View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
magpieazza
magpieazza
Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Location: Griffith N.S.W
|
Post subject: 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. _________________ Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero. |
|
|
|
|
What'sinaname
Joined: 29 May 2010 Location: Living rent free
|
Post subject: | |
|
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
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
|
Post subject: | |
|
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 🙄 it is the worst position in the AFL because he is caught between a rock (proper punishment as a deterrent) and a hard place (do the AFL’s bidding) _________________ I term the current Collingwood attack based strategy “Unceasing Waves” like on a stormy and windy day with rough seas. A Perfect Storm ☔️ |
|
|
|
|
magpieazza
magpieazza
Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Location: Griffith N.S.W
|
Post subject: | |
|
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
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
|
Post subject: | |
|
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
PyreneesPie
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
|
Post subject: | |
|
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". |
|
|
|
|
PyreneesPie
PyreneesPie
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
|
Post subject: Re: I agree with Robbo on this one!! | |
|
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 !! |
|
|
|
|
magpieazza
magpieazza
Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Location: Griffith N.S.W
|
Post subject: Re: I agree with Robbo on this one!! | |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
magpieazza
magpieazza
Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Location: Griffith N.S.W
|
Post subject: | |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Piesnchess
piesnchess
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
|
Post subject: | |
|
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
Joined: 14 Sep 2018
|
Post subject: | |
|
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
Joined: 14 Sep 2018
|
|
|
|
|
Jezza
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 05 Sep 2010 Location: Ponsford End
|
Post subject: | |
|
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 | |
|
|
|
|
Big T
Joined: 18 Oct 2003 Location: Torino, Italy
|
Post subject: | |
|
Buddy should have got 6 weeks. _________________ Buon Giorno |
|
|
|
|
piedys
Heeeeeeere's Dyso!!!
Joined: 04 Sep 2003 Location: Resident Forum Psychopath since 2003
|
Post subject: | |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|