Pickett = Cheat

[CaptainDangerfield]

I just saw the vision of the inciudent again. Can someone explain to me why Roo would pat him on the back??

 

[Toots Hibbert]

And your point is? You accused Bickley and Smart of being snipers, I (and others) have challenged that, and you have come up with nothing except to repeat the assertion and talk about the one incident each has been involved with.

Iam applying the standards set out by SpringChoke which at the time I took to be a cheap shot at the whole Port team and the coach. However in a later post he has gone further down that track. You don't mind if they are applied to us but you dont like it when they are applied to you.

Nice dodge, and irrelevant. Original post, after challenge - whatever - see above.

A grudging concession on your part.

And yet, the words of this "clown" (ie not to be taken seriously) reveal him to be a sniper.
And I have not disputed the seriousness of that offence, that still doesn't make Smart a "sniper".

His words reveal him to be a clown, his action was sniping.

...OK, let's leave Pickett out of this, to keep it clear.

Yes it's getting very complicated.

Bottom line - you acuse Bickley and Smart of being snipers, you produce no evidence to support that claim (unless it is true that every player who has ever been reported is a "sniper")

Make up your mind, on the one hand you tell me you are not going to dispute the seriousness of Smart's hip to Salmon's head, on the other you say there is no evidence. You then forget about Bickley's offence.

..and you resort to pedantry about which post is which, to avoid the challenge.

No, you said the best I could come up with when challenged was Smart doing some trash talking and Bickley's approachto Showdowns. I showed you that I included these in the original argument and then went on to the more important business of outlining some facts you don't like to be reminded of.

OK, so - it's OK to accuse Bickley and Smart of being snipers, without evidence, and it's OK to refuse to back up that accusation when challenged - because SpringChoke said some bad things about Pickett and Port. Oh, OK....

So it's OK for SpringChoke to apply certain standards to us but by golly you will not have that turned back on yourself!

Bottom line, this thread was about Pickett. SpringChoke then widened the issue to include his coach and team mates. At that point offenders on your team became open to scrutiny. I made sure you didn't miss my point that some of your own players have stains on their record by saying that Smart was the first headhunter aiming for a seat in the SA parliament. I got your attention alright.

Your problem is that you simply don't like to be reminded that your idols are flawed. I stated earlier in this thread that it's a body contact sport and players will occasionally step over the line.

Some of you have now accused half the Port side. Example Shaun Burgoyne's bump on Bassett:- Not reported let alone suspended and quickly adjudged by the commentators to be a fair bump while Bassett lay on the ground. You simply lose credibility with that sort of rubbish.

 

[MrAaron]

I heard something on SEN radio station on my way home from work today and even Primus has stated on Radio that even quite a few Port Players are EXTREMELY DISSAPOINTED with what Pickett did.

I think Pickett will have to do something special to get that all back now

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Iam applying the standards set out by SpringChoke which at the time I took to be a cheap shot at the whole Port team and the coach. However in a later post he has gone further down that track. .

What, and there's no cheap shots directed at the AFC on the Port Board Toots? You even started a thread with a cheap shot yourself. Surely your not that naive that you wouldn't expect the occasional anti-port sentiment to appear on this board? We would expect to see the same on the PAFC board.

 

[Toots Hibbert]

What, and there's no cheap shots directed at the AFC on the Port Board Toots? You even started a thread with a cheap shot yourself. Surely your not that naive that you wouldn't expect the occasional anti-port sentiment to appear on this board? We would expect to see the same on the PAFC board.

The context is important though SpringChoke. I posted a joke. Noddy amongst others saw the humour in it and had a go back. You have made several posts asserting that cheap shots are the Port way. I reminded you of some incidents from your teams past.

 

[Macca19]

I just saw the vision of the inciudent again. Can someone explain to me why Roo would pat him on the back??

I would think he would have said something along the lines of "Wait till round 3 mate"

Im sure he wouldnt have said "are you ok"

 

[Macca19]

I can't tell you either but on SEN some Victorian radio announcer said it's happened three times all against Burton.

I reckon whoever said it has got his facts wrong.

 

[macca23]

I would think he would have said something along the lines of "Wait till round 3 mate"

Im sure he wouldnt have said "are you ok"

I'm sure you're right there. Positive.

 

[macca23]

I reckon whoever said it has got his facts wrong.

I wouldn't have a clue whether it's 2 or 3 but the Victorian radio announcer did say 3 times. I was wondering about the 3rd one myself when I heard it.

 

[Stiffy_18]

I would think he would have said something along the lines of "Wait till round 3 mate"

Im sure he wouldnt have said "are you ok"

That sounds about right to me

Roo even had something to say today on Melbourne Radio station. It was reported so on Ch10.

