Pickett = Cheat

[relapse]

He was going for the ball

He is not cheat he just plays hard. some people should watch the way he plays and learn from it

What a complete joke !!!!!!!!!

You either dont have foxtel, werent at the game or a delusional port supporter.

Begley had his head down Pickett saw the opportunity to try and hurt him and went for it.

If was tredea you would all be screaming and crying so dont be hypocritical and think "Oh a Port player did it, its fine".

BTW what is there to learn? Learn how the take an opening to try and deliberately injure a player?? That sort of mentality should never be encouraged with any players and the supporters that encourage it are morons.

 

[relapse]

Slow up everyone.
He will most likely go, however IMO he was not trying to hurt a player 27 1/2 seconds after the event.
All game he played where his brain was five yards ahead of what his body allowed him to do at this stage of the season.
So yeah, the end result was not good, and actually looked worse first up than it was, and it could have been even worse (if that makes sense), but not to the extent of some of these posts.
His will probably not be the only report.

Overall, the game was played in the true pre-season spirit.
A bit like a trial match where both teams concentrated just about purely on what they were trying to achieve and not worry about what the opposition was doing too much.
Couple of positives for both sides came out of the match.

I am sure your mate Rucci is already trying to write an article to try and water the incident down.

The fact of the matter is that a port player did it thats the reason why you feel the need to justify it, if the roles were reserved you would all be crying about it.

 

[relapse]

What I find more disgusting is people clapping and standing as he goes off the field and thats after seeing it replay on the big screen. And that was in the members - I'm not sure these people would have thought any different if a serious injury and yes, it always possible. Obviously, lack of brain matter in those Power supporters. It will be interesting to see how he goes before the review panel and then the tribunal given his previous record and given attacks to the head are not taken lightly either. Probably 4-6 weeks I reckon.

That doesnt surprise me in the least

I mean it is Port Adelaide supporters we are talking about here.

 

[Macca19]

Couldnt really see it clearly from my seat as it was a bad angle and i missed the replay as some stereotypical crow slag turned around and yelled at me that I was a typical Port supporting druggie rapist who probably preys on little children And they say Crows supporters are meant to be classy?

Will be interesting to see how the new tribunal system works. Has he been charged with charging or striking? I dunno how to work out the new system but he has no prior offences and if he pleads guilty then he may only get something like 1 or 2 games.

 

[- PC -]

The fact of the matter is that a port player did it thats the reason why you feel the need to justify it, if the roles were reserved you would all be crying about it.

And if it was a Crows player we would be watering it down

 

[jc67]

Guy's lighten up!!
It was there for the taking and if it was one of ours that DIDN"T take that sort of opertunity i would be annoyed!
Only a millisecond late. 2 weeks max maybe none.

 

[Macca19]

What a complete joke !!!!!!!!!

You either dont have foxtel, werent at the game or a delusional port supporter.

Begley had his head down Pickett saw the opportunity to try and hurt him and went for it.

If was tredea you would all be screaming and crying so dont be hypocritical and think "Oh a Port player did it, its fine".

Its one of those things. We will defend our players to the hilt even when they do wrong....same as if the roles were reversed you'd be defending your players and we would be having a cry about it.

One of those things.

 

[*PAF]

I am sure your mate Rucci is already trying to write an article to try and water the incident down.

The fact of the matter is that a port player did it thats the reason why you feel the need to justify it, if the roles were reserved you would all be crying about it.

Justify?
Justify what. I said that IMO he will most likely go. (Hard to predict tribunals)
Crying? Grow up.
Had he got there a few tads of a second earlier it would have been a perfectly legit bump. He didn't, it wasn't.
PC summed it up. Legit football bump gone wrong.
Any more than that mean you are looking at the incident a bit too hard.

IMO some people on here should stop looking at the bits where you were hard done, and concentrate on the positives from your game.

EDIT: Good to see PC is not the only one.

 

[Macca19]

Guy's lighten up!!
It was there for the taking and if it was one of ours that DIDN"T take that sort of opertunity i would be annoyed!
Only a millisecond late. 2 weeks max maybe none.

Well said.

 

[macca23]

Justify?
Justify what. I said that IMO he will most likely go. (Hard to predict tribunals)
Crying? Grow up.
Had he got there a few tads of a second earlier it would have been a perfectly legit bump. He didn't, it wasn't.
PC summed it up. Legit football bump gone wrong.
Any more than that mean you are looking at the incident a bit too hard.

IMO some people on here should stop looking at the bits where you were hard done, and concentrate on the positives from your game.

Nope, I can't agree with that part, and I'm not trying to magnify the incident. I think everyone's agreed he's going to get games, so that's not my point.

As the TV callers said at the time, he could have taken possession of the ball. He chose to ignore it, and take out a player who had his head down over the ball.

It definitely wasn't a legit bump gone wrong.

Just plain bloody silly will do.

 

[Port1978]

Guy's lighten up!!
It was there for the taking and if it was one of ours that DIDN"T take that sort of opertunity i would be annoyed!
Only a millisecond late. 2 weeks max maybe none.

Good to see there are a couple of sensible Crows supporters on this board.

 

[dreamkillers]

given his previous record

And what would that be............

