A relatively minor but nevertheless disturbing trend seems to be developing regarding the way Marlion Pickett is being officiated by umpires, but moreso by the MRO.
Marlion Pickett is an indigenous man, and as we know has spent time at Her Majesty’s pleasure, for breaking the law when he was a young man. I have watched every AFL game he has played on TV. He is a vigorous, no nonsense, but law abiding footballer. He doesn’t argue with umpires, stage, whinge, or in any way try to seek attention. He just gets on with it. If he needs to play at VFL level, he just applies himself and plays the same as if he was playing in the AFL. I enjoy watching him play, and just as much as that if not more, I admire the way he conducts himself. He is not the best player in the AFL, he is not the worst. He is a good AFL footballer. At his best, a very good AFL footballer. He seems to have won the respect of everyone at Richmond. He will have had to adjust his instinctive style of football fairly radically to be getting a game at Richmond, that cannot be easy, so he is very committed. This year he seems to be in great form, and this is good to see.
But what is going on with the umpires and MRO in relation to Marlion? Umpires we know get one look at things and are prone to errors as a result. They can miss seeing crucial bits of play and can also be fooled by players' cynical actions. We have all become accustomed to the frustrating reality that it is often the retaliator who gets caught by the umpire. So we mostly accept it and complain when it goes against our team, and chuckle when it falls our team's way.
But the MRO, that is entirely different. He gets to consider an incident after viewing it as many times as he needs to. He does not have to make a snap decision under pressure. And he can choose to watch every element of an incident, every player's movements and behaviours and he should be able to get a good understanding of every incident from doing this.
As of last week’s round of matches there are now two MRO decisions in relation to Pickett that trouble me. They trouble me to a small extent because I disagree with the MRO’s decision in relation to what Marlion Pickett did. I thought the first one warranted a free kick and no more, and the second one not even that. But I can see how others may see those differently. So I don’t agree with these decisions, but I can just about understand how someone may think Marlion’s penalties were fair, though much less so in the second case below.
What really troubles me is that Marlion Pickett copped treatment from an opponent at least as bad as what he was penalised for in both cases, and presumably because he did not draw attention to the contact he suffered, the umpires and particularly MRO chose to ignore it completely.
Richmond appealed the first case to the Tribunal and the decision to suspend Pickett for a week was upheld. The tribunal of course had no jurisdiction to consider what led up to this incident like the umpires and MRO have, so their hands were tied regarding that.
Let’s have a look at the two incidents, hopefully the footage links work here:
Case 1
Rd 10, 2021, Brisbane v Richmond. Bailey on Pickett, Pickett on Starcevich.
Pay particular attention to the swinging arm tackle applied by Zac Bailey that hits Pickett with sufficient force around the neck and head region to rock Pickett’s head back. It should have been a free kick for a high tackle, but we assume the umpire missed it, somehow. Pickett does not go to ground. But the footage from the 11 second mark clearly shows his head being contacted and rocked back. What follows of course is Pickett, adrenalin flowing, and no doubt angry at being hit in the head, and likely angry he hasn’t been awarded a free kick, applies a very vigorous high tackle around the shoulder, upper chest and neck area of Starcevich. There did not appear to be any significant contact to the head. The umpires could not miss this one and the MRO and Tribunal certainly didn’t. Free kick = correct. 1 match suspension = very debatable, and it was debated at the time. Umpire missing the vigorous swinging arm head high tackle on Pickett that proceeded it = wrong. MRO missing the same act by Bailey = mystifying. Not mentioned, not assessed even, as far as we were ever told. If Pickett had voluntarily or involuntarily gone to ground, from the exact same hit, would this have been assessed differently? Well, you would hope the sole determinant is not the player being strong or honest enough to keep his feet, but let’s have a look at case 2….
Case 1 Commentators: “strike, waddaya think?” "Err not sure, it was high"
www.afl.com.au
Case 2
Rd 3, 2022, St Kilda v Richmond Butler on Pickett, Pickett on Butler
Have a look at the footage here:
Both players ahead of the ball waiting for a long set shot at goal, or ball set up to the top of the square, or a lead and pass. Pickett defending, Butler attacking.
