Pickett = Cheat

[Portia]

I wouldn't be so ********y

With the new rules the lowest he will get is 4 weeks if he pleads guilty.

On the contrary, he lost the opportunity to get a reduction for pleading guilty as soon as Schwab decided to apply the maximum possible applicable charge, thus revoking Pickett's right to get a reduction for a guilty plea...so even though Schwab isn't the tribunal, he has already effectively increased Pickett's suspension!

This new system was designed by monkeys.

 

[*PAF]

Thursday morning mate.

Yeah, but there are things more important than footy.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Yeah, but there are things more important than footy.

I can think of one and only one.

 

[*PAF]

I can think of one and only one.

Gee, you got most people on here really scratching heads now.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Think your intelligence level screams through in this post alone.

Bickley played hard fair football for 98% of his career and was the kind of captain coaches only dream about. The incident with Wakelin was completely isolated and so far out of character it's not funny.

Bickley smashed Wakelin's face anyway, big deal, face the facts- The Wakelins have the perfect faces for being broken. I can't think of any brothers in the history of the game who have had their faces mashed, trashed and smashed more than Darryl and Shane Wakelin. It's a fact of football, you feel like smashing someones face in you find a Wakelin...

Don't blame Bicks for Wakelins face. If you sleep on the top bunk every night accidents are bound to happen.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Gee, you got most people on here really scratching heads now.

I tell a lie...Maybe a few things.

 

[macca23]

Gee, there's been a lot of innacurate and irrelevant crap written about this incident with Pickett.

He's as guilty as buggery of charging a defenceless player on his hands and knees front on, with no intention of going for the ball which had spilled out about a metre and a half away.

There is no relevance to Bickley, Lynch or whether somebody's grandmother got caught shop-lifting. He committed an offence, and he'll pay a price.

Having said all that, this new tribunal system is frightening. 6 matches for this offence?? That's far too rich. IMO it was worth a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 4, with 4 being on the harsh side. That puts it about 3 as a compromise.

I would vomit if we lost a player for 6 weeks for a similar offence. It's too much.

Although this new system is going to produce consistency in penalties, it looks like it will also reduce the physicality of the game even further, and IMO it is aklready too sanitized.

 

[outback jack]

yes i agree pickett is a dog......... dirty bastard that has a history of lining guys up instead of going for the ball. And to compare him to bickley is ludicrous. Like the guy has one bad incident, which he copped and accepted. Pickett has always gone for the man, exposing a loop hole, and now its time for him to be nailed. All port fans would agree if he was still a NM player and had lined up one of theirs. And there is a proper way to do it, just look at stiffys bump on kane, thats the fair way to do it

And to bring up roo is another poor effort. His two yrs, under a dogey coach were poor and if had continued to play that way, he would be a dog too. Instead he has played as he naturally does putting his head over the ball, with his natural aggression, to become the champion he is. Picketts history of lining guys up at NM and the power, cant be defended.

 

[*PAF]

Gee, there's been a lot of innacurate and irrelevant crap written about this incident with Pickett.

He's as guilty as buggery of charging a defenceless player on his hands and knees front on, with no intention of going for the ball which had spilled out about a metre and a half away.

There is no relevance to Bickley, Lynch or whether somebody's grandmother got caught shop-lifting. He committed an offence, and he'll pay a price.

Having said all that, this new tribunal system is frightening. 6 matches for this offence?? That's far too rich. IMO it was worth a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 4, with 4 being on the harsh side. That puts it about 3 as a compromise.

I would vomit if we lost a player for 6 weeks for a similar offence. It's too much.

Although this new system is going to produce consistency in penalties, it looks like it will also reduce the physicality of the game even further, and IMO it is aklready too sanitized.

Thanks Macca, and I'll go one further.
If incidents like this produce the same or similar "mathematical conclusions" to the Lynch one, then it is beyond being stuffed.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Gee, there's been a lot of innacurate and irrelevant crap written about this incident with Pickett.

He's as guilty as buggery of charging a defenceless player on his hands and knees front on, with no intention of going for the ball which had spilled out about a metre and a half away.

