Judd incident - 3 weeks: APPEAL DISMISSED !

camel · **Posted:** Fri Sep 11, 2009 1:16 pm

TruBlueBrad wrote:

Lets be honest,

one week for putting his fingers anywhere near his face,
one week for not pleading guilty and
one week because Campbell Brown lied to the tribunal a few years ago and this is their way of getting back at Judd

Reeks of the same vindictiveness displayed in the Williams case, which led to the appeals process being created in the first place.

Zing!

AFL tribunal is :roll:

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

Mil Hanna wrote:

If you reckon that action was worth the 3 week penalty then you're the only one here that is :screwy:

If you settle down from your hysterics, and read what I have previously written, you will see that I said the action was worth 1 week.

1 week is very fair for deliberately putting your hand in someones face. If the club and Judd had of just shut up and did their jobs, it is probably what he would have got too.

Instead, Judd had to make a stupid comment about pressure points. That on it's own blew it out to two weeks.

You could argue it was a media beat up, but as soon as Judd opened his mouth and made those comments, he planted a seed of doubt into any court/tribunal about his motives. Remember, he has a history of eye gouging (even though he got off on the charge because of a lie)

Its the same philosophy about making a joke about carrying a bomb on a plane.... you just don't expect to say something like that have have no consequence about your comments.

If the club was smart, it should have been (rightly) internally pissed off, but it should have accepted the two week penalty. But no, they were dumb and decided to fight it.

The club caused the third week. They were simply never going to win the argument. They knew the consequence of loosing the tribunal hearing, and most people, while feeling two weeks was hefty, were also smart enough to realise that the tribunal was never going to drop the penalty - it simply could not be seen tacitly condoning a player placing his hands on another players face deliberately - , and that two weeks is always better than three.

Sometimes in life you have to be pragmatic. The club and Judd weren't and thus paid a price.

The action only warranted one week, but the way we played it, well I think we deserved the kick up the arse we got.

Bluey44 · **Posted:** Fri Sep 11, 2009 1:46 pm

Will be very interesting to see how the midfield stands up without him. Could either be the start of a fantastic season or a richmondesque flop

The Shag · **Posted:** Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:18 pm

can this be served during the nab cup?

camel · **Posted:** Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:42 pm

The Shag wrote:

can this be served during the nab cup?

Not that I am aware of.

DownUnderChick · **Posted:** Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:00 pm

Funny thing is, Juddy is eligible to win the Brownlow in 2010! :roll:

The Shag · **Posted:** Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:20 pm

@#$%&!.

woof · **Joined:** Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:51 am **Posts:** 4919

DownUnderChick wrote:

Funny thing is, Juddy is eligible to win the Brownlow in 2010! :roll:

Why give players that don't play finals an advantage in the following years Brownlow?

Warby · **Posted:** Fri Sep 11, 2009 4:13 pm

kkk wrote:

Warby wrote:

IMO........it all started when Cometti and his co callers said..... "Whoah.....that doesn't look good"......."reckon they'll be

looking at that afterwards"..............and they were right......I thought it looked pretty suss; and so did the kid Rich who

came in and shoved Judd out of the way.

With his previous "eye gouge" charge.....he was stuffed before he made it even worse with his airport comments.

It was so unnecessary from start to finish.......and we lost the bloody game as well........... :mad:

Commetti? It was a Ch 10 game.

Semantics.

GWS · **Posted:** Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:44 pm

I don't watch commercial TV (bar footy) and I don't read the Hun but is it just me or has anyone else noticed the relative absence of Greg Swann as the face of our administration lately?

There was a time when it seemed that anything Carlton be it an announcement or dealing with a problem we rolled out Swann and things improved.

I may just have missed it but he seems to have been somewhat absent of late.

Warby · **Posted:** Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:03 pm

GWS wrote:

I don't watch commercial TV (bar footy) and I don't read the Hun but is it just me or has anyone else noticed the relative absence of Greg Swann as the face of our administration lately?

There was a time when it seemed that anything Carlton be it an announcement or dealing with a problem we rolled out Swann and things improved.

I may just have missed it but he seems to have been somewhat absent of late.

I do know that Steven Icke has been over in Perth.......talking to players including Haselby; who has decided to stay in WA.

blueslander · **Posted:** Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:24 pm

Should have punched him in the head and got two.

What a load of shit.

Blue Boys · **Joined:** Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:35 pm **Posts:** 1234

bluechucky wrote:

Mil Hanna wrote:

If you reckon that action was worth the 3 week penalty then you're the only one here that is :screwy:

If you settle down from your hysterics, and read what I have previously written, you will see that I said the action was worth 1 week.

1 week is very fair for deliberately putting your hand in someones face. If the club and Judd had of just shut up and did their jobs, it is probably what he would have got too.

Instead, Judd had to make a stupid comment about pressure points. That on it's own blew it out to two weeks.

You could argue it was a media beat up, but as soon as Judd opened his mouth and made those comments, he planted a seed of doubt into any court/tribunal about his motives. Remember, he has a history of eye gouging (even though he got off on the charge because of a lie)

Its the same philosophy about making a joke about carrying a bomb on a plane.... you just don't expect to say something like that have have no consequence about your comments.

If the club was smart, it should have been (rightly) internally pissed off, but it should have accepted the two week penalty. But no, they were dumb and decided to fight it.

