Pickett = Cheat

[rooboy]

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.

I love hard tough footy. I like the way Pickett plays, but it was very obvious that Begley had fumbled the ball, and that in fact it was two or three feet away from him when Pickett steamrolled him.He clearly wasn't looking at the ball at all. But let's let the tribunal do what it's paid to do.

 

[Blue Red and Gold]

Get over it people. Byron has done the crime and now he will do the time.

Ruthlessness wins Premierships. Nothing should stand in the way. If there is a head over the ball - knock it clean off. Nobody remembers suspensions - but they sure remember who lifted the cup.

Typical, stupid, uneducated comment.

get ********ed!

 

[campbell]

Typical, stupid, uneducated comment.

get ********ed!

I agree, some of these people from Port seem to not have a clue.

Knock a players head off, oh please. Imagine if someone knocked off Tredreas or Wangas head?????We would never here the end of it.


Pickett is wrong, he chose in that split second to not go for the ball.He choice, he intended to hurt the player.

If i had my way he would get 10 weeks, I can see him and his club showing no remorse.He should plead guilty and plead for the mercy of the tribunal.


What is it going to take beofre things change in there mind.A player to be killed? or paralysed?.

 

[bringbackbucky]

Typical, stupid, uneducated comment.

get ********ed!

Whilst you Crows go about getting the 'process' right, we'll get on with winning football games...

 

[arrowman]

Ruthlessness wins Premierships. Nothing should stand in the way. If there is a head over the ball - knock it clean off. Nobody remembers suspensions - but they sure remember who lifted the cup.

Which is pretty much what Choco would say if Pickett got himself suspended for a Grand Final because he took someone's head off. NOT.

"Nothing should stand in the way of a premiership" when referring to the kind of action that can put a person in a wheelchair, is the attitude of the ignorant.

 

[portentous]

{ deleted - abusive }

There's far worse things being said elsewhere......

I cannot condone the actions of Choppy nor the responses of some of my fellow supporters. You do the crime, you do the time.

Choppy you were wrong!

 

[Silvagnis]

He should get more than 5 as he has a past with these types of offences and the AFL certainly took that line with Jonathan Brown who's act wasn't as dangerous as this one.

 

[*PAF]

95% of the posts against Pickett are not against him at all but are against the rules of the game.
Do you lot hide behind the bushes and beat up the postman everytime he delivers a bill?
FFS, go to the AFL.com.au rules suggestion board and post your crap there.
Same goes for that tool Walls.

 

[dA Crow]

Get over it people. Byron has done the crime and now he will do the time.

Ruthlessness wins Premierships. Nothing should stand in the way. If there is a head over the ball - knock it clean off. Nobody remembers suspensions - but they sure remember who lifted the cup.

Unbelieveably stupid post, not even worth commenting on other than that.

 

[macca23]

Byron hit for 6
7:19:50 PM Tue 22 February, 2005
Paul Gough
Sportal for afl.com.au

Byron Pickett has been slapped with a 6 week suspension for his crude tackle on James Begley last Sunday Night.

The tribunal believed that Pickett had no eyes for the ball and was intent on making contact with Begley

"In handing down this penalty, we've taken into consideration the awkward situation of attacking the ball, but we as the tribunal believe that Byron had nothing other than intent to make contact with James Begley" said the new additon to the Tribunal system Peter Schwab.

"When the ball is in dispute, you must attack the ball, not the man. It's plainly obvious Byron was deliberately making contact intentionly".

In response to his suspension, Pickett said "I'm gutted, totally disappointed. To be suspended for 6 weeks so early is heartbreaking. I really can't believe I've been handed down 6 weeks for attacking the ball. Should I really be punished because I'm a tough footballer?"
Port Adelaide were reluctant to discuss whether they would appeal.

Got this off the main Board. If that is an accurate quote of Pickett's response, then I take back every thing that I have said about this incident so far.

No remorse, no regret. He thinks HE is the victim.

He has lost me forever if this is a genuine quote. He comes across as nothing but a lowdown petty thug.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Byron hit for 6
7:19:50 PM Tue 22 February, 2005
Paul Gough
Sportal for afl.com.au

Byron Pickett has been slapped with a 6 week suspension for his crude tackle on James Begley last Sunday Night.

The tribunal believed that Pickett had no eyes for the ball and was intent on making contact with Begley

"In handing down this penalty, we've taken into consideration the awkward situation of attacking the ball, but we as the tribunal believe that Byron had nothing other than intent to make contact with James Begley" said the new additon to the Tribunal system Peter Schwab.

"When the ball is in dispute, you must attack the ball, not the man. It's plainly obvious Byron was deliberately making contact intentionly".

