Pickett = Cheat

[Macca19]

Can someone tell me how do they get the level of offence from activation points?????

If you bought a Budget on the weekend it explains it on page 43.

But a quick rundown:

Each report takes into account four factors
Conduct: Intentional (3 points), reckless (2), negligent (1)
Impact: Severe (4), High (3), medium (2), low (1)
Location: behind play (2), in play (1)
Contact: high (2), to the body (1)

If you get 5 or more points from that lot then you get the leve of offence. So i figure its:
4 points - you get off
5 points - level 1
6 points - level 2
7 points - level 3
8 points - level 4
9 points - level 5
10 points - tribunal

They have a table which lays out how many demerit points you get for each level offence and each seperate offence.

The different offences are:
striking, kicking, charging, contact with umpire, striking/attempting to strike/threatening/obscene language to an umpire, rough conduct (picketts charge), tripping, attempt to strike/kick/trip, pushing or throwing a player over, misconduct (kneeing), misconduct (headbutt), misconduct, spitting at or on an opponent.

Striking/threatening an umpire, misconduct (general) and spitting sends you straight to the tribunal no matter what.

The highest level 5 offence is contact with umpire which gives you 700 demerit points (7 match ban).

So thats a quick rundown

 

[*PAF]

...
What do people think of this new approach now that we have seen it at work?

This has been just about the only focus of my replies so far, and one worth discussing IMO.

Okay, now that we've discounted that crap that I got from the main board - wise words noddy - what does everyone think of Pickett's suspension?

I would have thought that last year 4 would have been the maximum he would have got and we all would have accepted that - last year.

Seems to me that they have not only tried to get consistency in sentencing, but they have increased the penalties, particularly for those that are repeat offenders.

Take Jonathon Brown - next time he gets reported he gets 110% of the points added on to his offence. so if it was worth 4 weeks he will get 8.4 weeks - rounded down to 8.

Biglands is the worst Crow on 50%.
...

If it becomes consistent, then so be it however 6 seems too harsh.
The worry is that incidents like McLeods (Wanganeen's and Shaun Burgoyne's as well amongst many others) will now end up with similar mathematical conclusions to Lynch's type.
That is seriously scary, and one would think not the intent.
We will just have to wait and see.

Just for the record, here goes again.
Lynch

■ CONDUCT: was it intentional, reckless or negligent?
COMMENT Intentional
■ IMPACT: was it severe, high, medium or low?
COMMENT in the end there was next to no impact. Low
■ LOCATION: was contact made in play or behind play?
COMMENTBehind play
■ CONTACT: was it high contact (above the shoulders) or body contact?
COMMENT High
POTENTIAL OUTCOME
In this particular scenario, the charge would be graded as intentional, low, behind play, and high, resulting in?


For Pickett
■ CONDUCT: was it intentional, reckless or negligent?
COMMENT Intentional
■ IMPACT: was it severe, high, medium or low?
COMMENT High (Got adjudicated high by the sounds of it)
■ LOCATION: was contact made in play or behind play?
COMMENT in play
■ CONTACT: was it high contact (above the shoulders) or body contact?
COMMENT High (Actually once I thought it was high, the second time it looked on the shoulder/ back of shoulder, so really need to have a good look before I can decide this again, but for the purpose of the exercise I'll settle for high)
POTENTIAL OUTCOME
In this particular scenario, the charge would be graded as intentional, high, in play, and high, resulting in?

For McLeod
■ CONDUCT: was it intentional, reckless or negligent?
COMMENT Intentional (reckless at best)
■ IMPACT: was it severe, high, medium or low?
COMMENT High (Could probably be deemed medium)
■ LOCATION: was contact made in play or behind play?
COMMENT in play
■ CONTACT: was it high contact (above the shoulders) or body contact?
COMMENT High (Actually once I thought it was high, the second time it looked on the shoulder/ back of shoulder, so really need to have a good look before I can decide this again, but for the purpose of the exercise I'll settle for high)
POTENTIAL OUTCOME
In this particular scenario, the charge would be graded as intentional, high, in play, and high, resulting in?

McLeod and Pickett on paper could end up being the same and less than Lynch.

 

[macca23]

Fact is if you ended up in a wheelchair you wouldn't be saying that!

I'd be calling for Pickett's balls if that happened.

Comes back to that debate we had previously - should the damage done to the innocent party come into teh severity or otherwise of the sentence? I think it should, and you think that it's irrelevant. That's why we'll never agree on this one.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I'd be calling for Pickett's balls if that happened.

Comes back to that debate we had previously - should the damage done to the innocent party come into teh severity or otherwise of the sentence? I think it should, and you think that it's irrelevant. That's why we'll never agree on this one.

