Judd alleged sling tackle

missnaut · **Posted:** Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:18 pm

GodisNavyBlue wrote:

The big paper is getting just as bad as the little paper....

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/behaviour-less-rash-before-finals-dash-20110904-1jshs.html

Their predictions:

Milne - Not cited "insufficient impact" - are they saying AJ was acting FFS
Polo - Not cited "insufficient impact, While it initially appeared Polo had struck Murphy in the groin, which would have attracted significant MRP attention despite the lack of force, subsequent replays indicated the contact was to Murphy's kidney" - so a kidney punch is apparently okay

Yeah but there's no way anyone is going to get rubbed out for the finals for shit like that.

Sydney Blue · **Posted:** Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:31 pm

Not looked at free to play

Michael Jezz · **Joined:** Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:52 pm **Posts:** 2044

The Essendon* media mafia at it again. Another nice try from a low rent mob

Kaptain Kouta · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:41 pm **Posts:** 63509

seanpb wrote:

I find the defendant, Mark Robinson, not guilty of one-eyed bias.

But guilty on associated charges of being a slimy flower, News Limited creator of stories (you can't really use the term 'journalist' or 'reporter' for most of what they do), and Essendon* supporter.

chubbyruss · **Joined:** Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:59 am **Posts:** 8607

From that shit-pot rag called The Herald Sun

Quote:

And skipper Chris Judd is in the clear for a rough tackle on Saint Sam Gilbert.

Quote:

[A FIVE-year clean record helped St Kilda forward Stephen Milne escape what would have been a costly suspension today.
ilne can play Saturday night’s elimination final against Sydney after the demerit points discount for the good behaviour allowed him to accept a reprimand for striking Carlton opponent Aaron Joseph.

Joseph was hit with a $900 fine for misconduct after he stood on Milne’s hand which prompted a later clash in the third quarter when the little Saint was cited on video.

St Kilda’s Dean Polo and Carlton’s Mitch Robinson were cleared after the AFL match review panel checked separate incidents from last Saturday night’s game at the MCG.

The panel decided Polo’s contact with Blue Marc Murphy was below the force required to be a striking offence. And it deemed Robinson’s bump on Saint Clint Jones also wasn’t sufficient forced to be reportable.

jimmae · **Posted:** Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:18 pm

How the @#$%&! does he have a 5-year clean record. How the @#$%&! does he have an event management company for that matter.

Wojee · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:17 am **Posts:** 34030

jimmae wrote:

How the !@#$%& does he have a 5-year clean record.

They only take into account on-field indiscretions.

camel · **Posted:** Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:23 pm

Kaptain Kouta wrote:

seanpb wrote:

I find the defendant, Mark Robinson, not guilty of one-eyed bias.

But guilty on associated charges of being a slimy flower, News Limited creator of stories (you can't really use the term 'journalist' or 'reporter' for most of what they do), and Essendon* supporter.

He's not bad on AFL 360, to be honest. And says some okay things about us at times and is not afraid to rip into Essington.

buzzaaaah · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:31 am **Posts:** 17885

I ususally don't mind robbo but to bring up an accusation without watching any video of teh incident based on a tweet of a Essendon* twit is unprofessional.
He works for Ch 7. Couldn't he have asked them before the program to find the footage and watch it before he opens his gob.

seanpb · **Posted:** Mon Sep 05, 2011 5:13 pm

buzzaaaah wrote:

I ususally don't mind robbo but to bring up an accusation without watching any video of teh incident based on a tweet of a Essendon* twit is unprofessional.
He works for Ch 7. Couldn't he have asked them before the program to find the footage and watch it before he opens his gob.

I think we need to get over it, we're starting to sound like the Essendon* morons who wanted Judd suspended.

Robinson was reacting to a frenzy online. He mentioned it and disregarded it.

Hornet · **Joined:** Sat May 21, 2005 5:15 pm **Posts:** 6848

seanpb wrote:

buzzaaaah wrote:

I ususally don't mind robbo but to bring up an accusation without watching any video of teh incident based on a tweet of a Essendon* twit is unprofessional.
He works for Ch 7. Couldn't he have asked them before the program to find the footage and watch it before he opens his gob.

I think we need to get over it, we're starting to sound like the Essendon* morons who wanted Judd suspended.

Robinson was reacting to a frenzy online. He mentioned it and disregarded it.

Exactly...

Let's not waste any more energy on this.

chubbyruss · **Joined:** Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:59 am **Posts:** 8607

Little snippet in todays Age:

Quote:

There was speculation about a tackle that Carlton captain Chris Judd laid on Sam Gilbert. But the incident was so innocuous that it did not even feature in the league's weekly tribunal emailRead more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/m ... z1X7iuSJjx

Cop that Mark Robinson you poor excuse for a jounalist.

