussion or go off the ground.

Did you miss the bit where after tucking his elbow in, he then raised it at the opponent's head? You can see it perfectly here: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/pickett-elbow-on-soligo.1379187/post-82980612

Inexcusable behaviour.

 

[Sentinel]

Should be nothing but because the AFL hates Melbourne he'll get a week. Our players always seem to be the ones the tribunal loves to make an example of.

I would love for the club to appeal any suspension and use the human frisbee defense.

1 week suspension


2 week suspension


TBD

Notice how in all of these instances, the ball is nowhere to be seen. He's gotten off lightly, the exact opposite of being 'made an example of'. Obviously watching too many videos of his uncle who was just as bad.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

I am still not sure what players are meant to do in this instance. Pickett jumped pretty much straight up in the air in response to the handball to smother. His action to tuck his elbow in is required to protect his vital bodily organs. Should he leave himself open and cop three broken ribs like Steven May?

You don’t leave the ground and jump towards a player with the ball if elbowing them in the face is a likely outcome.

 

[Maddo11]

View attachment 1950354
1 week suspension

View attachment 1950355
2 week suspension

View attachment 1950357
TBD

Notice how in all of these instances, the ball is nowhere to be seen. He's gotten off lightly, the exact opposite of being 'made an example of'. Obviously watching too many videos of his uncle who was just as bad.

In regards to bolded, that's a pretty disingenuous argument, as they're still images and the last is heavily cropped

 

[Sentinel]

In regards to bolded, that's a pretty disingenuous argument, as they're still images and the last is heavily cropped

All of the above occured after the ball had been disposed of. All late hits to the head of the opponent without ball in hand. That's not disingenuous.

 

[420]

Good guy pickett will drop off some flowers and all will be well, didn't you know he plays golf with Soligo sometimes?

 

[kickazz]

We as a football public have been conditioned by the AFL to look at outcome only because that is what they preached for the last decade or so. Potentially the AFL legal team has had a chat and advised them that intent/action may be more important for future litigation and now we making the change again.

It's got nothing to do with being conditioned by the AFL, it's keeping in line with society's broader legal norms.

Get busted texting whilst driving? That's a ~ $500 fine. Kill someone while doing it? That's time in the big house.

Intent in both cases the same.

 

[kickazz]

Am I right in thinking that the AFL has completely gotten rid of the good/poor record factor when it comes to sentencing?

Because this is one of those cases that needs it. On its own merits, it is not a really bad one - but he keeps doing this without learning the lesson. And if that is allowed, one day the outcome might not be so fortunate for whomever he strikes.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

Should get a week it was silly and he did lean into it. Minor impact should ensure not more than that.

Yeah, I agree and 1-2 would be my expectation, which means he’ll get 0 or 4

 

[Jim Prideaux]

Am I right in thinking that the AFL has completely gotten rid of the good/poor record factor when it comes to sentencing?

Because this is one of those cases that needs it. On its own merits, it is not a really bad one - but he keeps doing this without learning the lesson. And if that is allowed, one day the outcome might not be so fortunate for whomever he strikes.

They may have in the official rules, I’m not sure, but in practice they certainly have a good/bad bloke loading

 

[SplintWhisky]

It's got nothing to do with being conditioned by the AFL, it's keeping in line with society's broader legal norms.

Get busted texting whilst driving? That's a ~ $500 fine. Kill someone while doing it? That's time in the big house.

Intent in both cases the same.

That is not analogous to the AFL as that example has the exact same action that leads to a different outcome. In AFL you can take a swing at someone and get them in the gut and get a 2-3 week suspension or a fine. Post Maynard, if you go up for a spoil and accidentally concuss a bloke then you will get a far larger fine when hurting the bloke was not your intention.

 

[kickazz]

That is not analogous to the AFL as that example has the exact same action that leads to a different outcome. In AFL you can take a swing at someone and get them in the gut and get a 2-3 week suspension or a fine. Post Maynard, if you go up for a spoil and accidentally concuss a bloke then you will get a far larger fine when hurting the bloke was not your intention.

This is a bit reductive - the spoil is 100% legal but if it in any way is considered reckless then you will be made accountable for the outcome. So the Maynard one for example, that was always at the more aggressive end of the spectrum for a smother so could (and would now) be considered quite reckless and as such be subject to punishment. I think if you could show you took all reasonable precautions, but an accident still happened, you would be found not guilty.

My example used the same action - but the point remains. Text and drive and kill someone and you'll get probably a couple of years. Punch someone in the face and just cause some bruising - at most probably only a couple of months.



And I am no lawyer, but I'm guessing there are a few reasons for punishment being proportional to outcome. Part of it probably is a bit of biblical 'eye for an eye'. But there might also be a bit of subtle recognition that a certain risk assessment comes into play when something bad happens. So if I text whilst pulling into my driveway, I know I'm not likely to hurt anyone, yet if I do it at 100 km/h on a dodgy country road ......

 

[ESKIE]

Repeat offenders … kozzie gets a week plus a 1 week or 2 suspended sentence like a loading he does it again he gets what ever is appropriate plus the loading … he‘s a great player but needs to get this out of his game, dumb !

 

[Fitzey]

1 week is about what it deserves.

 

[Taylor]

If the AFL thinks it's an opportunity to be tough they'll push the potential to cause serious harm, there'll be video of Dean Solomon

Dean Solomon

Age

45

Ht

189cm

Wt

102kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.8

4star

K

9.4

4star

HB

5.5

4star

M

3.9

4star

T

3.7

5star

No current season stats available

D

17.6

5star

K

13.4

5star

HB

4.2

4star

M

6.2

5star

T

2.8

5star

flattening Cameron Ling with an elbow that he received eight weeks for and talk that half that time would be adequate.

If they just want it to go away they'll mark it on the table, ignoring the potential, and deliver a week.

 

[Stax on the mill]

1 week is about what it deserves.

In that case Fitzey, 3-4 weeks is about right.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

View attachment 1950354
1 week suspension

View attachment 1950355
2 week suspension

View attachment 1950357
TBD

Notice how in all of these instances, the ball is nowhere to be seen. He's gotten off lightly, the exact opposite of being 'made an example of'. Obviously watching too many videos of his uncle who was just as bad.

The ball is "nowhere to be seen" because of the creative cropping of those pics. In every instance he was attacking the player with the ball.

 

[ferball]

It's got nothing to do with being conditioned by the AFL, it's keeping in line with society's broader legal norms.

Get busted texting whilst driving? That's a ~ $500 fine. Kill someone while doing it? That's time in the big house.

Intent in both cases the same.

Nearly $1200 in Qld.

 

[Sentinel]

The ball is "nowhere to be seen" because of the creative cropping of those pics. In every instance he was attacking the player with the ball.

*attacking the player after they had disposed of the ball.

None of the 3 hits occured when the player had the ball in hand, or else the ball would be shown in their possession at the point of impact as shown in the photos. There seems to be a pattern here. At best it's a technique problem in that he is reaching the opposing player too slow, and that's being incredibly generous to him.

 

[Scythe94]

Probably correct weight. Move on