No you have me out of context.

What I said was severity shouldn't affect the sentence because the panel would have already taken into account the potential outcome - net same result irrespective of the injury sustained.

An analogy - penalty for striking and attempted striking should be the same - potential injury outcome is the same - should the player who missed get off scott free when the same intent was there as the one who connected?

 

[Stiffy_18]

If you bought a Budget on the weekend it explains it on page 43.

But a quick rundown:

Each report takes into account four factors
Conduct: Intentional (3 points), reckless (2), negligent (1)
Impact: Severe (4), High (3), medium (2), low (1)
Location: behind play (2), in play (1)
Contact: high (2), to the body (1)

If you get 5 or more points from that lot then you get the leve of offence. So i figure its:
4 points - you get off
5 points - level 1
6 points - level 2
7 points - level 3
8 points - level 4
9 points - level 5
10 points - tribunal

They have a table which lays out how many demerit points you get for each level offence and each seperate offence.

The different offences are:
striking, kicking, charging, contact with umpire, striking/attempting to strike/threatening/obscene language to an umpire, rough conduct (picketts charge), tripping, attempt to strike/kick/trip, pushing or throwing a player over, misconduct (kneeing), misconduct (headbutt), misconduct, spitting at or on an opponent.

Striking/threatening an umpire, misconduct (general) and spitting sends you straight to the tribunal no matter what.

The highest level 5 offence is contact with umpire which gives you 700 demerit points (7 match ban).

So thats a quick rundown

Thanks macca

I bought the budget and looked at it but not in detail. I looked at the example where they had 7 activation points and it was graded as level 3 offence and I just wondered how they got the level out of activation points

Thanks again

 

[portentous]

I thought he'd get 4-6 weeks so it's at the tougher end of the scale,but still fair imo. What annoys me is that regardless of what the previous offence was, it still adds 10% to the next one. It's the size of the second offence that counts, and the first one could have been really minor. That bit seems inconsistent.

Those other 3 cases were so different yet got the same sentence. Go figure. Didn't think there was a lot in Campos' in all fairness but I guess his "history" saw him dealt with pretty heavily.

Oh well, they've set a precedent now. Be VERY interested in future outcomes for head high contact.

 

[*PAF]

Just used Macca19's explanation to come up with some points on the above examples and they are
Lynch 8 points
Pickett 9 points (tribunal adjudicated 10 points)
McLeod 9 points (7 at best)



EDIT: If you like the examples used or not makes no difference. You can bookmark this thread, as IMO there is no doubt this will be the talking point once this system has been used for a while.

 

[macca23]

No you have me out of context.

What I said was severity shouldn't affect the sentence because the panel would have already taken into account the potential outcome - net same result irrespective of the injury sustained.

An analogy - penalty for striking and attempted striking should be the same - potential injury outcome is the same - should the player who missed get off scott free when the same intent was there as the one who connected?

Yeah. I let that one go through to the keeper last time you raised it.

No, a player attempting to strike can be reported, just the same as a player who actually strike does. Unless the ruleshave changed and I missed the change.

An attempted strike caused no damage and would draw a minimal penalty IMO, whereas we know what effect resulted from theh successful strike and it can be punished accordingly.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Just used Macca19's explanation to come up with some points on the above examples and they are
Lynch 8 points
Pickett 9 points (tribunal adjudicated 10 points)
McLeod 9 points (7 at best)

Thats the inconsistency I was trying to get at with Campo/Mitchell/Montgomery incidents at the weekend.

Some uglier incidents will get away with lesser penalty than some others. I assume tribunal can step in and increase the penalty if needed.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Yeah. I let that one go through to the keeper last time you raised it.

No, a player attempting to strike can be reported, just the same as a player who actually strike does. Unless the ruleshave changed and I missed the change.

An attempted strike caused no damage and would draw a minimal penalty IMO, whereas we know what effect resulted from theh successful strike and it can be punished accordingly.

1. Who was the last player reported for attepted striking - I can't remember?

2. Back to the injury factor which I maintain that the guy gets off only because he failed to connect - thats wrong IMO - but we'll continue the discussion during the year I'm sure

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

He looked quite chuffed with himself walking into the tribunal. I wonder how chuffed he was walking out?

 

[Macca19]

1. Who was the last player reported for attepted striking - I can't remember?

Lynch but classed as misconduct or bringing game into disrepute or whatever.

Before that probably Jameson in the first Showdown.

--------------------------------------

Stiffy - I think the past record thing should be there but it could end up a little harsh. Double points for Grand Finals could also get interesting.