Why don't you do some research before you write such drivell :?:

But instead you get tweets from your biased scum supporting mates & act on that

Hope the HUN suffers the same fate as their cousins in the UK, News of the World

cauliflower

Stone Free · **Posted:** Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:39 am

If I had the money I would gladly donate to the "AJ Stepped on the Tiprat's Hand" fund. Money well spent. How much for an elbow to the lower jaw?

teknodeejay · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:30 pm **Posts:** 2897

Quote:

RED-HOT Brownlow Medal favourite Chris Judd has been cleared of a dangerous sling tackle by the AFL's match review panel.

The panel was expected to scrutinise a tackle by the Blues skipper on St Kilda's Sam Gilbert at the MCG on Saturday night.

But in the weekly media release from the AFL, the tackle - which seemed legitimate - was not even listed as an incident assessed by the panel during their review of the weekend's matches.

No action was taken after the tackle in the second quarter, Gilbert immediately got to his feet and played out the game, and no player remonstrated with Judd.

The incident was replayed on Channel 7 yesterday after it became the talk of social media networks.

But Judd's tackle wasn't the banned two-motions variety and Gilbert's head didn't hit the turf.

into the HUN translator...

Chris Judd, who some bookies have bizarrely paid out on to win this year's Brownlow Medal, has been amazingly been cleared of an extremely dangerous sling tackle by the AFL's match review panel.

The panel was expected to reprimand or suspend the Blues' highest paid player for a tackle on 2010 Grand Finalist Sam Gilbert of St Kilda.

But in a case reminiscent of Judd being cleared over his deliberate elbow to the face of Matthew Pavlich, which allowed him to steal the Brownlow Medal from Dane Swan in 2010, he is free to steal this year's medal as well as face up against James Hird's extremely brave Essendon* outfit this weekend.

No action was taken after the tackle in the second quarter, even though Gilbert got to his feet and ran in the wrong direction for a few seconds, as if shaken by such a reckless act.

The incident was replayed on Channel 7, and expert testimony from social media sites such as twitter and Mark Robinson were submitted as evidence on the callousness of the tackle.

The AFL did not return calls to the Herald Sun yesterday when asked whether there was an inconsistency in dealing with Chris Judd as opposed to other AFL footballers.

Kaptain Kouta · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:41 pm **Posts:** 63509

teknodeejay wrote:

Quote:

RED-HOT Brownlow Medal favourite Chris Judd has been cleared of a dangerous sling tackle by the AFL's match review panel.

The panel was expected to scrutinise a tackle by the Blues skipper on St Kilda's Sam Gilbert at the MCG on Saturday night.

But in the weekly media release from the AFL, the tackle - which seemed legitimate - was not even listed as an incident assessed by the panel during their review of the weekend's matches.

No action was taken after the tackle in the second quarter, Gilbert immediately got to his feet and played out the game, and no player remonstrated with Judd.

The incident was replayed on Channel 7 yesterday after it became the talk of social media networks.

But Judd's tackle wasn't the banned two-motions variety and Gilbert's head didn't hit the turf.

into the HUN translator...

Chris Judd, who some bookies have bizarrely paid out on to win this year's Brownlow Medal, has been amazingly been cleared of an extremely dangerous sling tackle by the AFL's match review panel.

The panel was expected to reprimand or suspend the Blues' highest paid player for a tackle on 2010 Grand Finalist Sam Gilbert of St Kilda.

But in a case reminiscent of Judd being cleared over his deliberate elbow to the face of Matthew Pavlich, which allowed him to steal the Brownlow Medal from Dane Swan in 2010, he is free to steal this year's medal as well as face up against James Hird's extremely brave Essendon* outfit this weekend.

No action was taken after the tackle in the second quarter, even though Gilbert got to his feet and ran in the wrong direction for a few seconds, as if shaken by such a reckless act.

The incident was replayed on Channel 7, and expert testimony from social media sites such as twitter and Mark Robinson were submitted as evidence on the callousness of the tackle.

The AFL did not return calls to the Herald Sun yesterday when asked whether there was an inconsistency in dealing with Chris Judd as opposed to other AFL footballers.

Which means that Judd wasn't cleared, because he didn't do anything which needed to be assessed, let alone him needing to be cleared of anything.

Wojee · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:17 am **Posts:** 34030

Kaptain Kouta wrote:

Which means that Judd wasn't cleared, because he didn't do anything which needed to be assessed, let alone him needing to be cleared of anything.

I've been cleared of the assassination of JFK.

jimmae · **Posted:** Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:23 pm

teknodeejay · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:30 pm **Posts:** 2897

Wojee wrote:

Kaptain Kouta wrote:

Which means that Judd wasn't cleared, because he didn't do anything which needed to be assessed, let alone him needing to be cleared of anything.

I've been cleared of the assassination of JFK.

You were standing behind the man behind the bushes on the grassy knoll?

Bluey44 · **Posted:** Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:24 pm

What about the booze cruise?
That's what started it all.

Judd alleged sling tackle

Who is online