When Pickett got up Roo got stuck into him so I think its safe to say he didn't ask if he was OK when he gave him a pat on the back

Brin on round 3

 

[Damp Squarie]

On a further note I think its a joke that the Wizard cup games can be used as suspension on a player.

Why not?
It should even count as far the Brownlow votes go I reckon.
You do the crime...

Pickett 'll serve 5 in the real season anyhow

 

[blighty]

Pickett wanted to hip and shoulder him. You wont find many people that disagree that he lined up a hip and shoulder from a fair way away and that was his sole intention. However, the ball was not metres in front of Begley. Some clowns here have suggested the ball was 10 metres away. It was only about a metre and a half away from Begley. This is not some excuse, its a fact of what happened. I strongly disagree with the view that many hold here that Picketts sole intention was to hit Begley as hard as possible in the head and cause as much damage as he could.

If Picketts sole intention was to hit Begley as hard as he could on top of his head and want to put him in a wheel chair then he would not have apologised straight after the game and he would have pleaded not guilty at the tribunal.

You are delusional...Pickett had no other intention than to cause maximum injury to Begley...to say he wanted to hip & shoulder him is a downright lie & I suggest you have another long look at the video.It may have escaped your biassed view of the incident but if you look at Begleys position ..For Pickett to HIP & SHOULDER him he had to be SIDEON to Begley...at no point is Pickett EVER in position to lay a hip & shoulder bump, because his attack on Begley is from front on....unless in your undoubted wisdom you've found a new place for ones hip....you've no right to be taken credibly...so get your hand off your gland & read the actual tribunal decision....that's where the truth has been found about Picketts sole intent.

 

[Blue Red and Gold]

I had a very low opinion of a majority of Port fans on here before this incident, after this incident I didnt expect it to get any better.
Initially there were some posters on here who agreed it was a stupid act mainly *PAF, Potentous and Macca19 which I respected and appreciated.

However after the sentence has been handed down and fairly in my opinion the Port supporters have gone even further down in my book, bar the posters named above and probably one or 2 more I have failde to mention.

Some of their attitudes on here, the main board and on their board is quite frankly sickening and uneducated. The people who are disputing the incident and trying to drag everyone else through to mud to try and justify Choppys actions is a disgrace and any level headed person should be ashamed of themselves.

I like the idea of Karma but I do not want to see another incident like we did on sunday even if it was a Port player on the recieving end.

Its such a shame that the majority of Port posters are not level headed and are able to post educated posts like the posters I have named above.

 

[Stiffy_18]

I had a very low opinion of a majority of Port fans on here before this incident, after this incident I didnt expect it to get any better.
Initially there were some posters on here who agreed it was a stupid act mainly *PAF, Potentous and Macca19 which I respected and appreciated.

However after the sentence has been handed down and fairly in my opinion the Port supporters have gone even further down in my book, bar the posters named above and probably one or 2 more I have failde to mention.

Some of their attitudes on here, the main board and on their board is quite frankly sickening and uneducated. The people who are disputing the incident and trying to drag everyone else through to mud to try and justify Choppys actions is a disgrace and any level headed person should be ashamed of themselves.

I like the idea of Karma but I do not want to see another incident like we did on sunday even if it was a Port player on the recieving end.

Its such a shame that the majority of Port posters are not level headed and are able to post educated posts like the posters I have named above.

Hear hear.

Majority of them have shown just what tossbags they are

 

[dreamkillers]

Hear hear.

Majority of them have shown just what tossbags they are

Each side has them - we just generally delete their posts on the Port board to prevent things going to the extreme like it has here.

To say the majority are that way though might be taking things a bit far though Stiffy given the majority of Port supporters at BF don't even post here and rarely on the main board.

Don't drag yourself down to their level by posts like you have here.

 

[Macca19]

You are delusional...Pickett had no other intention than to cause maximum injury to Begley...to say he wanted to hip & shoulder him is a downright lie & I suggest you have another long look at the video.It may have escaped your biassed view of the incident but if you look at Begleys position ..For Pickett to HIP & SHOULDER him he had to be SIDEON to Begley...at no point is Pickett EVER in position to lay a hip & shoulder bump, because his attack on Begley is from front on....unless in your undoubted wisdom you've found a new place for ones hip....you've no right to be taken credibly...so get your hand off your gland & read the actual tribunal decision....that's where the truth has been found about Picketts sole intent.

You completely miss my point and i love the way how you get personal. Have trouble debating things reasonably or do you just have a much higher opinion of your self worth to the world??