Just for examples sake...if this system was in by the Granny last year then Browns small punch on Carr would have gone:

Conduct - intentional (3)
impact - low (1)
location - behind play (2)
contact - high (2)

8 points for a level 4 striking charge. Thats 425 points from the start. Then add on 80% for his past tribunal record (8 games suspension). Thats 765 points. Double for Grand Final - 1530 points. 15 games suspension. Minus 25% for guilty plea and thats 11 games suspension for Browns hit on Carr in the Grand Final.

Bit excessive dont you think?

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Maybe some people should look in their own backyard before calling other people morons and idiots. The way some of you are talking you'd think Pickett does this 5 times a game, sneaks up behind people and kinghits them without them knowing. I mean come on.

The real facts are that this was probably only the second time in his playing career that he has laid a bump that could have done some serious injury to the opponent.

I never saw every single game he played at North but whilst being at Port all the other shirtfronts hes made - about 7-8 all up, have been nowhere near the other players head or neck region. And this leads me to another point. "He only ever hits people from behind" which is total crap as well.

Out of those 7-8 bumps hes done in Power colours all but one would have seen him coming - Nathan Brown. All the others he has connected from either directly front on (for example Kirk in the Sydney Final 2003, Godfrey against Melbourne 2003) or from the side (Brown in 2003 or Sanderson last year). He has not clocked anyone in the head like this incident.

All im trying to get at is, just because he went too far this time and laid a very dangerous bump does not mean that every single bump hes ever made has nearly put someone in a wheelchair nor does it mean he does these bumps 10x times as often as he realistically does.

Wake up maye, 90% of his victims have there eyes on the ball so are unaware of the impending danger.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

But again. 2 bad bumps in 6 1/2 years isnt that bad when you consider Jon Brown has clocked what? 6 different people in the past 12 months despite seemingly countless warnings from the tribunal, warnings from his coach and countless articles thrashing his name in the media.

From Byrons point of view...before this he had only ever injured one person in his AFL career with a shirtfront, which was 6 1/2 years ago and has laid maybe 20 solid fair bumps since then and had never been reported for one of them so why would he stop? If he was in Browns situation where he had been reported and suspended 5 times in a year for these bumps and been told and thrashed numerous times by the tribunal, his coach and the media then I could see your point of "when will he learn" a lot clearer. Realistically, ive seen just as many people injured from Voss shirtfronts than from Picketts. Thinking back to Alan Richardson at the Gabba in about...94ish on the wing where Richardosn was out before he hit the ground and Peverill at Telstra Dome 3 years or so back where Sheedy opened his mouth before the match that he wanted to see the Bombers hurt some bodies.

After finally having a chance to see the replay of it and rewind and watch it about 20 times over, it did look very bad. Trying to think from Byrons point of view, i dont think he intentionally aimed for his head with the idea of trying to take his head off...i think he expected him to move off even at the last second, which is why he went thru with it. Ive thought about it a lot, but if Begley had one grabbed that ball and Pickett went thru and did exactly what he did anyway, he would have collected Begley in the side, which would have knocked the ball free and given Port a shot at sealing the game. I think Byron was expecting Begley to turn his body either because he had the ball or for bracing for the impact but it never happened. Or maybe im just being too leniant on him.

This isnt the first example of a bump like this. There have been quite similar bumps in the past few years. Two that instnatly come to mind is one of the Scott brothers being knocked out from a similar incident i think last year (got bumped from headon with his head down), as well as Roger James being taken out by Mark Bolton in the 2002 Semi Final with an almost carbon copy bump where Bolton lined him up from 10 metres away and thrust his hip directly on top of James head, yet there was hardly any of the hype that there was around this one. Maybe its because it wasnt Byron Pickett doing those bumps.

Poor post, what a load of rubbish. Yeah poor old Byron is being victimised AGAIN. It's enough to drive you to drink........

 

[macca23]

Lynch but classed as misconduct or bringing game into disrepute or whatever.

Before that probably Jameson in the first Showdown.

--------------------------------------

Stiffy - I think the past record thing should be there but it could end up a little harsh. Double points for Grand Finals could also get interesting.

Just for examples sake...if this system was in by the Granny last year then Browns small punch on Carr would have gone:

Conduct - intentional (3)
impact - low (1)
location - behind play (2)
contact - high (2)

8 points for a level 4 striking charge. Thats 425 points from the start. Then add on 80% for his past tribunal record (8 games suspension). Thats 765 points. Double for Grand Final - 1530 points. 15 games suspension. Minus 25% for guilty plea and thats 11 games suspension for Browns hit on Carr in the Grand Final.

Bit excessive dont you think?

That's not excessive - that's ridiculous.