The club caused the third week. They were simply never going to win the argument. They knew the consequence of loosing the tribunal hearing, and most people, while feeling two weeks was hefty, were also smart enough to realise that the tribunal was never going to drop the penalty - it simply could not be seen tacitly condoning a player placing his hands on another players face deliberately - , and that two weeks is always better than three.

Sometimes in life you have to be pragmatic. The club and Judd weren't and thus paid a price.

The action only warranted one week, but the way we played it, well I think we deserved the kick up the arse we got.

Couldn't agree more.

Navy One · **Posted:** Sat Sep 12, 2009 1:16 am

Blue Boys wrote:

bluechucky wrote:

Mil Hanna wrote:

If you reckon that action was worth the 3 week penalty then you're the only one here that is :screwy:

If you settle down from your hysterics, and read what I have previously written, you will see that I said the action was worth 1 week.

1 week is very fair for deliberately putting your hand in someones face. If the club and Judd had of just shut up and did their jobs, it is probably what he would have got too.

Instead, Judd had to make a stupid comment about pressure points. That on it's own blew it out to two weeks.

You could argue it was a media beat up, but as soon as Judd opened his mouth and made those comments, he planted a seed of doubt into any court/tribunal about his motives. Remember, he has a history of eye gouging (even though he got off on the charge because of a lie)

Its the same philosophy about making a joke about carrying a bomb on a plane.... you just don't expect to say something like that have have no consequence about your comments.

If the club was smart, it should have been (rightly) internally pissed off, but it should have accepted the two week penalty. But no, they were dumb and decided to fight it.

The club caused the third week. They were simply never going to win the argument. They knew the consequence of loosing the tribunal hearing, and most people, while feeling two weeks was hefty, were also smart enough to realise that the tribunal was never going to drop the penalty - it simply could not be seen tacitly condoning a player placing his hands on another players face deliberately - , and that two weeks is always better than three.

Sometimes in life you have to be pragmatic. The club and Judd weren't and thus paid a price.

The action only warranted one week, but the way we played it, well I think we deserved the kick up the arse we got.

Couldn't agree more.

This whole debacle was like watching an episode of amateur hour. How can a professional club (as we like to be known) allow the media loose on their No.1 player to answer questions about that particular incident. Where a simple "no comment" would have done we're talking about "pressure points". FFS who is minding the players? Amateurs!!! Flowering amateurs.

We lose a game during the season and the coach says we're learning or we're young we'll learn from it. I can cut the playing group some slack but not the administrators. I might be naive but I honestly thought we had a lot smarter people running the club. People that would have known how to handle the Judd incident.

Synbad · **Posted:** Sat Sep 12, 2009 1:19 am

I believe what transpired ... admitting "pressure point seeking" deserved two but we added water and it grew to three....

Rexy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 15, 2008 6:46 am **Posts:** 28227

The good old aussie tall poppy syndrome is alive and kicking.

We'll cut them down no matter how much good they provide.

:rolleyes:

Big Kahuna Boot · **Posted:** Sat Sep 12, 2009 12:42 pm

..as others have said, putting your fingers/hand in another player's face is unacceptable, and deserves 1 week, even without any harm done.. ..you just can't tolerate it.. ..a 2nd week for making them all look foolish 3 years ago [brown incident], and a 3rd week cos we doubt them and try to contest a charge so loosely written it's near impossible..

..what stinks firstly is the stupidity to try the appeals system, that is weighed so heavily against you.. ..and secondly, the leniency common to much more serious/injury provoking acts of foul play.. ..that's the problem, too soft on some things, too hard on others..

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

Big Kahuna Boot wrote:

..as others have said, putting your fingers/hand in another player's face is unacceptable, and deserves 1 week, even without any harm done.. ..you just can't tolerate it.. ..a 2nd week for making them all look foolish 3 years ago [brown incident], and a 3rd week cos we doubt them and try to contest a charge so loosely written it's near impossible..

..what stinks firstly is the stupidity to try the appeals system, that is weighed so heavily against you.. ..and secondly, the leniency common to much more serious/injury provoking acts of foul play.. ..that's the problem, too soft on some things, too hard on others..

The whole tribunal/match review panel is a shambles. There is no room for common sense, ticking boxes is what it is all about. The inconsistency of penalties and the non-suspensions of some incidents beggars belief. As some have already said, had Judd punched him in the head he would have got a lighter penalty.
Everything Adrian Anderson touches turns to shite.

isdonis.george · **Posted:** Sat Sep 12, 2009 3:04 pm

Judd got three
Stings like a bee

gerry atric · **Joined:** Tue Mar 01, 2005 9:35 am **Posts:** 2125

Had Judd not tried to be a smartarse he would have got one at most. The club then went to the tribunal then appealed when neither was ever going to be successful. then Juddy comes out with another smartarse comment about Steven Seagal movies. Not a very edifying or sensible incident all the way through. Let's hope the club and player have learnt something and Juddy drops the too cool for school attitude. If he was to give an interview all he needed to do is say he was trying to restrain the player and was careful to avoid going anywhere near the eyes. May not have even been referred. because Juddy is miles ahead of anyone as a player and as a trainer, and given the lack of leaders, I wonder if anyone at the club is allowed to tell Juddy he is stupid.

Judd incident - 3 weeks: APPEAL DISMISSED !

Who is online