Judd incident - 3 weeks: APPEAL DISMISSED !

Big Kahuna Boot · **Posted:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:48 am

TheGame wrote:

What Judd said was stupid but if the tribunal wants to be consistent they need to hand out consistent penalties. Whatever Judd was trying to do didn't end up being very much.

..problem is that they're woefully inconsistent.. ..and players can't count on copping the penalty another player did for a similar offence..

TheBluesMuse · **Joined:** Tue Oct 18, 2005 9:27 pm **Posts:** 5270

Big Kahuna Boot wrote:

..i think some of us are getting too precious, it's as if Juddles can do no wrong, and some ppl think us as a club, are infallible.. ..truth is, very very few of us actually know Juddles personally, and ergo, we've no idea if it's actually 'out of character' for him or not..

I get that.....it's quite sad really...that the bulk of supporters can be so presumptuous when in fact we don't know these guys from a bar of soap...

Allthough I reckon judd is a bit more dorky after this incident :lol:

DownUnderChick · **Posted:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:17 am

http://www.carltonfc.com.au/tabid/4311/default.aspx?newsid=84378

camel · **Posted:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:32 am

This will be interesting. I guess the risk of 3 weeks over 2, is probably worth taking. Curious to see how hard the meedyah runs with this one.

BlueMark · **Posted:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:35 am

Well given that SEN spent all day yesterday trying to cruicfy him, I think we know how it will go.

kernafides · **Joined:** Tue Mar 01, 2005 7:59 am **Posts:** 173

We must be still drunk from Mad Monday...interested to see our argument

Murphy4me · **Posted:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:36 am

Oh dear - possible 1st 3 games of next season without our best player - I hope they have a great defence...

marciblue · **Posted:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:36 am

OMG, our football club has gone mad! :screwy:

Judd was stupid in opening his gob, and the club even dumber for challenging it. How can you defend such an open-ended charge like uneccessary and unreasonable contact to the face? You cant! :hitcomputer:

Looks like we wont have CJ for the 1st three round next year!!! Idiots!!! :banghead:

camel · **Posted:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:37 am

BlueMark wrote:

Well given that SEN spent all day yesterday trying to cruicfy him, I think we know how it will go.

I was raised a Catholic, therefore I am an expert on crucifixion. SEN could have killed Chris Judd. :donk:

Wojee · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:17 am **Posts:** 35135

They'll fight it on technical grounds IMO. He was suspended for unneccessary contact to the face so the club just needs to argue that the facial contact was incidental while Juddy attempted to apply his five point palm exploding heart technique.

bluegirl72 · **Joined:** Sat May 23, 2009 8:30 pm **Posts:** 23924

TheBluesMuse wrote:

Big Kahuna Boot wrote:

..i think some of us are getting too precious, it's as if Juddles can do no wrong, and some ppl think us as a club, are infallible.. ..truth is, very very few of us actually know Juddles personally, and ergo, we've no idea if it's actually 'out of character' for him or not..

I get that.....it's quite sad really...that the bulk of supporters can be so presumptuous when in fact we don't know these guys from a bar of soap...

Allthough I reckon judd is a bit more dorky after this incident :lol:

Yeah....us Dungeons and Dragons type can be a bit sneaky.... :lol:

bluechucky · **Joined:** Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:29 am **Posts:** 13689

Wojee wrote:

They'll fight it on technical grounds IMO. He was suspended for unneccessary contact to the face so the club just needs to argue that the facial contact was incidental while Juddy attempted to apply his five point palm exploding heart technique.

[youtube]-7Xk2oTDev4[/youtube]

Navy Blue Horse · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:39 pm **Posts:** 15848

3 VS 2 is neither here nor there IMO.

@#$%&! I hope he gets off, the shit I'm copping will be returned ten fold.

BlueMark · **Posted:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:05 pm

Navy Blue Horse wrote:

3 VS 2 is neither here nor there IMO.

!@#$%& I hope he gets off, the shit I'm copping will be returned ten fold.

Same

kezza · **Joined:** Thu May 11, 2006 6:11 pm **Posts:** 15017

Pretty risky, may try to get it downgraded to reckless. This may be difficult after his stupid comment. Hope they are not relying on Brisbane for any support, apparently they were seething.

ryan2000 · **Posted:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:19 pm

Oh god.

You know what............. i think he's as good as gone because of his admitance to it! What is our argument going to be?

So, no Judd till round 4. Great start to the season! :banghead:

titimus · **Joined:** Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:06 pm **Posts:** 939

Wojee wrote:

They'll fight it on technical grounds IMO. He was suspended for unneccessary contact to the face so the club just needs to argue that the facial contact was incidental while Juddy attempted to apply his five point palm exploding heart technique.

Virgin Blue · **Joined:** Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:32 pm **Posts:** 3021

Ear is one the side of the head, not on the face???

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/face

Quote:

The surface of the front of the head from the top of the forehead to the base of the chin and from ear to ear.

Can't see him getting off this.

Only way to get off is above or arguing the player wasn't affected. If a player hits another player in the head but it is a pussy punch and the player hardly feels a thing, does he still get rubbed out?

Blues21 · **Posted:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:49 pm

I suppose a headbutt by Carr (1 week) and a clear punch to Franklin's head by a tiger (no report) are both reasonable contact to the head. It is a joke that they can meat out 3 weeks for this and give a headbutt 1 week.

CK95 · **Posted:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:51 pm

ryan2000 wrote:

Oh god.

You know what............. i think he's as good as gone because of his admitance to it!

Agree it was a stupid comment but I'm wondering, can/will the tribunal actually take into accout a comment made to the press, a day after the event? Has that ever been factored into a decision before?

Judd incident - 3 weeks: APPEAL DISMISSED !

Who is online