There is no relevance to Bickley, Lynch or whether somebody's grandmother got caught shop-lifting. He committed an offence, and he'll pay a price.

Having said all that, this new tribunal system is frightening. 6 matches for this offence?? That's far too rich. IMO it was worth a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 4, with 4 being on the harsh side. That puts it about 3 as a compromise.

I would vomit if we lost a player for 6 weeks for a similar offence. It's too much.

Although this new system is going to produce consistency in penalties, it looks like it will also reduce the physicality of the game even further, and IMO it is aklready too sanitized.

If this statement is correct then your comment re the harshness of the penalty is confusing and at odds.

I do agree that the game is being too sanitised, look at how many posts on this thread to see what gets people talking and going to the footy - not a good aspect of our game I agree, but that's human nature.

 

[crowie]

Hi guys, I'll give my 2 cents before I get ready for work. It's great that the footy is back!

First off, you can't possibly compare Pickett to Bickley. Bickley's was a one of incident, whereas Pickett does this sort of thing every other week. It was definatley a very low act, he had absolutley no intention for the ball. Pickett had crouch right down with the hit because Begley was so low, he could of pulled out but he just didn't care.

Thats the type of footballer/person that Pickett is, he is a low life that just happens to be a great football player. He is definatley no role model, who on here Crows or Port supporters would want their children looking up to this scum bag?

It looks like hes gonna get a big suspension, they (the tribunal) offered montgomery a 1 week suspension if he pleads guilty but told Pickett he has to show up for a hearing because it was more serious than any of the penalties in their new grading system. I think he'll be made an example of and get between 3-6 weeks.

As for Van Berlo or Reilly grabbing Begley after the hit, I didn't see it but after a hit like the the other players need to leave him to the medical staff. If a player can shake it off for themselves then thats fine but if he isn't moving then he needs to be left alone.

 

[macca23]

If this statement is correct then your comment re the harshness of the penalty is confusing and at odds.

I don't think so. Prior to the new system coming in we would have all settled for 2 to 4 games, depending on how passionate you were about it.

Maccas_no_1 was the most passionate and yet he was only calling for 4 games, not knowing how the new system works.

That was my point

 

[Stiffy_18]

Harsh but fair, Will also make sure he doesn't mutilate Begley again till Round 19!

Stiffy in your opinion what is worse, Farmers loose knee connecting to Doughty's head or Pickett's little incident!

I was screaming bloody murder when farmer had his little kick, but Pickett had no intention of bumping or even going for the ball! Then again i'm still spewing over the Wiz getting off

Tough question. I think Farmer incident was more cowardly than Pickett.

 

[beagle2]

The defence case appears to be along the lines of; Your over reacting George
We were only trying to knock the buildings down and the didnt realise the consequences for the people and therefore we are innocent
Seriously if this sort thing isnt stopped another Neil Sachse or even worse is inevitable

 

[Stiffy_18]

I await to be flamed for bringing up the Bickley incident but a lot of Port supporters still carry on about this. Mark Bickley was one of the most honest and fairest players you could ever wish too see play the game. While that incident with Wakelin was a poor one I see it as one poor moment in a brilliant career and it should not be hung over the career he had. I suppose I see this and think on the other side of the coin Byron is copping a little treatment unfairly when only the incident needs to be judged.

Exceptional point.

The best reponse I have read regarding Bickley incident. As I said earlier Byron is being unfairly crucified here. Sure it was a bad moment but some of the comments expressed here are uncalled for IMHO.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I don't think so. Prior to the new system coming in we would have all settled for 2 to 4 games, depending on how passionate you were about it.

Maccas_no_1 was the most passionate and yet he was only calling for 4 games, not knowing how the new system works.

That was my point

Here's a question then:

You have said 4 weeks is a fairer penalty?

What do you think a fair penalty is if Begley was seriously injured - lets say a cracked vertabrae.?

Would your penalty change, and are the penalties for illegal acts affected by the outcomes of those acts - and is that a fair condition

 

[macca23]

Tough question. I think Farmer incident was more cowardly than Pickett.

