I agree with Robbo on this one!!

Use this forum for non-Collingwood related footy topics that don't relate specifically to any of the other forums. For non-footy sporting topics please use Nick's Sports Bar and for non-sporting topics please use the Victoria Park Tavern.

Moderator: bbmods

Post Reply
User avatar
magpieazza
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:27 am
Location: Griffith N.S.W

I agree with Robbo on this one!!

Post by magpieazza »

If there is a topic already started and Ive missed it please move this topic.

Im quite shocked dumb founded and frustrated by the non action by the AFL on the 3 separate bumping incidents over the weekend.

The Buddy bump.
The Pickett bump.
The McAdam bump.

Robbo made a small stance against the Pickett bump and said that it wasnt a football act. The normally considerate Gerard actually said it WAS a football act.
I couldnt beleive my ears!!! Robbo was 100% right that McAdams was not a football act BUT even if it was how on earth does Pickett get 2 games!!
SO WHAT if the player on the receiving end gets up straight away..... Pickett was in orbit and half an hour after the player disposed of the ball....
Doesnt that come into consideration!!
Pickett should have got at least 3 and probably 4 maybe even 6 weeks...it was in my eyes a throw back to the 70s and it was pure dumb luck the Bulldogs player got up.

Buddy ran past the ball and smashed him and he gets 1 week!! What the actual F....

McAdams bump probably got its just whack of 3 weeks and if he got a couple more I probably wouldnt have minded however in light of recent head trauma
class actions against the AFL I would be erring on the side of giving suspensions with a bit of weight behind them.

Also in consideration is that Goodwin came out and said that the bump is not a neccesary part of the game and they should focus on tackling instead.

Now Im old school and gave and took my share of bumps and I was afraid of sanitising our game too much however I agree with Goodwin on this.
Focus on the tackle!!.
The only exception would be if a player is shepparding and thats where it would be allowable.
All three of Pickett McAdam and Buddy were not shepparding and I would say the book should have been thrown alot harder at all three bumps.....
and I wish Robbo had made a bigger stance against Gerard on 360.
In fact I wish Robbo showed a bit more passion and had a right royal stoush with him live on TV.

Its a real head scratcher for me.
Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
User avatar
What'sinaname
Posts: 20118
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 10:00 pm
Location: Living rent free
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 31 times

Post by What'sinaname »

Michael Christian is a useless POS as the MRO. There has been nothing but inconsistency and drama from the MRO over the last few years.

FFS, when your boss has to appeal your decisions, you know you're a disgrace.
lazzadesilva
Posts: 2262
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 8:01 pm
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 93 times

Post by lazzadesilva »

Yes very good point.

I have long wondered as to why they are keeping him in this position until I realised that they don’t have anyone better to replace him with
I term the current Collingwood attack based strategy “Unceasing Waves” like on a stormy and windy day with rough seas. A Perfect Storm ☔️
User avatar
magpieazza
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:27 am
Location: Griffith N.S.W

Post by magpieazza »

Hard position indeed and lots of inconsistency. They should have 2 former players sitting with Christian. Lachie Neale and Toby Greene could see Picketts bump was not a good look
Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
Pies2016
Posts: 6867
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 11:03 am
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 174 times

Post by Pies2016 »

I find myself agreeing with Pendlebury on the send off rule ( and then a secondary later penalty if warranted ) I’ve never quite understood how a player can take out an opposition player but the offender is still allowed to continue on Scot - Free. Add to that, should that player go on to be suspended after the game, the only clubs who benefit are whoever is next fixtured after the suspension is handed down. No club should be disadvantaged from an illegal hit that leaves them short a player and coaches would soon discourage “ firing the team up “ if it meant the offender was sin binned for a decent period.
User avatar
PyreneesPie
Posts: 4592
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 1:49 pm
Has liked: 66 times

Post by PyreneesPie »

Pies2016 wrote:I find myself agreeing with Pendlebury on the send off rule ( and then a secondary later penalty if warranted ) I’ve never quite understood how a player can take out an opposition player but the offender is still allowed to continue on Scot - Free. Add to that, should that player go on to be suspended after the game, the only clubs who benefit are whoever is next fixtured after the suspension is handed down. No club should be disadvantaged from an illegal hit that leaves them short a player and coaches would soon discourage “ firing the team up “ if it meant the offender was sin binned for a decent period.
True... I agree with all of this. The only trouble is if there is an umpire/offscreen panel adjudicating on whether a bump was illegal or not, on the spot and in the moment, sure as anything there will be some controversial decisions made.
Perhaps that's a price though that simply has to be paid to stop unprotected players being "ironed out".
User avatar
PyreneesPie
Posts: 4592
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 1:49 pm
Has liked: 66 times

Re: I agree with Robbo on this one!!

