Pickett bump on Cripps

[eddiesmith]

The Melbourne Player who threw his opponent head first into the fence should be sent straight the tribunal, will Laura make a statement there or does she only refer Collingwood players to the tribunal?

 

[Micksy]

Did Cripps enter the purple lane?

 

[Bald]

The Melbourne Player who threw his opponent head first into the fence should be sent straight the tribunal, will Laura make a statement there or does she only refer Collingwood players to the tribunal?

Thought that was very ordinary initially but I can see on review it was clearly an accident.

 

[TheBoss]

He should have feigned an attempt at smothering.

Melbourne lost so I expect that we won't see Kozzy until round 4 next year.

 

[Barrybran]

Pickett elected to bump, maynard was already in the air.
apples and oranges and tribunal can and would suspend him.
But I expect it not to go to tribunal anyway. AFL won't apply a finals discount now they're out and Pickett won't appeal the 2 weeks he gets.

Yes, Pickett elected to bump but Maynard could have avoided Brayshaw's head.

While the actions are indeed different, they both involve head contact. Pickett will go to the tribunal because the AFL want to be seen to be acting on head contact but he will get off because the tribunal will be tied to precedent with Maynard.

He will likely cop a week for striking McGovern though.

 

[Maddo11]

Insufficient force. Did Cripps even know he got bumped?

On Pixel 4a using BigFooty.com mobile app

Didn't need a HIA so.......

 

[Tony Harrison]

Yes, Pickett elected to bump but Maynard could have avoided Brayshaw's head.

While the actions are indeed different, they both involve head contact. Pickett will go to the tribunal because the AFL want to be seen to be acting on head contact but he will get off because the tribunal will be tied to precedent with Maynard.

He will likely cop a week for striking McGovern though.

He's gone.
You just said the actions are different which means the tribunal has the ability not to call last week a precedent.
Pickett never had eyes for the ball.
You'll see.

 

[Barrybran]

He's gone.
You just said the actions are different which means the tribunal has the ability not to call last week a precedent.
Pickett never had eyes for the ball.
You'll see.

I'm very confident that the AFL will argue that they are different actions but the tribunal will be tied to precedent. Any result that is inconsistent with Maynard's would and should be questioned by 17 clubs. You can't claim to be cracking down on head contact and then apply different outcomes to what is effectively the same issue.

Hands are tied on this one. It's that simple. Rules will change in the offseason as a result.

 

[Tony Harrison]

I'm very confident that the AFL will argue that they are different actions but the tribunal will be tied to precedent. Any result that is inconsistent with Maynard's would and should be questioned by 17 clubs. You can't claim to be cracking down on head contact and then apply different outcomes to what is effectively the same issue.

Hands are tied on this one. It's that simple. Rules will change in the offseason as a result.

ok, we are going over the same ground again and again.
See you next week.

 

[Kappa]

Be interesting to see how Goodwin sees this. If he has even a shred of integrity he'll have a go pretty hard at Pickett like he went at Maynard. Pickett's was a dirty hit though, only difference.

 

[YeoShuey]

 

[Kappa]

Careless high and medium impact.

Is that 1 week?

 

[YeoShuey]

Careless high and medium impact.

Is that 1 week?

1 week.

I would grade it as intentional though so it will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[Bald]

1 week.

I would grade it as intentional though so it will be interesting to see what happens.

They very rarely grade intentional.

They certainly won’t here, I agree with you though.

 

[eddiesmith]

I'm very confident that the AFL will argue that they are different actions but the tribunal will be tied to precedent. Any result that is inconsistent with Maynard's would and should be questioned by 17 clubs. You can't claim to be cracking down on head contact and then apply different outcomes to what is effectively the same issue.

Hands are tied on this one. It's that simple. Rules will change in the offseason as a result.

GET.OVER.IT…

Bumping and getting a player high is illegal and is a reportable offence, the AFL don’t need to change anything.

Trying to compare it to Maynard is just a pathetic troll.

 

[Caligo]

I don't understand how people are calling it careless. Surely this isn't actually debatable. He intended to bump, hence it is intentional. Whether he intended high contact is surely immaterial?

 

[eddiesmith]

I don't understand how people are calling it careless. Surely this isn't actually debatable. He intended to bump, hence it is intentional. Whether he intended high contact is surely immaterial?

Because the AFL rarely grade it intentional, otherwise Van Rooyen and Martin would both have been intentional last week.

 

[Bald]

I don't understand how people are calling it careless. Surely this isn't actually debatable. He intended to bump, hence it is intentional. Whether he intended high contact is surely immaterial?

Most would think it was intentional, but the MRO hardly grades it that way which is probably why people are expecting it to be careless.

 

[Scud2]

1 or 2 weeks.

Comes down to one thing - Intentional (2) or Careless (1).

 

[Xtreme]

3 weeks + an additional 2 for idiocy

An extra 5 weeks to get his mind and body right for the 2024 season.

 

[Caligo]

Because the AFL rarely grade it intentional, otherwise Van Rooyen and Martin would both have been intentional last week.

It is at least debatable what they were both doing. Van Rooyen especially.

That isn't the case with Pickett.

 

[Caligo]

Most would think it was intentional, but the MRO hardly grades it that way which is probably why people are expecting it to be careless.

Thank you. Just so confusing. I can't actually imagine anything more intentional than that.

Maybe a punch to the head or something?

 

[eddiesmith]

It is at least debatable what they were both doing. Van Rooyen especially.

That isn't the case with Pickett.

His bump v Bulldogs was far worse and more deliberate yet only got graded careless.

They really need to bring back the loading fir multiple offences.

 

[Kappa]

Thank you. Just so confusing. I can't actually imagine anything more intentional than that.

Maybe a punch to the head or something?

I think intentional has to be an off the ball hit.

 

[Caligo]

I think intentional has to be an off the ball hit.

They need new words then. Because that is just silly.