My entire point is that a lot of Crow supporters here think that Pickett deliberately tried to put him into a wheelchair. My opinion is that he didnt try and delibareatly hit him as hard as he could on his head to try and paralyse him.

 

[Blue Red and Gold]

link

Primus knocks Byron's bump
By Andrew Capel
February 24, 2005

MATTHEW PRIMUS is in hot water with Port Adelaide after yesterday launching an extraordinary spray at teammate Byron Pickett.

Speaking before Port lodged its appeal with the AFL, Primus described Pickett's hit on Crow James Begley as "stupid".

"It was a stupid act for him to do. I think we all think that and (Mark Williams) actually said (it) to him in our review on Monday," Primus said.

Primus will be called in to "have a chat" with chief executive John James after making comments seen to be detrimental to Pickett's appeal against a six-match suspension.

Primus even claimed some players thought Pickett would be suspended for six matches, although "I was thinking maybe four might be right".

Primus admitted Pickett tried to hurt players with his hip-and-shoulders and "get them off the ground".

"The worse thing about it was (there was) 30 seconds to go in the game," Primus said of the Begley incident, which left the Adelaide defender with a strained neck.

"If it was in the opening 10 minutes when tempers are going, all that kind of stuff, you probably say OK. But the last 30 seconds to go, the game's dead and buried and you know, what's the use of doing it?"

Football operations general manager Peter Rohde would not say if Port had any new evidence in the appeal.

Pickett remains ineligible to play against his former club, the Kangaroos, in Saturday's Wizard Cup clash at Telstra Dome.

Primus's comments would not have helped his chances of holding off the challenge of last year's stand-in skipper Warren Tredrea and captaining Port for a club-record fifth consecutive season, although James denied that Primus's comments would hurt his captaincy chances.

While concerned at the Pickett comments, James backed Primus and said he was confident the club's appeal would be successful.

"Matthew is a senior player and a great leader of our club," James said. "As with a lot of players who have individual media contracts, he offered an individual opinion. But, like a lot of players, he was unaware of the specific details of the case."

Primus also told radio SEN that Pickett's hit was unnecessary. Primus, who is contracted to SEN, said that while he didn't think Pickett tried to seriously hurt Begley, he needed to "make sure that when he does a hip-and-shoulder it's when a guy is standing up".

"People think he's a dirty player but a lot of time when he does get the guys it's a fair hit," Primus said. "He's just fantastic at doing it, unfortunately this one wasn't."

There was plenty of support among coaches yesterday for the new tribunal system.

Western Bulldogs coach Rodney Eade said the league had delivered on its promise of several seasons ago to clamp down on head-high incidents.

"For years they have signalled they were going to crack down . . . and they have. It was a dangerous incident," Eade said.

Lions coach Leigh Matthews said a former-player tribunal may be harsher on offenders than the previous panel.

"I don't like commenting on cases involving other clubs because it's bad karma, but the new tribunal system itself is transparent and there are procedures to be followed," Matthews said.

with Darren Cartwright

The Advertiser

Finally someone with some balls at Alberton have come forward and said what Pickett did was out of line. Instead of just doing the easy thing and try and point the finger elsewhere, this is why Matty Primus should be captain in 2005.

 

[Wood_Duck]

I just saw the vision of the inciudent again. Can someone explain to me why Roo would pat him on the back??

I think it was a pat on the back and a whisper in the ear. Maybe something like "you are fckig history Byron".

 

[Wood_Duck]

link

Primus knocks Byron's bump
By Andrew Capel
February 24, 2005

MATTHEW PRIMUS is in hot water with Port Adelaide after yesterday launching an extraordinary spray at teammate Byron Pickett.

Speaking before Port lodged its appeal with the AFL, Primus described Pickett's hit on Crow James Begley as "stupid".

"It was a stupid act for him to do. I think we all think that and (Mark Williams) actually said (it) to him in our review on Monday," Primus said.

Primus will be called in to "have a chat" with chief executive John James after making comments seen to be detrimental to Pickett's appeal against a six-match suspension.

Primus even claimed some players thought Pickett would be suspended for six matches, although "I was thinking maybe four might be right".

Primus admitted Pickett tried to hurt players with his hip-and-shoulders and "get them off the ground".

"The worse thing about it was (there was) 30 seconds to go in the game," Primus said of the Begley incident, which left the Adelaide defender with a strained neck.

"If it was in the opening 10 minutes when tempers are going, all that kind of stuff, you probably say OK. But the last 30 seconds to go, the game's dead and buried and you know, what's the use of doing it?"

Football operations general manager Peter Rohde would not say if Port had any new evidence in the appeal.

