Welcome to the Tigers Marlion Pickett! | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • If you are having trouble logging in to the forum please contact [email protected] // When reseting your password or awaiting confirmation please check that your email is correct and also your junk/spam emails.
  • IMPORTANT! Our inbox is full of email errors from members who have not updated their emails, please follow the instructions on how to update here
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Welcome to the Tigers Marlion Pickett!

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
22,504
8,131
Nah, your credibility just sank again. Not saying you are a weasel, but you sure behave like one.

Dude, the reason I don't engage with you is your tendency to jump to aggression and insults in the first post you disagree with someone. If you didn't do that there would be more chance of a meaningful exchange.

You are now the only PREnder I have on ignore - have a nice day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users

leon

Tiger Legend
Apr 6, 2014
6,849
2,175
Dude, the reason I don't engage with you is your tendency to jump to aggression and insults in the first post you disagree with someone. If you didn't do that there would be more chance of a meaningful exchange.

You are now the only PREnder I have on ignore - have a nice day.
I consider it a privilege and honour. You are just so insipid and totally avoided responding to my post. Don't try BS about "aggression"; it's merely exchanging views. When challenged you turn to jelly.
Go and hide under your bed. :rotfl2
 

TT33

GO TIGES!!!
Feb 17, 2004
4,706
1,464
Melbourne
I'm not really sure where to find your logic in this one.

An injury doesn't mean someone did something wrong. And an action can be against the rules.

I.e if you punch someone in the face, you'll get weeks, even if they're not hurt. But if you go up for a mark and concuss someone with your knee, you won't.

Which is how it should be, right?


Not quite. Goldstein punched someone in the face caused him to bleed & forced him to leave the ground, no suspension only a fine.

As has been said many times throughout this discussion, it's the inconsistencies that really rankle.
If Picketts action was worth a week surely Goldsteins was too.
 

Coburgtiger

Tiger Champion
May 7, 2012
3,671
2,387
Not quite. Goldstein punched someone in the face caused him to bleed & forced him to leave the ground, no suspension only a fine.

As has been said many times throughout this discussion, it's the inconsistencies that really rankle.
If Picketts action was worth a week surely Goldsteins was too.

Yeah there are inconsistencies. But I can't see the logic in 'it didn't cause an injury so fair game.'

Lot's of players get rubbed out without causing injury.
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
5,524
6,633
Melbourne
Yeah there are inconsistencies. But I can't see the logic in 'it didn't cause an injury so fair game.'

Lot's of players get rubbed out without causing injury.

Inconsistencies, is that what you call it?

My point was quite simple: 2 players were cited for incidents, both incidents involved head high contact.

One of the incidents involved a small amount of head high contact and the player was rubbed out for a week for potential to cause injury.

The other incident involved head high contact and caused injury - $2,000 fine.

If you wish to argue that potential to cause injury should attract a higher penalty than causing actual injury then fine, go ahead, apply for a job with the AFL while you're at it.

But my position is quite simple: I simply want to know how the AFL can seriously explain how potential to cause injury with an incident which barely got to head contact can possibly lead to a harsher penalty than actual head contact causing actual injury.

I don't think the AFL have a leg to stand on, but I also don't think they care at all because they are totally unaccountable.

You seem to be arguing "it caused an injury so fair game" - nonsensical.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

eZyT

Tiger Legend
Jun 28, 2019
15,867
12,321
I don't think the AFL have a leg to stand on, but I also don't think they care at all because they are totally unaccountable.



DS

yes. they've never needed a leg to stand on.

A bunch of *smile* snakes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

bandoftigers

Tiger Cub
Oct 29, 2007
102
29
I think our mistake was plead guilty to a strike and try and argue the contact down from medium to low.
My thoughts would have been to argue it was not a strike and was a high tackle which was penalised with a free kick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

tommystigers

Don't Boo! It is hurtful to the inept and corrupt.
Oct 6, 2004
3,625
532
I know a lot here claim conspiracy, don't think I ever have (although I reckon we are getting badly treated and this has been going on for a few years).