 

[NikkiNoo]

ok i may be weird but i would like to think that if one of our players had done that I would not be defending him - thuggery has no place on the footy field (or anywhere for that matter)

I agree that Pickett is a 'tough' player, same as we say that archer was a 'tough' player but archer never really had those brain implosions that pickett seems to get every now and then that makes him cross the line into thuggery. Witnessed it for a long time in the sanfl and now in the afl. He has been very lucky with the tribunal/umpires same way that biglands has been unlucky

 

[relapse]

Its one of those things. We will defend our players to the hilt even when they do wrong....same as if the roles were reversed you'd be defending your players and we would be having a cry about it.

One of those things.

I wouldnt actually be doing that as I said before there is no room in football for that sort of rubbish no matter who does it.

 

[Portia]

What I find more disgusting is people clapping and standing as he goes off the field and thats after seeing it replay on the big screen. And that was in the members - I'm not sure these people would have thought any different if a serious injury and yes, it always possible.

Disgusting, that. What buffoon let Port supporters into the members area? If proper members wanted to associate with swine, they'd move to Alberton!

 

[Macca19]

And what would that be............

Hilarious isnt it. This would be the first time Picketts ever been reported for one of his bumps. I think the only time hes ever been reported was for wrestling about 6 years ago. Prior record indeed!

 

[dreamkillers]

Nope, I can't agree with that part, and I'm not trying to magnify the incident. I think everyone's agreed he's going to get games, so that's not my point.

As the TV callers said at the time, he could have taken possession of the ball. He chose to ignore it, and take out a player who had his head down over the ball.

It definitely wasn't a legit bump gone wrong.

Just plain bloody silly will do.

I actually see it compleltely different to that in that if he had pulled out of the contest most if not all AFL level coaches would have pulled him off the ground for shirking the issue.

Sure it was a few seconds late but Monty's elbow was the worst reportable incident of the game.

 

[blackdiamond]

Byron was just testing out his bump, I mean its only Wizard Cup, give the boy a break!

Being completely serious though it didn't look good but the tribunal will work all of that out.

Isn't it great to have footy back?

 

[Macca19]

I wouldnt actually be doing that as I said before there is no room in football for that sort of rubbish no matter who does it.

So you think Riccuito should have been outlawed from the game 10 years ago after he nearly decapitated Dean Kemp who had his head over the ball and Roos only intention was the bump? No...didnt think so.

 

[relapse]

Justify?
Justify what. I said that IMO he will most likely go. (Hard to predict tribunals)
Crying? Grow up.
Had he got there a few tads of a second earlier it would have been a perfectly legit bump. He didn't, it wasn't.
PC summed it up. Legit football bump gone wrong.
Any more than that mean you are looking at the incident a bit too hard.

IMO some people on here should stop looking at the bits where you were hard done, and concentrate on the positives from your game.

EDIT: Good to see PC is not the only one.

Macca summed it up perfectly the opportunity was there for pickett to get the ball, but he chose to go after the player when his head was down

As for justifying it, read your post because that is what you are doing. It wasnt a legit bump gone wrong, Begley's head was down for a while before the hit, as far as I am concerned he saw the opportunity and went for it, he had no intentions at all of going for the ball, its different if he was trying to shepherd or the guy was on his feet with the ball, but begley was down on his knees was an easy target. If you think its appropriate then thats your choice and you have your own opinion as well as I have mine.

 

[*PAF]

Nope, I can't agree with that part, and I'm not trying to magnify the incident. I think everyone's agreed he's going to get games, so that's not my point.

As the TV callers said at the time, he could have taken possession of the ball. He chose to ignore it, and take out a player who had his head down over the ball.

It definitely wasn't a legit bump gone wrong.

Just plain bloody silly will do.

We may have to agree to disagree on this one macca.
IMO (and others too by the looks of it) had he got there earlier it would have been called a typical Pickett bump.
If people like that sort of thing or not is not the point, unless the rules are changed.
He didn't get there early enough, and thus it wasn't.
How many will he get? Start on 2 and work your way down I think (depending on how the tribunal thinks on the night).

 

[Powerstufff]

.....hypocracy (??).....
Thats my 2 cents

Perhaps invest the other 98 cents in a dictionary.

 

[macca23]

I actually see it compleltely different to that in that if he had pulled out of the contest most if not all AFL level coaches would have pulled him off the ground for shirking the issue.

Sure it was a few seconds late but Monty's elbow was the worst reportable incident of the game.

Can't quite agree with your first paragraph there, DK. What contest to shirk? Begley was immobile on the ground not even looking at Pickett. Pickett should have concentrated his energy on getting the ball - if he'd done that and kicked a sausage roll, he'd be having his praises sung by everyone rather than being the villain.

Monty's didn't look too good, and you'd think he'd be cited for that.

 

[relapse]

ok i may be weird but i would like to think that if one of our players had done that I would not be defending him - thuggery has no place on the footy field (or anywhere for that matter)

I agree that Pickett is a 'tough' player, same as we say that archer was a 'tough' player but archer never really had those brain implosions that pickett seems to get every now and then that makes him cross the line into thuggery.

HERE HERE !!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with you 100 percent

 

[macca23]

We may have to agree to disagree on this one macca.
IMO (and others too by the looks of it) had he got there earlier it would have been called a typical Pickett bump.
If people like that sort of thing or not is not the point, unless the rules are changed.
He didn't get there early enough, and thus it wasn't.
How many will he get? Start on 2 and work your way down I think (depending on how the tribunal thinks on the night).

Fair enough - we disagree then.

Yeah, he won't get 4 IMO, but he's a monty to get 2 (and monty might get 2 too.)