Post by PyreneesPie »

magpieazza wrote: I couldnt beleive my ears!!! Robbo was 100% right that McAdams was not a football act BUT even if it was how on earth does Pickett get 2 games!!
SO WHAT if the player on the receiving end gets up straight away..... Pickett was in orbit and half an hour after the player disposed of the ball....
Doesnt that come into consideration!!
Pickett should have got at least 3 and probably 4 maybe even 6 weeks...it was in my eyes a throw back to the 70s and it was pure dumb luck the Bulldogs player got up.
.
Yep, absolutely. Pickett can thank Bailey Smith for being made of steel. How he bounced straight back up after that hit was just unbelievable. In my eyes, it was pretty obvious who was the more heroic, stronger player (physically and mentally) in that encounter and it sure wasn't Pickett !!
User avatar
magpieazza
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:27 am
Location: Griffith N.S.W

Re: I agree with Robbo on this one!!

Post by magpieazza »

PyreneesPie wrote:
magpieazza wrote: I couldnt beleive my ears!!! Robbo was 100% right that McAdams was not a football act BUT even if it was how on earth does Pickett get 2 games!!
SO WHAT if the player on the receiving end gets up straight away..... Pickett was in orbit and half an hour after the player disposed of the ball....
Doesnt that come into consideration!!
Pickett should have got at least 3 and probably 4 maybe even 6 weeks...it was in my eyes a throw back to the 70s and it was pure dumb luck the Bulldogs player got up.
.
Yep, absolutely. Pickett can thank Bailey Smith for being made of steel. How he bounced straight back up after that hit was just unbelievable. In my eyes, it was pretty obvious who was the more heroic, stronger player (physically and mentally) in that encounter and it sure wasn't Pickett !!
I wonder if its me but its so obvious that this matrix that Christian is going off is not helping to make justified decisions.
Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
User avatar
magpieazza
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:27 am
Location: Griffith N.S.W

Post by magpieazza »

PyreneesPie wrote:
Pies2016 wrote:I find myself agreeing with Pendlebury on the send off rule ( and then a secondary later penalty if warranted ) I’ve never quite understood how a player can take out an opposition player but the offender is still allowed to continue on Scot - Free. Add to that, should that player go on to be suspended after the game, the only clubs who benefit are whoever is next fixtured after the suspension is handed down. No club should be disadvantaged from an illegal hit that leaves them short a player and coaches would soon discourage “ firing the team up “ if it meant the offender was sin binned for a decent period.
True... I agree with all of this. The only trouble is if there is an umpire/offscreen panel adjudicating on whether a bump was illegal or not, on the spot and in the moment, sure as anything there will be some controversial decisions made.


Perhaps that's a price though that simply has to be paid to stop unprotected players being "ironed out".
Absolutely agreed maybe they can leave the play go on, bench said player and make a considered decision within a 5 or 10 minute time frame.
Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
User avatar
Piesnchess
Posts: 26202
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 4:24 pm
Has liked: 229 times
Been liked: 94 times

Post by Piesnchess »

IS Pickett any relation to that thug Byron Pickett, who played for Nth and Port, I recall ? He was a rough house player, maybe the apple does not fall far from the tree ?
Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.

Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb.
Mr Miyagi
Posts: 7704
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:55 pm
Has liked: 97 times
Been liked: 184 times

Post by Mr Miyagi »

100% agree! I was gobsmacked when I read the headline “Adelaide player hit with monster suspension” … and it was only 3 weeks! The AFL and MRP are hypocrites. How the f*** did Buddy only get 1 week? I recall players getting a month or more “because we have to protect the head.” Imagine if De Goey did what Buddy or Pickett did!!
Mr Miyagi
Posts: 7704
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:55 pm
Has liked: 97 times
Been liked: 184 times

Post by Mr Miyagi »

Sidey got 4 weeks for a covid protocol breach that almost every other player and afl official was committing n 2020. And three weeks for this. It’s all been so inconsistent from season to season.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-02/ ... an/5494900
User avatar
Jezza
Posts: 29523
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:28 pm
Location: Ponsford End
Has liked: 259 times
Been liked: 338 times

Post by Jezza »

Piesnchess wrote:IS Pickett any relation to that thug Byron Pickett, who played for Nth and Port, I recall ? He was a rough house player, maybe the apple does not fall far from the tree ?
Byron is his uncle.
🏆 | 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | 🏆
User avatar
Big T
Posts: 10228
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2003 1:31 am
Location: Torino, Italy
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 82 times

Post by Big T »

Buddy should have got 6 weeks.
Buon Giorno
User avatar
piedys
Posts: 13418
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:49 pm
Location: Gold Coast Asylum
Has liked: 371 times
Been liked: 100 times

Post by piedys »

Mr Miyagi wrote:Sidey got 4 weeks for a covid protocol breach that almost every other player and afl official was committing n 2020. And three weeks for this. It’s all been so inconsistent from season to season.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-02/ ... an/5494900
And... a 3 week suspension for an innocuous bump on a St.kilda player, [who was concussed for the entire game] virtually after the opening bounce, some years back?
M I L L A N E 4 2 forever
Post Reply