Of course it was. That low-life Farmer pile drove his knee into his opponent's head under the cover of a pack, thinking the camera couldn't get in there.

Pickett committed his offence out in the open.

Farmer's was a dog act and should have got 6 weeks, as there could be no otehr interpretation of what he was doing (although the tribunal did manage to invent one).

 

[UNIT]

Hey guys...im just having a 'discussion' on Picketts hit on Begley on the 'Message to Pickett Defenders' thread on the AFL board. All the Port clowns are talking him up and acting as if he is the most courageous bloke to have ever played the game...Feel free to come along and throw your 20 cents into the hat.

 

[macca23]

Here's a question then:

You have said 4 weeks is a fairer penalty?

What do you think a fair penalty is if Begley was seriously injured - lets say a cracked vertabrae.?

Would your penalty change, and are the penalties for illegal acts affected by the outcomes of those acts - and is that a fair condition

Of course it would.

Take the Bickley incident, as it's a good example. No fractured cheek-bone, and he probably gets 2 to 3. He fractures it, he gets 5. Quite right too.

The action is one thing - the result of that action affects it's severity.

And yes, I do think that's fair.

 

[Arsene Wenger]

Hi guys, I'll give my 2 cents before I get ready for work. It's great that the footy is back!

First off, you can't possibly compare Pickett to Bickley. Bickley's was a one of incident, whereas Pickett does this sort of thing every other week. It was definatley a very low act, he had absolutley no intention for the ball. Pickett had crouch right down with the hit because Begley was so low, he could of pulled out but he just didn't care.

Thats the type of footballer/person that Pickett is, he is a low life that just happens to be a great football player. He is definatley no role model, who on here Crows or Port supporters would want their children looking up to this scum bag?

It looks like hes gonna get a big suspension, they (the tribunal) offered montgomery a 1 week suspension if he pleads guilty but told Pickett he has to show up for a hearing because it was more serious than any of the penalties in their new grading system. I think he'll be made an example of and get between 3-6 weeks.

As for Van Berlo or Reilly grabbing Begley after the hit, I didn't see it but after a hit like the the other players need to leave him to the medical staff. If a player can shake it off for themselves then thats fine but if he isn't moving then he needs to be left alone.

You believe that mate. Picketts act was stupid yes, but it can be compared to bickley. This is the first time hel be suspended in his career. ur saying he does this every other week. Thats far from the truth. He is a hard at the body and hard at the footy . All his physical work is done within the rules of the game... So get ur hand off ur knob ..

Bickleys act was more low and gutless, coz he stuk his bloody elbow out...

 

[*PAF]

Here goes. 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
■ 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?

Now does anyone know how to calculate it?

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Of course it would.

Take the Bickley incident, as it's a good example. No fractured cheek-bone, and he probably gets 2 to 3. He fractures it, he gets 5. Quite right too.

The action is one thing - the result of that action affects it's severity.

And yes, I do think that's fair.

Mmmm not so sure.

Used to get suspended for attempted striking ect under a system that was far more lenient than now.

But under your condition they don't get reported or suspended simply because they missed the target - does that make their action any better, simply because they couldn't hit the target.

No I think attempted striking should still be penalised as I would take the potential seriousness of an injury into account

 

[MrAaron]

I don't know how it is calculated but if he has a previous record over the last 3-5 seasons then a certain percentage will be added to the points he gets for tis charge.

100 points = 1 week suspension.

I am hoping he gets something like 400+ points

 

[*PAF]

...Used to get suspended for attempted striking ect under a system that was far more lenient than now.
...

Was it far more lenient, or is there now a ceiling that is far easier to get to, and thus all lumped in one basket.
That really has been my question all along.

 

[Stiffy_18]

You believe that mate. Picketts act was stupid yes, but it can be compared to bickley. This is the first time hel be suspended in his career. ur saying he does this every other week. Thats far from the truth. He is a hard at the body and hard at the footy . All his physical work is done within the rules of the game... So get ur hand off ur knob ..

Bickleys act was more low and gutless, coz he stuk his bloody elbow out...

Load of crap. Pickett has been suspended before and the reason why his penalty will be greater than if he didn't have prior offences.