In response to his suspension, Pickett said "I'm gutted, totally disappointed. To be suspended for 6 weeks so early is heartbreaking. I really can't believe I've been handed down 6 weeks for attacking the ball. Should I really be punished because I'm a tough footballer?"
Port Adelaide were reluctant to discuss whether they would appeal.

Got this off the main Board. If that is an accurate quote of Pickett's response, then I take back every thing that I have said about this incident so far.

No remorse, no regret. He thinks HE is the victim.

He has lost me forever if this is a genuine quote. He comes across as nothing but a lowdown petty thug.

Hear hear.

If thats the exact quote then he deserves every bit of 6 weeks. Absolute tossbag. There was nothing tough about what he did.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Get over it people. Byron has done the crime and now he will do the time.

Ruthlessness wins Premierships. Nothing should stand in the way. If there is a head over the ball - knock it clean off. Nobody remembers suspensions - but they sure remember who lifted the cup.

Not overly intelligent are you??????

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Got this off the main Board. If that is an accurate quote of Pickett's response, then I take back every thing that I have said about this incident so far.

No remorse, no regret. He thinks HE is the victim.

He has lost me forever if this is a genuine quote. He comes across as nothing but a lowdown petty thug.

That's an appropriate sentence as I said last night.

Macca why are you surprised

Love his aggressiveness, but there's a line where serious injury (Neil Sasch) could have occurred and I make no apologies for my views, irrespective of which team is involved, and that includes the Crows!

 

[Stiffy_18]

Whilst you Crows go about getting the 'process' right, we'll get on with winning football games...

What the hell is it about you Port people?????? Is that the best you can do?????? Its the second pathetic attemp at a troll in the last 24 hours. Surely you can come up with something more creative

 

[noddy]

Byron hit for 6
7:19:50 PM Tue 22 February, 2005
Paul Gough
Sportal for afl.com.au

Byron Pickett has been slapped with a 6 week suspension for his crude tackle on James Begley last Sunday Night.

The tribunal believed that Pickett had no eyes for the ball and was intent on making contact with Begley

"In handing down this penalty, we've taken into consideration the awkward situation of attacking the ball, but we as the tribunal believe that Byron had nothing other than intent to make contact with James Begley" said the new additon to the Tribunal system Peter Schwab.

"When the ball is in dispute, you must attack the ball, not the man. It's plainly obvious Byron was deliberately making contact intentionly".

In response to his suspension, Pickett said "I'm gutted, totally disappointed. To be suspended for 6 weeks so early is heartbreaking. I really can't believe I've been handed down 6 weeks for attacking the ball. Should I really be punished because I'm a tough footballer?"
Port Adelaide were reluctant to discuss whether they would appeal.

Got this off the main Board. If that is an accurate quote of Pickett's response, then I take back every thing that I have said about this incident so far.

No remorse, no regret. He thinks HE is the victim.

He has lost me forever if this is a genuine quote. He comes across as nothing but a lowdown petty thug.

I'll wait for confirmation before making comment on that pretty disgusting quote macca especially if it's come from the main board.

 

[*PAF]

Byron hit for 6
7:19:50 PM Tue 22 February, 2005
Paul Gough
Sportal for afl.com.au

Byron Pickett has been slapped with a 6 week suspension for his crude tackle on James Begley last Sunday Night.

The tribunal believed that Pickett had no eyes for the ball and was intent on making contact with Begley

"In handing down this penalty, we've taken into consideration the awkward situation of attacking the ball, but we as the tribunal believe that Byron had nothing other than intent to make contact with James Begley" said the new additon to the Tribunal system Peter Schwab.

"When the ball is in dispute, you must attack the ball, not the man. It's plainly obvious Byron was deliberately making contact intentionly".

In response to his suspension, Pickett said "I'm gutted, totally disappointed. To be suspended for 6 weeks so early is heartbreaking. I really can't believe I've been handed down 6 weeks for attacking the ball. Should I really be punished because I'm a tough footballer?"
Port Adelaide were reluctant to discuss whether they would appeal.

Got this off the main Board. If that is an accurate quote of Pickett's response, then I take back every thing that I have said about this incident so far.

No remorse, no regret. He thinks HE is the victim.

He has lost me forever if this is a genuine quote. He comes across as nothing but a lowdown petty thug.

When did the rules get changed?

 

[macca23]

I'll wait for confirmation before making comment on that pretty disgusting quote macca especially if it's come from the main board.

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.

 

[Stiffy_18]

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.

 

[mickyj]

He got a six match ban

 

[macca23]

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%.

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

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Here's the actual article

Pickett suspended for six matches
8:01:43 PM Tue 22 February, 2005
Paul Gough
Sportal for afl.com.au

Port Adelaide utility Byron Pickett has been suspended for six matches.

