I agree with Robbo on this one!!
Moderator: bbmods
- magpieazza
- Posts: 2306
- Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:27 am
- Location: Griffith N.S.W
I agree with Robbo on this one!!
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.
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.
- What'sinaname
- Posts: 20118
- Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 10:00 pm
- Location: Living rent free
- Has liked: 5 times
- Been liked: 31 times
-
- Posts: 2262
- Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 8:01 pm
- Has liked: 2 times
- Been liked: 93 times
- magpieazza
- Posts: 2306
- Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:27 am
- Location: Griffith N.S.W
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.
- PyreneesPie
- Posts: 4592
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 1:49 pm
- Has liked: 66 times
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.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.
Perhaps that's a price though that simply has to be paid to stop unprotected players being "ironed out".
- PyreneesPie
- Posts: 4592
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 1:49 pm
- Has liked: 66 times
Re: I agree with Robbo on this one!!
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 !!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.
.
- magpieazza
- Posts: 2306
- Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:27 am
- Location: Griffith N.S.W
Re: I agree with Robbo on this one!!
I wonder if its me but its so obvious that this matrix that Christian is going off is not helping to make justified decisions.PyreneesPie wrote: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 !!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.
.
Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
- magpieazza
- Posts: 2306
- Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:27 am
- Location: Griffith N.S.W
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.PyreneesPie wrote: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.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.
Perhaps that's a price though that simply has to be paid to stop unprotected players being "ironed out".
Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
- Piesnchess
- Posts: 26202
- Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 4:24 pm
- Has liked: 229 times
- Been liked: 94 times
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.
Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb.
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!!
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
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-02/ ... an/5494900
- Jezza
- Posts: 29523
- Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:28 pm
- Location: Ponsford End
- Has liked: 259 times
- Been liked: 338 times
Byron is his uncle.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 ?
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 |
- piedys
- Posts: 13418
- Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:49 pm
- Location: Gold Coast Asylum
- Has liked: 371 times
- Been liked: 100 times
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?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
M I L L A N E 4 2 forever