The footage commences with Butler and Pickett at first quite fairly jostling for position, with the potential of a Butler lead. They make some light but reasonable contact. At around the 5 second mark Butler unprovoked pushes Pickett in the back without too much force, but illegally. At the 6 second mark Pickett turns around and pushes Butler in the front of his shoulder, with similarly light force. Butler pleads to the umpire who presumably he notices is not watching because he then decides to push Pickett with a little more force, around the 8 second mark. The force is enough to knock Pickett slightly off balance, but he keeps his feet. Pickett again turns around and this time pushes Butler to the solar plexus region, again with similar force to what Butler had just applied to him. Butler goes down as if shot and gets up immediately to celebrate a 50m penalty being paid to his team, so clearly was not hurt.
So in this case both players have pushed each other with roughly equal force, on each occasion Butler acting first. Pickett chooses to keep his feet, Butler chooses to go to the ground. It is clear to all that Butler dived, to try to win a free kick or 50m penalty. The umpire fell for it, wrong, but we accept this happens, regrettably. But the MRO? He seems to have punished Pickett further for Butler’s dive. He found Pickett guilty of striking and issued a $3k fine, down to $2k with an early guilty plea.
Case 2 Commentators: “staging"
Now go back and look at the Bailey nothing to see here hit on Pickett and compare it with the Pickett “strike” on Butler….the Bailey swinging arm hit rocks Pickett’s head back, but he stands up. The Pickett push caused Butler to dive like Greg Louganis and hit the deck like a ton of bricks, but had no significant force whatsoever.
What is going on here?
EDIT: Case 3
Almost unbelievably, we now have a case 3. This time the two conflicting MRO decisions involving Marlion emanating from different matches…
The first, Marlion gets one week for a bump graded careless conduct, high contact, medium impact.
The second, with Marlion being bumped to the head, no penalty, no grading, not even mentioned by the MRO…
Marlion Pickett is an indigenous man, and as we know has spent time at Her Majesty’s pleasure, for breaking the law when he was a young man. I have watched every AFL game he has played on TV. He is a vigorous, no nonsense, but law abiding footballer. He doesn’t argue with umpires, stage, whinge, or in any way try to seek attention. He just gets on with it. If he needs to play at VFL level, he just applies himself and plays the same as if he was playing in the AFL. I enjoy watching him play, and just as much as that if not more, I admire the way he conducts himself. He is not the best player in the AFL, he is not the worst. He is a good AFL footballer. At his best, a very good AFL footballer. He seems to have won the respect of everyone at Richmond. He will have had to adjust his instinctive style of football fairly radically to be getting a game at Richmond, that cannot be easy, so he is very committed. This year he seems to be in great form, and this is good to see.
But what is going on with the umpires and MRO in relation to Marlion? Umpires we know get one look at things and are prone to errors as a result. They can miss seeing crucial bits of play and can also be fooled by players' cynical actions. We have all become accustomed to the frustrating reality that it is often the retaliator who gets caught by the umpire. So we mostly accept it and complain when it goes against our team, and chuckle when it falls our team's way.
But the MRO, that is entirely different. He gets to consider an incident after viewing it as many times as he needs to. He does not have to make a snap decision under pressure. And he can choose to watch every element of an incident, every player's movements and behaviours and he should be able to get a good understanding of every incident from doing this.
As of last week’s round of matches there are now two MRO decisions in relation to Pickett that trouble me. They trouble me to a small extent because I disagree with the MRO’s decision in relation to what Marlion Pickett did. I thought the first one warranted a free kick and no more, and the second one not even that. But I can see how others may see those differently. So I don’t agree with these decisions, but I can just about understand how someone may think Marlion’s penalties were fair, though much less so in the second case below.
What really troubles me is that Marlion Pickett copped treatment from an opponent at least as bad as what he was penalised for in both cases, and presumably because he did not draw attention to the contact he suffered, the umpires and particularly MRO chose to ignore it completely.