So, let's ignore the conspiracy talk for a moment.

When you compare what Pickett got rubbed out for to incidents in the same round of football, hell, even in the same game, how is this to be explained?

I'll provide some options just to make it easy for everyone:
  1. Gross incompetence
  2. Massive inconsistency.
  3. A professional game being run by a bunch of amateurs.
  4. Rule interpretations which are just a joke, eg: potential versus actual harm.
1 to 4 for me Dave.
The Match Review process is typical of AFL practice and philosophy. We don't know what we are doing and we don't really care. Ka-Ching.
No conspiracy against Richmond.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

TT33

GO TIGES!!!
Feb 17, 2004
4,706
1,464
Melbourne
Yeah there are inconsistencies. But I can't see the logic in 'it didn't cause an injury so fair game.'

Lot's of players get rubbed out without causing injury.
I've only ever heard the "potential to cause further injury" line rolled out twice, once for Dusty a few years ago & this last time for Marlion.
Every time a player in any game in any league steps onto the ground to play a game of Aussie rules there's a potential for injury to occur,
For the tribunal drongos to trot out that particular line in this incidence is as idiotic as the lack of a suspension for Goldstien for his actions.

No where in my posts have I said "it didn't cause any injuries so fair game".

My beef is with the inconsistencies of the MRO & the tribunal. In the same game that Pickett got cited, there were quite a few other incidents which were of equal or greater intensity but none of them were cited or deemed "to have the potential to cause injury" which imho they should have been.

This among quite a few other issues are quite rapidly causing me to lose my fervour for the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users

leon

Tiger Legend
Apr 6, 2014
6,849
2,175
I've only ever heard the "potential to cause further injury" line rolled out twice, once for Dusty a few years ago & this last time for Marlion.
Every time a player in any game in any league steps onto the ground to play a game of Aussie rules there's a potential for injury to occur,
For the tribunal drongos to trot out that particular line in this incidence is as idiotic as the lack of a suspension for Goldstien for his actions.

No where in my posts have I said "it didn't cause any injuries so fair game".

My beef is with the inconsistencies of the MRO & the tribunal. In the same game that Pickett got cited, there were quite a few other incidents which were of equal or greater intensity but none of them were cited or deemed "to have the potential to cause injury" which imho they should have been.

This among quite a few other issues are quite rapidly causing me to lose my fervour for the game.
Blind Freddie could spot what the AFL do and how they manipulate the rules, their power and control over the clubs and all personnel that work in the AFL to obtain or engineer the desirable outcomes that are expedient for their interests - mostly commercial or other, vested, hidden ones.

As I have already posted; same round, Tex slams C. Oliver into turf with a very late sling tackle. Very high "potential to cause further injury" but nothing but a fine becuase luckily he landed mostly on his shoulder without apparent injury although I bet CO would be very sore post-match with a chance of delayed concussion or physical damage.
Now compare it with the Holman legitimate tackle on Duncan where he lays a really fast and ferocious tackle that was given a two-week suspension. Any possible chance that severe outcome was due to the Geelong player copping an injury? An actual injury. [See sentence 1.]

Of course, later thrown out as nonsense by the MRP. Pickett's blow was with an open hand, mostly catching Starcevich with his upper arm (soft compared to a fist or elbow). Was worthy of a fine only - like non-RFC players Goldstein and Walker got.

Farcical, fraudulent injustice. [See sentence 1.] And cost us $10k into the bargain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

TigerMasochist

Walks softly carries a big stick.
Jul 13, 2003
20,563
3,777
I'm not really sure where to find your logic in this one.

An injury doesn't mean someone did something wrong. And an action can be against the rules.

I.e if you punch someone in the face, you'll get weeks, even if they're not hurt. But if you go up for a mark and concuss someone with your knee, you won't.

Which is how it should be, right?
Ummmm.

