One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => View from the Outer => Topic started by: mightytiges on February 23, 2005, 03:09:17 AM
-
What do you guys think of his 6 week sentence?
It looked shocking on the replay. Like Pickett just ignored the footy and shirtfronted the Crows player head/shoulder first while he was leaning forward with his head down.
-
Probably deserved, but I was more shocked by Mitchell getting off so lightly with his coat hanger on Ball. He only got 1 match, should have been at least 3
-
What do you guys think of his 6 week sentence?
It looked shocking on the replay. Like Pickett just ignored the footy and shirtfronted the Crows player head/shoulder first while he was leaning forward with his head down.
I've seen him do it a few times MT. Players who only have eyes for the ball seem to be his favourite victims.
I'm rapt action was finally taken and really happy he got lots of weeks..
-
Finally a penalty that fits the crime :bow :bow - in Pickett's case a few seasons too late IMO. He has done this a few times. I love seeing a fair 'hip 'n' shoulder" as much as anyone but he has always seemed to never have his eyes on the ball just the man - deserves to be punished.
I have to say (and I am surprised that no-one's mentioned it) that I was staggered that Reiwoldt wasn't investigated for his hit on the Hawthorn kid (Thurgood ??? the one with the red dreadlocks) who was cleaned up first by Murray (who was reported then the charge dropped) and then Reiwoldt came in a hit him again - was totally un-necessary in my book. If you watch the contact Reiwoldt was not looking at the ball either like Pickett. At a minimum it should have been investigated. Going by the media it wasn't :help
There in lies the continuing problem with our system both the old and now the new - no consistency. Do the words "same old same old" mean anything at AFL House
-
I only saw the Riewoldt incident briefly but Hawk fans were going right off about it on the radio on Monday. Wonder if a no-name player would have got off without even a investigation?!
As for Pickett this incident was by far the worst one IMO although I agree he targets the man. The force of the hip & shoulder was straight at the head and neck of Begley who was crouched over. Luckily Begley wasn't seriously injured. God knows why Port are appealing the decision ???.
-
Haven't seen the Pickett incident, but 6 weeks sounds good to me on his past form.
They're appealing it. Is there any chance he could get more weeks in the appeal?
-
Primus knocks Byron's bump
24 February 2005 Herald Sun
Andrew Capel
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.
-
Rhys-Jones: tribunal makes game for squibs
24 February 2005 Herald Sun
Mark Stevens
DAVID Rhys-Jones – the most reported player in history – last night declared Byron Pickett's six-match ban was further proof AFL is a game full of "squibs".
The former Carlton and Sydney firebrand said victim James Begley's failure to protect himself was more dangerous than Pickett's bone-crunching bump.
Rhys-Jones said players like Begley who "lead with their heads" needed a crash-course in self-protection.
"Week in, week out they leave themselves wide open," Rhys-Jones said.
"This is where someone's going to get seriously injured. That's the danger more so than the guys running into them."
With the player attacking the ball now knowing he is safe from oncoming traffic, Rhys-Jones believes much of the courage has disappeared from the game.
"You eventually weeded the squibs out of the game in my day . . . now the game's full of squibs," he said.
"It's because they can go in with confidence knowing that no one is going to bump them.
"You can be a squib running around playing footy now."
The Rhys-Jones comments came as Port Adelaide prepared to appeal the Pickett decision on the grounds both the classification of the offence and the sanction imposed were manifestly excessive.
Appeals board chairman Peter O'Callaghan QC has agreed to a request from the club for further time to prepare. It will be heard on Wednesday.
Rhys-Jones, a Norm Smith medallist reported 25 times in 182 matches from 1980-92, said the men were soon sorted from the boys in his day.
"We had blokes running around trying to take our head off and you had to look after yourself," Rhys-Jones said.
"Years ago, you'd be licking your lips if you saw a guy wide open like that (Begley). You didn't get that many opportunities."
Rhys-Jones' former teammate Greg Williams – himself booked 19 times in a decorated 250-game career – yesterday said four weeks, rather than six, would have been a more fitting penalty for the Port Adelaide human cannonball.
"I think it's a bit much, but you've got to protect the bloke," Williams said.
Collingwood legend Peter Daicos applauded the tribunal's tough stance, as long as it remained consistent.
"It was stupidly executed . . . Byron's technique needs to be looked at," Daicos said.
"There has to be a duty of care – the first thing I thought of was the worst-case scenario."
Although Daicos said it was impossible for Adelaide's Begley to protect himself while attempting to pick up the ball, Rhys-Jones said players had to be taught to brace for knocks.
"The guys only have to move their shoulder or their body weight a fraction and they can absorb the bumps," he said.
"Now you've got a situation where guys are leading with the head."
Rhys-Jones said Troy Simmonds was guilty of leaving his head wide open in the 2000 Grand Final.
Simmonds, then with Melbourne, was knocked out by Bomber Michael Long in an incident similar to the Pickett-Begley case.
Long was suspended for four matches , two fewer than what Pickett copped on Tuesday.
Rhys-Jones, an unabashed fan of Pickett, said the reigning Norm Smith medallist was "harshly done by".
"People have been doing that and worse for many years," Rhys-Jones said.
Former AFL investigations officer Rick Lewis, who left last year under the tribunal overhaul, said the Pickett offence would have been worth 4-5 weeks last year
Excuse my ignorance, but what is a squib?
-
Excuse my ignorance, but what is a squib?
Slang for a wimp or coward.
Even in the 80s when Rhys-Jones played one of things that was taboo and cosidered cowardly was hitting a guy in the head with your hips or shoulders as he was leaning over picking up the ball. Things like that would start all-ins.
Was it Rhys-Jones who got flattened by Denis Banks in the late 80s? I think that was when Rhys got no sympathy from anyone when he got hit because he had thumped so many blokes during his footy career.
-
He should of copped more
We play Port in Round 6 !!
Could you imagine what would happen if he took out one of our kids at the Dome? The only chance he would have of leaving the ground would be via an ambulance !!!
He is a dirty dog, always taking someone out when they arent looking !! >:(
-
Ordinary bloke is Mr Pickett.
Now its been a while since he smashed his car, give him time.
-
Excellent player, stupid act and right penalty given past targeting.
-
I think all the attention he gets for being hard at it haseventually gone to his head.
What he did was very dangerous and uneccessary 6 weeks is fine by me even though I would have preferred 7 :lol
Actually I thought if you appealed the Tribunal could have added to the penalty (Which they should have) considering the futility of the exercise.
-
Actually I thought if you appealed the Tribunal could have added to the penalty (Which they should have) considering the futility of the exercise.
Was thinking that too CUB. It would have cost the Power some $$$ anyhow.