Richmond appealed the first case to the Tribunal and the decision to suspend Pickett for a week was upheld. The tribunal of course had no jurisdiction to consider what led up to this incident like the umpires and MRO have, so their hands were tied regarding that.
Let’s have a look at the two incidents, hopefully the footage links work here:
Case 1
Rd 10, 2021, Brisbane v Richmond. Bailey on Pickett, Pickett on Starcevich.
Pay particular attention to the swinging arm tackle applied by Zac Bailey that hits Pickett with sufficient force around the neck and head region to rock Pickett’s head back. It should have been a free kick for a high tackle, but we assume the umpire missed it, somehow. Pickett does not go to ground. But the footage from the 11 second mark clearly shows his head being contacted and rocked back. What follows of course is Pickett, adrenalin flowing, and no doubt angry at being hit in the head, and likely angry he hasn’t been awarded a free kick, applies a very vigorous high tackle around the shoulder, upper chest and neck area of Starcevich. There did not appear to be any significant contact to the head. The umpires could not miss this one and the MRO and Tribunal certainly didn’t. Free kick = correct. 1 match suspension = very debatable, and it was debated at the time. Umpire missing the vigorous swinging arm head high tackle on Pickett that proceeded it = wrong. MRO missing the same act by Bailey = mystifying. Not mentioned, not assessed even, as far as we were ever told. If Pickett had voluntarily or involuntarily gone to ground, from the exact same hit, would this have been assessed differently? Well, you would hope the sole determinant is not the player being strong or honest enough to keep his feet, but let’s have a look at case 2….
Case 1 Commentators: “strike, waddaya think?” "Err not sure, it was high"
Match Review: One-game ban for Tiger's high hit on Lion
Richmond's Marlion Pickett has been charged for his high hit on Brisbane's Brandon Starcevich
www.afl.com.au
Case 2
Rd 3, 2022, St Kilda v Richmond Butler on Pickett, Pickett on Butler
Have a look at the footage here:
Both players ahead of the ball waiting for a long set shot at goal, or ball set up to the top of the square, or a lead and pass. Pickett defending, Butler attacking.
The footage commences with Butler and Pickett at first quite fairly jostling for position, with the potential of a Butler lead. They make some light but reasonable contact. At around the 5 second mark Butler unprovoked pushes Pickett in the back without too much force, but illegally. At the 6 second mark Pickett turns around and pushes Butler in the front of his shoulder, with similarly light force. Butler pleads to the umpire who presumably he notices is not watching because he then decides to push Pickett with a little more force, around the 8 second mark. The force is enough to knock Pickett slightly off balance, but he keeps his feet. Pickett again turns around and this time pushes Butler to the solar plexus region, again with similar force to what Butler had just applied to him. Butler goes down as if shot and gets up immediately to celebrate a 50m penalty being paid to his team, so clearly was not hurt.
So in this case both players have pushed each other with roughly equal force, on each occasion Butler acting first. Pickett chooses to keep his feet, Butler chooses to go to the ground. It is clear to all that Butler dived, to try to win a free kick or 50m penalty. The umpire fell for it, wrong, but we accept this happens, regrettably. But the MRO? He seems to have punished Pickett further for Butler’s dive. He found Pickett guilty of striking and issued a $3k fine, down to $2k with an early guilty plea.
Case 2 Commentators: “staging"
Now go back and look at the Bailey nothing to see here hit on Pickett and compare it with the Pickett “strike” on Butler….the Bailey swinging arm hit rocks Pickett’s head back, but he stands up. The Pickett push caused Butler to dive like Greg Louganis and hit the deck like a ton of bricks, but had no significant force whatsoever.
What is going on here?
EDIT: Case 3
Almost unbelievably, we now have a case 3. This time the two conflicting MRO decisions involving Marlion emanating from different matches…
The first, Marlion gets one week for a bump graded careless conduct, high contact, medium impact.
The second, with Marlion being bumped to the head, no penalty, no grading, not even mentioned by the MRO…
Last edited:
