Chris Judd - Carlton supporters ONLY !!!!

[basil00]

reported him for being an idiot and harrassment... let the mods deal with him

me 2

 

[zeggie]

Here is the lovely Josh Hunt (actually more like a Mike HunT) bringing the game into disrepute and recieving 0 weeks.

This incident is just frustrating. $1350 fine... bet Hunt enjoyed a few celebratory drinks after that was handed down.

 

[sherb]

If you are going to let them make up the details of the offence after the fact then what are we discussing..

Should a player be allowed to deliberately stand on another players hand? No? Then write it into the rules. Hunt got no (real) penalty because the AFL could not prove he deliberately stood on Betts hand. But if all agree it was accidental and unintentional then Hunt had no case to answer.

But if you are going to allow the rules to be written, the acts to be prohibited after the fact, but allow them under other circumstances then you have to accept a catch all bullshit rule like misconduct.

I most certainly do not.

List the illegal actions, if someone finds something new to do that is not on the list, too bad, add it to the list and the next guy that does it will know, otherwise STFU and leave the game alone.

But how can you write a list of every single possible reportable offence? You can't.

And what if you tried to do so and then someone committed a reportable offence not listed? What then?

I'm sorry, but you have to have a misconduct, or similar, charge on the books.

 

[Blue since 72]

As I have been telling all and sundry, there is no such thing as intentional misconduct, you cannot be guilty of anything by intentionally doing anything that isnt specifically proscribed. So intentional misconduct is like saying involuntary laughing. Unless you specify laughing is proscribed then it does not matter whether it was intentional or unintentional (I meant to smirk your honor but chuckled by mistake ) so his state of mind when committing an act that was not proscribed before the incident and what is more is still not proscribed is totally irrelevant and so is his confession that it was reckless but not intentional.

You can however do something recklessly that is not proscribed which becomes proscribed, but the act of itself has to be proscribed. Let me give you an example. You can be charged with reckless driving even though normal driving is not proscribed, but in order to be recklessly driving it has to manifest itself in some other action that is proscribed. So if you are travelling down the road at the speed limit and indicate correctly etc and a cop pulls you over he cannot charge you with reckless driving, however if you crash into a light pole he can, and he would use reckless driving in the absence of other charges if all he had was you hit a light pole, but if you did not hit the pole you did not recklessly drive.

To transfer it back to the football act, there is no recklessness because tackling a player by the arm is not proscribed, so he could not have unintentionally acted recklessly if his action was not in and of itself proscribed. You dig?

I understand the point you have made above and ultimately I think we both arrive at the same destination;ie the AFL got it wrong, at least in terms of assessing Judd's intentions.

Unfortunately, the reality is the MRP and tribunal process take into account the player's intention when assessing a charge.

You contend his intentions are irrelevant when assessing the charge.

I contend his intentions were assessed incorrectly.

Regardless, the reality is he made a poor choice and is now paying for it.

 

[40yearBLUE]

But how can you write a list of every single possible reportable offence? You can't.

And what if you tried to do so and then someone committed a reportable offence not listed? What then?

I'm sorry, but you have to have a misconduct, or similar, charge on the books.

Why cant you list them? Its football, how long is that list going to be. Do you think they need to include bringing a machete? Or dont dig a trench in front of the goal square before time on? Come on, how hard is it to list what you cannot do?

And if somehow you miss something and someone does it, they get off but you add it to the list so that it wont ever happen again.

Its not that hard ffs. The games only been going, what 140 years. And they cant in all that time compile a list of what you cannot do? Please. Get real.

 

[Sweet16]

I just had a look on the main board and it's pretty obvious that death by firing squad would have been a more appropriate penalty by Big Footy logic!!!

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

But how can you write a list of every single possible reportable offence? You can't.

And what if you tried to do so and then someone committed a reportable offence not listed? What then?

I'm sorry, but you have to have a misconduct, or similar, charge on the books.

I agree that you have to have a miscellaneous category. However it is a bit hard for such a weird, not particularly aggressive type of incident, to judge high impact and intentional conduct. You intentionally did something that nobody has ever done before and had no precedent for knowing it would go wrong, cause injury and get you reported. So you are punished for intent for something that has yet to be made an illegal action.

Again, if you grab an opponent by the back of the had and repetitively bash his head into the fence, it is probably not a prescribed illegal action but then you probably know injury is going to occur so your intent is obvious.

I'm the goose who, just now, laid on the floor and thrust my right arm back and up as far as I could. I easily achieved the angle that Adams' arm did, with not the slightest bit of discomfort. It basically renders you useless but it causes your right shoulder to rise off the ground. The problem is that the lifting of the right shoulder also raises the upper back by a couple of millimetres. In this case, Carrazzo's weight would have made the natural raising of the shoulder more difficult and thus an action that normally would do no more than restrict Adams, caused straining.

Not sure why this wasn't done before actually. The claim is that Judd intended to hurt Adams by doing something that I can do without any pain or discomfort, including rotating and twisting the arm and wrist and shoulder joint. The reality is that Carrazzo's presence would have caused straining and the North players pushing Judd would have suddenly changed the angle to an unnatural one. Judd created the situation but that action alone did not cause any injury. Try it. (Unless I have abnormal shoulder/elbow joints of course)

 

[40yearBLUE]

I understand the point you have made above and ultimately I think we both arrive at the same destination;ie the AFL got it wrong, at least in terms of assessing Judd's intentions.

Unfortunately, the reality is the MRP and tribunal process take into account the player's intention when assessing a charge.

You contend his intentions are irrelevant when assessing the charge.

I contend his intentions were assessed incorrectly.

Regardless, the reality is he made a poor choice and is now paying for it.

I made a poor choice for dinner last night, had wind all day today. Does that mean I ought to be suspended? If the rules say you cant eat baked beans on a Tuesday for sure, if they dont mention baked beans, let alone what days you cant eat them, then play on. Its a joke. What I find so disconcerting is that not many people are picking up on the fact that no rule has been broken but they are happy for the penalty to stand because they did not like the look of it, and perhaps they are annoyed it got by the rules committee so in order to assuage that they are content for a catch all unarticulated rule to be used to make something we dont like the look of retrospectively illegal.

 

[Stig O'Hara]

I have read my post again. What word between I an illegal did you find hard to understand? Was it "the"?

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

Too me, you type a load of self-indulgent bollocks.

Maybe your rants weren't good enough to meet the presses back in the day.

Who know's.

 

[sherb]

Why cant you list them? Its football, how long is that list going to be. Do you think they need to include bringing a machete? Or dont dig a trench in front of the goal square before time on? Come on, how hard is it to list what you cannot do?

And if somehow you miss something and someone does it, they get off but you add it to the list so that it wont ever happen again.

Its not that hard ffs. The games only been going, what 140 years. And they cant in all that time compile a list of what you cannot do? Please. Get real.

I understand you are fired up about this and aren't the sort of person who will change your view anyway.

However, I repeat - it simply isn't possible or practical to list every possible indiscretion.

And do you really want things like digital penetration or biting an opponents genitals listed as an offence? Really?

And using your theory ("let them off") if someone commits an offence not listed, that would mean a potentially serious offence gets off scott free as a one off freebie.

I'll bet you wouldn't be happy if it were the Carlton player on the receiving end.

Not with you on this one, sorry.

 

[dumb]

Dude, every post you post to this you have ceded ground. Now you accept that no rule was broken. And it follows therefore that if no rule was broken, then not guilty and no penalty should be the outcome. (You can say you dont like what he did at the tribunal, but because it was not against the rules at the time, you cannot find him guilty of anything and cannot give him any penalty. That there was a penalty is as obnoxious to right thinking people as it is unjust, laughable and downright stupid. It of itself brings the game into far greater disrepute, that no-one in the media has picked up on this just highlights how much most footballers, fans, administrators and the media are cut from the same cloth.

Judd did not do anything wrong because as of the moment he did the act in question it was not against the rules. If the rules committee want to make it against the rules, go for it, enact it, let everybody know about it, and proscribe it. Clearly and unambiguously. Then once enacted, the next player that does it, is breaking the rules, hand down the prescribed penalty for that act, dont make one up depending on how bad you think it looks, it must be known to everyone before the act not during and after.