If you're Goldstein n punch someone in the head and split them open, it's a fine.
If you're Fish n you roughly tackle someone over the shoulder yet don't cause any injury at all, it's a week because you potentially might have hurt someone
If you're some Brisvegas player and you hook Fish around the neck n almost decrapitate him it's play on, nothing to see here.


You need to open your eyes n turn the cogitating matter on first if you wish to find some logic.
 

The Big Richo

Moderator
Aug 19, 2010
5,297
7,180
The home of Dusty
I wonder if Pickett has ambitions to get back to WA at some point.

We are going to have to make some really hard decisions to create space at the end of the season, he might be a good one to move on as part of a deal for Cerra.

Give him a chance to make better money than he ever will at Richmond.
 

TigerMasochist

Walks softly carries a big stick.
Jul 13, 2003
20,563
3,777
I wonder if Pickett has ambitions to get back to WA at some point.

We are going to have to make some really hard decisions to create space at the end of the season, he might be a good one to move on as part of a deal for Cerra.

Give him a chance to make better money than he ever will at Richmond.
Interesting question TBR. Would certainly hate for the Pickett at Tigerland fairy tale to end, but it could certainly be a win win win option for all concerned.
 

Dont Argue

Tiger Superstar
Jun 26, 2018
2,127
2,839
I wonder if Pickett has ambitions to get back to WA at some point.

We are going to have to make some really hard decisions to create space at the end of the season, he might be a good one to move on as part of a deal for Cerra.

Give him a chance to make better money than he ever will at Richmond.
I like it.
Fish with minimum chips.
He’s got possible 2 more years.
Goes home and gets payed appropriately.
We give his games to RCD, HRS and the relatively forgotten Dow.
Marlion and our 1st pick for Fremantle’s 1st pick or Cerra ( although I don’t believe we really need him)
Win/Win
 

Coburgtiger

Tiger Champion
May 7, 2012
3,671
2,387
Ummmm.

If you're Goldstein n punch someone in the head and split them open, it's a fine.
If you're Fish n you roughly tackle someone over the shoulder yet don't cause any injury at all, it's a week because you potentially might have hurt someone
If you're some Brisvegas player and you hook Fish around the neck n almost decrapitate him it's play on, nothing to see here.


You need to open your eyes n turn the cogitating matter on first if you wish to find some logic.
Or if you're Hawkins and jumper punch someone in the chin, you get weeks.

It's easy to be pissed off about inconsistencies when they don't go our way.

The MRO is a joke but it's one of the few areas where I haven't seen us too hard done by. I'm as one eyed as anyone, and pissed off about the fact they've changed all the rules to knock us off the perch, while refusing to pay us free kicks on game day. But the MRO won't ever be 'was there an injury or not'. It'll be some system of arbitrary points garbage that spits out entirely random outcomes.
 

LeeToRainesToRoach

Tiger Legend
Jun 4, 2006
31,478
9,431
Melbourne
Or if you're Hawkins and jumper punch someone in the chin, you get weeks.

It's easy to be pissed off about inconsistencies when they don't go our way.

The MRO is a joke but it's one of the few areas where I haven't seen us too hard done by. I'm as one eyed as anyone, and pissed off about the fact they've changed all the rules to knock us off the perch, while refusing to pay us free kicks on game day. But the MRO won't ever be 'was there an injury or not'. It'll be some system of arbitrary points garbage that spits out entirely random outcomes.
They decide the outcome first, taking into account whatever external factors, then work back and retrofit the criteria to the penalty. It's the only explanation that makes sense.

e.g. "North fans will lose hope if Goldstein is suspended and the crowd figures will take a hit, so we need to come up with a fine for Goldy. Let's see... Low impact will do it."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

Mr Brightside

Tiger Legend
Jul 1, 2005
21,903
5,953
Wang
Best tackler we’ve had since D Kellaway , I’m resting my case on MP , hes a lock in the best 22 and it’s not that hard to see why, however imvho I just don’t think he’s all that great, good not great, Love a lot of what he does and it’s easy to see why he has some very astute fans , however for me he’s not that special a all round footballer, definitely a Richmond man
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user