Pickett = Cheat

[MrMeaner]

Michael Longs hit was out of the norm in how he played the game but he still deserved what he received from the tribunal.

Byron Pickett's game is based on hitting unsuspecting body's which in itself is somewhat unnecessary as he can be a very good footballer.

I can't disagree with anything that you've said noddy (insofar as it relates to Pickett not being reticent about taking a player out - usually legitimately). However, it does not address my query.

Fow what it's worth, the Norm Smith is a medal for BOG in one particular game. In that game in 2004, Pickett played a phenomenal game (though, he was probably not my choice for BOG). I cannot recall an incident in which he played 'his game' (as you've described above). Thus, he met the criteria for the Norm Smith. I fail to see how having Pickett's name on the Norm 'slurs' that award.

 

[Jars458]

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 disagree.

There is no defending the indefensible.

Pickett has just done this one too many times. If someone doesn't tell him to pullhis head in he wil seriously hurt someone.

You must protect the player going after the ball.

A very ugly incident. He needs to get 3 weeks minimum for that. If it was one of ours I would say the same thing.

 

[noddy]

Byron Pickett has been suspended how many times?? Give me a break, it was a stupid thing to do, but he's no David Rhys Jones........If he's such a thug where's his endless tribunal history?

The tribunal will decide how bad the incident was. If he's guilty then so be it. I won't defend acts of stupidity but some of you need a reality check.

I won't call him a thug but what he done last night was an act of cowardly stupidity & he needs to have a look at himself.

 

[portentous]

I won't call him a thug but what he done last night was an act of cowardly stupidity & he needs to have a look at himself.

I won't defend the act, it was wrong, but I WILL defend the player. His "history" speaks for itself.......

 

[MrMeaner]

I disagree.

There is no defending the indefensible.

Pickett has just done this one too many times. If someone doesn't tell him to pullhis head in he wil seriously hurt someone.

You must protect the player going after the ball.

A very ugly incident. He needs to get 3 weeks minimum for that. If it was one of ours I would say the same thing.

Funnily enough, I disagree with your stated disagreement.

In my opinion, this is the first time that Pickett has stepped over the line of legitimate action. I will agree, however, that he needs to look at the incident and make sure that he does not do it again.

 

[noddy]

Fow what it's worth, the Norm Smith is a medal for BOG in one particular game. In that game in 2004, Pickett played a phenomenal game (though, he was probably not my choice for BOG). I cannot recall an incident in which he played 'his game' (as you've described above). Thus, he met the criteria for the Norm Smith. I fail to see how having Pickett's name on the Norm 'slurs' that award.

Granted your right off course & i have edited my post accordingly.

 

[Jars458]

Funnily enough, I disagree with your stated disagreement.

In my opinion, this is the first time that Pickett has stepped over the line of legitimate action. I will agree, however, that he needs to look at the incident and make sure that he does not do it again.

The Krummel incident was very similar in my view. Deliberate head high contact should not be allowed.

 

[Markthirtytwo]

Ok I've taken everyones advice and cooled down.
A thug is a thug and will always be a thug. That's their trait in life.
And he's working his way up to be a DR-J type isnt he.

 

[portentous]

Ok I've taken everyones advice and cooled down.
A thug is a thug and will always be a thug. That's their trait in life.
And he's working his way up to be a DR-J type isnt he.

Compare the tribunal records before you make yourself look stupid in future!

 

[Storm20]

And then pickett looked like he had hurt himself even more

 

[Markthirtytwo]

Compare the tribunal records before you make yourself look stupid in future!

I said he's working his way up to it.

 

[lozstar]

And then pickett looked like he had hurt himself even more

zif he did.
more than likely he would have faked that.

.. but if he was truly hurt - good. that'll learn him.

 

[MrMeaner]

The Krummel incident was very similar in my view. Deliberate head high contact should not be allowed.

That was a borderline incident that will divide supporters. Some see it as a great display of legitimate body-work (or 'old-fashioned shirt-front' depending on your use of vernacular and cliche) on someone without adequate regard for what was going on around him. Others see it as a cheap hit on someone with eys only for the ball (who should be protected). Obviously, I fall in the first group of supporters and you fall in the second. It is those differences of opinion that provide the entertainment when the footy's not on.

I do agree with your last point though.

 

[Macca19]

Now I've restrained myself up until now. It was a shirt front that made Kemp hit his head on the ground and had concussion from that. Not from any high swinging arm. Get your facts straight pleeeese.

Crap of the highest order. Footage clearly shows he connects with a shoulder straight on his hea.d

Cant recall ever seeing Pickett connect with anybody with an outstretched elbow. Maybe you should get your facts straight

 

[Alex99]

Pickett = Cheap shot artist

 

[jonny f muleus]

Pickett = Cheap shot artist

Pickett = Gamebreaker

 

[Mong]

Pickett is a gimp.

He appears to have no conscience at all. What's he trying to do? Turn someone into a paraplegic?

 

[Markthirtytwo]

Crap of the highest order. Footage clearly shows he connects with a shoulder straight on his hea.d

Have it handy do you. Selective memory again.

Cant recall ever seeing Pickett connect with anybody with an outstretched elbow. Maybe you should get your facts straight

Ditto my first comments.

 

[portentous]

I said he's working his way up to it.

There was only one DRJ, and one Phil Carman..........and there's only one Byron Pickett. Last night wasn't a fair hit but his tribunal record indicates that he's not a "dirty" player.....

 

[Markthirtytwo]

There was only one DRJ, and one Phil Carman..........and there's only one Byron Pickett. Last night wasn't a fair hit but his tribunal record indicates that he's not a "dirty" player.....

Just hasnt been caught at it that all.

 

[Fergus]

This will be a very interesting case for the new tribunal set-up. My understanding is that they look at the following factors:
Incident - Was it intentional, reckless or negligent
Impact - Severe, high, medium, low
Where - In play or behind play
Contact - High or body

At best the incident was reckless, maybe intentional, probably high impact, in play and high contact. On SEN, Kevin Bartlett said that if it's called reckless then that equates to a 4 week penalty, which if he pleads guilty can be reduced by 25%. If it's deemed intentional then it would probably go to the tribunal and more than likely be a higher penalty.

Very silly act with a minute to go in the game.

 

[portentous]

Just hasnt been caught at it that all.

Yeah will all those cameras nowadays DRJ and Carman would NEVER have gotten on the park.....

 

[maccas_no1]

He will get 4-6 for that no doubt it was downright stupid, reakless and malicious, no intent on getting the ball, you Port supporters might be trying to play it down but it cant be played down. The new tribunal system will also be out to make an example of him to set the tone to other players.

If he gets any less than 4 it's criminal, Montgomery will get 1-2 weeks for his late hit on Burton.

Lets out it into perspective it was pre-season game, try new thing's try player's in different positions try some kids, not go out and kill or put players in wheelchairs.

 

[marvin]

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.

You barracked for the Crows back then, Macca. Were you outraged about what Roo did to Dean Kemp when it happened, or has your outrage only developed with the benefit of hindsight?

 

[Cap]

his boggest problem is that you look at the replay and he was looking directly at begley not the ball

also when roo hit kemp it was on his side not his head