Pickett remains ineligible to play against his former club, the Kangaroos, in Saturday's Wizard Cup clash at Telstra Dome.

Primus's comments would not have helped his chances of holding off the challenge of last year's stand-in skipper Warren Tredrea and captaining Port for a club-record fifth consecutive season, although James denied that Primus's comments would hurt his captaincy chances.

While concerned at the Pickett comments, James backed Primus and said he was confident the club's appeal would be successful.

"Matthew is a senior player and a great leader of our club," James said. "As with a lot of players who have individual media contracts, he offered an individual opinion. But, like a lot of players, he was unaware of the specific details of the case."

Primus also told radio SEN that Pickett's hit was unnecessary. Primus, who is contracted to SEN, said that while he didn't think Pickett tried to seriously hurt Begley, he needed to "make sure that when he does a hip-and-shoulder it's when a guy is standing up".

"People think he's a dirty player but a lot of time when he does get the guys it's a fair hit," Primus said. "He's just fantastic at doing it, unfortunately this one wasn't."

There was plenty of support among coaches yesterday for the new tribunal system.

Western Bulldogs coach Rodney Eade said the league had delivered on its promise of several seasons ago to clamp down on head-high incidents.

"For years they have signalled they were going to crack down . . . and they have. It was a dangerous incident," Eade said.

Lions coach Leigh Matthews said a former-player tribunal may be harsher on offenders than the previous panel.

"I don't like commenting on cases involving other clubs because it's bad karma, but the new tribunal system itself is transparent and there are procedures to be followed," Matthews said.

with Darren Cartwright

The Advertiser

Finally someone with some balls at Alberton have come forward and said what Pickett did was out of line. Instead of just doing the easy thing and try and point the finger elsewhere, this is why Matty Primus should be captain in 2005.

The case for the prosecution rests.

 

[maccas_no1]

If their is any Port player I dont mind it's Priums, how can he be in hot water at Port for speaking the truth

Port have to look at it from his point of veiw, Pickett did a stupid thing and it's cost him six games, Pickett is in Port's best 22, so for 6 games they have unessesarly lost one of thier best player's no club needs that.

Good on you Priums for stating the truth and standing up to your club

 

[Mad Dog]

If their is any Port player I dont mind it's Priums, how can he be in hot water at Port for speaking the truth

Port have to look at it from his point of veiw, Pickett did a stupid thing and it's cost him six games, Pickett is in Port's best 22, so for 6 games they have unessesarly lost one of thier best player's no club needs that.

Good on you Priums for stating the truth and standing up to your club

Primus.......not from that culture.....no wonder he talks sense

 

[captain ebert]

Good on you Priums for stating the truth and standing up to your club

hardly the case

 

[Markthirtytwo]

this is why Matty Primus should be captain in 2005.

Nope. There goes the captaincy Matty.

 

[rooboy]

just about every poster on this board has had a go at us for 'bringing up the past which has nothing to do with this incident', yet you bring up stuff and players from 25-50 years ago. Hypocricy at its best.

Just making the point to you PAP supporters that bringing up history in the Bickly matter is only going to fly back in your faces given your long and pure as the driven snow history......so yes hypocritical of you.

 

[arrowman]

Iam applying the standards set out by SpringChoke which at the time I took to be a cheap shot at the whole Port team and the coach. However in a later post he has gone further down that track. You don't mind if they are applied to us but you dont like it when they are applied to you.

It has nothing to do with what I like, and it has nothing to do with whether SpringChoke's comments were reasonable or a cheap shot - it has to do with an assertion on your part that cannot be supported, an assertion that you have mode no attempt to support but instead you have dodged and weaved about who said what and in what order.

There's no footy definition of "sniper" in the dictionary but if there was, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't read "suspended once or twice for striking over a 270+ game career and said bad things about the opposition before a big game."

If Bickley and Smart are snipers because of the incidents to which you refer, then there's an awful lot of snipers in the AFL.

A grudging concession on your part.

Was not! I wasn't 'grudgingly conceding' anything, I was pointing out that any error on my part as to which post it was that included a given point (first, or followup) is irrelevant to the evidence and logic of the argument.

Make up your mind, on the one hand you tell me you are not going to dispute the seriousness of Smart's hip to Salmon's head, on the other you say there is no evidence. You then forget about Bickley's offence.

Of course you're confused, as I have said before, one incident does not a sniper make and I do not have to dispute the seriousness of Smart's incident to defend him against your patently absurd allegation that he is a sniper.

And on, and on... I don't have time for any more on this one.

- Besides, you keep ducking and weaving like that, and my next effort might hit you in the head. Accidentally, of course.