The first hearing under the AFL's new tribunal system ended in controversy with Port Adelaide player advocate Sean Carroll claiming Pickett had been "unfairly treated" after being found guilty of rough conduct against Adelaide's James Begley.

Pickett, the Norm Smith Medalist in the Power's first AFL premiership win last season, will miss the next six matches Port plays in, meaning he will only miss the first three home and away matches if the Power is able to reach the grand final of the Wizard Home Loans Cup.

However Carroll argued Pickett "shouldn’t be disadvantaged" in terms of his penalty because he did not get the chance to take an early plea - under the AFL's new set penalty system - which enables a player to a 25-percent discount in the number of points his charge is allocated if they plead guilty in advance.

But Pickett's charge was rated so serious by the AFL's match review panel that it was sent straight to the tribunal.

Carroll was told after the hearing by the AFL's new deputy chairman John Hassett - who filled in for newly appointed chairman David Jones, who was ill and could not attend the inaugural hearing - that had Pickett pleaded guilty to all specifications of the charge he could have received a points discount.

But instead Carroll argued that Pickett's actions were negligent rather than intentional - as determined by the match review panel in grading the charge - while he also argued contact had only been high rather than severe.

Had the new three man jury system - which now decides the player's guilt or innocence - accepted Carroll's submission then the charge would have been worth only the equivalent of a level three charge under the AFL's new set penalties system.

That would have meant a three match suspension for Pickett, but instead, the jury - which consisted of former Richmond defender and former tribunal member Emmett Dunne as well as ex North Melbourne skipper Wayne Schimmelbusch and ex St Kilda captain Stewart Loewe - ruled the charge should attract 660 points - meaning a six match suspension with 60 points carried over for the rest of the season.

The jury agreed with the assessment of the match review panel that Pickett's actions were intentional and severe.

The AFL's new legal counsel - Will Houghton QC, who replaced former reporting officer Rick Lewis, alleged that Pickett "had lined up" Begley as the Adelaide player struggled to pick up a loose ball.

"You saw he was vulnerable and you saw there was an opportunity to lay him out," Houghton told Pickett.

However Pickett said while he was committed to deliver a "hip and shoulder" on Begley, he expected to deliver the bump to the Adelaide's players' shoulder rather than catching him in the head.

"I thought he was going to pick the ball up and rise (from a crouched position)," Pickett said in evidence.

"I was targeting to make contact on his right shoulder with my left side."

"But as he went to pick the ball up and I was ready to lay the hip and shoulder, he fumbled the ball again."

Pickett said, as a result, Begley remained low to the ground and it was too late for him to pull up and avoid contact to his head.

The large suspension handed down to Pickett came despite the fact he had just one prior suspension in a career dating back to 1997 - a one match ban for striking in 2002.

But under the AFL's new points system that meant Pickett had another ten percent of points added to his total - with a level five charge of rough play attracting 550 points plus the 55 for his previous penalty meaning a total of 605 - or a six match ban.

But with cases referred directly to the tribunal, those above level five - the jury can decide the number of points as they see fit and settled for 660.

After the hearing, Port Adelaide football manager Peter Rohde said the club would look at whether it could appeal the decision but admitted that under the league's new tribunal system it wasn't sure if it would be able to - even though there is still an AFL Appeals Board on hand to re-hear cases but only now if there has been an error in law in the original hearing.

 

[kirky]

The issue that comes out of this, is if you go to the tribunal, good night and thank your mother for the rabbits. The match review has ability to suspend up to 5 matches and then it goes to the tribunal and you can't plead a reduction therefore Pickett was always likely to get 6. Have reviewed again on tape and he did have the time to make a choice, problem was it was the wrong one.

 

[jo172]

We can end this now, justice has been done

Although i doubt it, Byron might even use these 6 weeks productively and learn how to play fair, legitimate football without looking like a boofhead

 

[Stiffy_18]

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%.

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

Like you I think 6 weeks is harsh.

I am not sure what to make out of the new tribunal system. I think it will bring some consistency but I think the penalties look to be very harsh. Just look at the Camporeale, Mitchell and Mongomery incidents. IMHO Campo's incident was nowhere near as bad as Mitchell's or Montgomery's but they all got the same number of games .

I don't neccessarily like the previous penalty bit. Sure you take previous record into account but lets take Biglands as an example. Prior to 2004 he never got reported from U10s, all the way through SANFL and into the AFL, yet one bad year will punish him harshly for a minor offence. Lets say he does something that is worth 1 week. With this new system he could get 2-3 weeks just because of one bad year.

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

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Like you I think 6 weeks is harsh.

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

He got off lightly!