One thing's very clear. A repeat offender will soon disappear off the scene with penalties like that.

What would Fletcher's loading be like??

And thanks for the attempted striking info too. I knew it had happened but couldn't remember who was involved.

 

[portentous]

That's not excessive - that's ridiculous.

One thing's very clear. A repeat offender will soon disappear off the scene with penalties like that.

What would Fletcher's loading be like??

And thanks for the attempted striking info too. I knew it had happened but couldn't remember who was involved.

Is Dustin Fletcher still playing for Essendon? Would bring about an early retirement if he gets reported with his lengthy tribunal record.....as for Jonathon Brown.....

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

You may well be the wise one noddy.

It's starting to look like a p*ss-take after all. Nobody can find this alleged statement on the AFL site.

First time I've been to that main board for ages - last time for me again for a while, if that's the type of crap they post all the time.

As you were every-one.

It's too late my monitors covered in coffee.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Lynch but classed as misconduct or bringing game into disrepute or whatever.

Before that probably Jameson in the first Showdown.

--------------------------------------

Stiffy - I think the past record thing should be there but it could end up a little harsh. Double points for Grand Finals could also get interesting.

Just for examples sake...if this system was in by the Granny last year then Browns small punch on Carr would have gone:

Conduct - intentional (3)
impact - low (1)
location - behind play (2)
contact - high (2)

8 points for a level 4 striking charge. Thats 425 points from the start. Then add on 80% for his past tribunal record (8 games suspension). Thats 765 points. Double for Grand Final - 1530 points. 15 games suspension. Minus 25% for guilty plea and thats 11 games suspension for Browns hit on Carr in the Grand Final.

Bit excessive dont you think?

Thats what I was trying to get at. Of course past record should be taken into account but not to the extent that it has been here. I mean 11 weeks for a puch is deplorable. I mean its half a bloody home and away series.

 

[tinman]

Double points for Grand Finals could also get interesting.

Just for examples sake...if this system was in by the Granny last year then Browns small punch on Carr would have gone:

Conduct - intentional (3)
impact - low (1)
location - behind play (2)
contact - high (2)

8 points for a level 4 striking charge. Thats 425 points from the start. Then add on 80% for his past tribunal record (8 games suspension). Thats 765 points. Double for Grand Final - 1530 points. 15 games suspension. Minus 25% for guilty plea and thats 11 games suspension for Browns hit on Carr in the Grand Final.

Bit excessive dont you think?

But in a short career his record is deplorable. It may deter him from ill disciplined acts - something the previous system obviously didn't do.

My only concern in this, and Brown's record is all his own doing, is that in such a situation he can become a target as the opposition knows full well that he will have the book thrown at him for a minor incident, regardless of provocation.

So the AFL bullies become the bullied!!!

Food for thought.

 

[MrAaron]

this new system will be great because it takes the players record in the last 5 yers of the game from memory. So for our sake I hope Fletcher shapes up and improves his record

But for someone like Johnathon Brown, I hope he gets angry a few times this season

 

[*PAF]

From the very first time somebody mentioned an automatic 5 or 6 weeks, the system looked suss.
The more examples are examined, the more suss it becomes.
Let's hope we are all wrong, but by the looks of it plan B will be required sooner rather than later.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Now that Hardwick has gone and Pickett and Wilson are out for a few games who will act as Choccos snipers??

 

[NikkiNoo]

I can see the positives they are going for here and i actually agree with the system to an extent. 11 games for a punch is escessive yes, but if it also that that particular player has a history of this maybe the wake up call is needed to really make them take a good hard look at themselves.

The problem I see is that the tribunal used to be so inconsistent that some players were reported and suspended and yet others for a very similar incident were not, so in that respect it is unfair. But overall I think it is a better system than we had.

 

[portentous]

Now that Hardwick has gone and Pickett and Wilson are out for a few games who will act as Choccos snipers??

We've still got Shattock and Surjan.....

 

[Macca19]

Wake up maye, 90% of his victims have there eyes on the ball so are unaware of the impending danger.

What a load of crap. If a player has his eyes on the ball but has zero peripheral vision and absolutely zero awareness around him then they should not be playing any sport except for maybe darts. All bar one of his bumps in a Port jumper the "victims" would have seen him coming as he came from either directly in front or diagonally from in front.

----------------

I dont think Fletchers loading will be too bad. He has been reported quite a few times but from memory hes either gotten off or only gotten one week.

Brown on the other hand, at the moment, is looking at 130% added onto whatever sorta charge he gets. So if he loses the plot just once in the next 2 years and hits someone reasonably bad (like what he did to Grant for example) then he could be gone for close to half a season.