What is so difficult for you to follow from the simplified examples I have littered my discourse with. Like I asked you last post, do you think we ought to round up every drinker pre 1920 and if they are still alive ship em off to jail because in the 20's it became illegal? I mean wrong is wrong, right? Of course not. It is not wrong until we all agree it is. We call laws that they attempt to enact to make something illegal after the act, retrospective laws. They rarely if ever pass. Why? Because it simply isnt fair to charge someone with doing something that is not banned. Once we make that decision then it is banned and you get what you deserve when you transgress, until then, no crime has been committed.

he was charged with misconduct. and i said i was ok with a suspension in regards to that. clearly i don't care if it's a 'pre-determined' rule or not. i don't see how not being a defined rule or crime, should excuse someone from 'misconduct'. are you trying to say people aren't capable of 'misconduct'? or does the word itself simply exist for no reason? this is why i dreaded a ridiculous semantics debate. do you think it would have worked as a defence if you were judd's QC? unfortunately you would have been asked to explain judd's actions, and a discourse on what misconduct is or is not, while very pretty, would have been entirely ineffectual. and so it is with semantics debates... all definition and no practicality.

 

[40yearBLUE]

I understand you are fired up about this and aren't the sort of person who will change your view anyway.

However, I repeat - it simply isn't possible or practical to list every possible indiscretion.

And do you really want things like digital penetration or biting an opponents genitals listed as an offence? Really?

And using your theory ("let them off") if someone commits an offence not listed, that would mean a potentially serious offence gets off scott free as a one off freebie.

I'll bet you wouldn't be happy if it were the Carlton player on the receiving end.

Not with you on this one, sorry.

Yes of course I want them listed. There can be no misunderstanding when the rules are spelled out. We have grey areas where they are not, whether in football or life. But where there is no ambiguity there is no confusion or even debate about the penalty, the only debate then is if the action ought to be proscribed. Its not hard. List them, then there is no debate, but you cannot make the rules up as you go along. No matter how bad the action looks, if you missed listing it as not allowed, list it. Otherwise play on. Its not a freebie, it is not an offence until you ban it.

What is so hard for you to understand about that.

Have you read the entire thread? Perhaps not, (same applies to you Stig, if you want to know what we are discussing read the thread, otherwise why make yourself look stupid) but I find it rather annoying to have to repeat points just because readers are too lazy to read, but still want full participation rights in the argument. Nevertheless I dont make the rules around here, but if I did I would find a way to fine you, even though I never mentioned fines would be levied for certain actions........

In the 1920's booze was outlawed. If you got caught drinking in an illegal booze joint you were charged with an offence. Fair enough. Everyone knew the rules, so rule breakers were breaking the rules that were explicit (a law to be legal must be gazetted, that means published so all that want to know can find out what is in the law) and got treated accordingly. But do you think they ought to have persued people who prior to prohibition enjoyed a drink, in other words fining people for retrospectively breaking a law even though at the time of the action it was not an illegal action?

If not, then how can you condone the AFL creating a catch all rule in order to cover things they missed when writing the actual rules, in order to penalise people for doing things they did not list as being illegal, in fact, next week players are free to tackle each other by grabbing their wrists, and they wont be sanctioned, unless there is some kind of public outcry, then, they may invoke the same catchall rule that doesnt specify what it is that it intends to stop you doing. But if they decide they dont like the look of something, look out!

 

[Claypigeon]

Can we at least stop calling it a chicken wing tackle. .. A chicken wing is what the police do to rough, I mean incapacitate, you when they are hand cuffing you, it involves bending the elbow and the arm up the back. .. Hence it looks like a chicken wing. .. At worst he hyper extended the arm with the help of Carrazzo's tackle. .. Deserved to be reported because he should have had the sense to let the arm go but didn't deserve 4wks and the hype. ..

 

[40yearBLUE]

he was charged with misconduct. and i said i was ok with a suspension in regards to that. clearly i don't care if it's a 'pre-determined' rule or not. i don't see how not being a defined rule or crime, should excuse someone from 'misconduct'. are you trying to say people aren't capable of 'misconduct'? or does the word itself simply exist for no reason? this is why i dreaded a ridiculous semantics debate. do you think it would have worked as a defence if you were judd's QC? unfortunately you would have been asked to explain judd's actions, and a discourse on what misconduct is or is not, while very pretty, would have been entirely ineffectual. and so it is with semantics debates... all definition and no practicality.

There is no such thing as misconduct. A specific action can be described as constituting misconduct but misconduct alone is not any kind of offence. The problem the AFL have, is that they dont specify what if anything constitutes misconduct. What if they decide tomorrow they dont like players that spit. And decide to come down on it hard by giving players suspension, problem is, they decide this on Monday morning and go thought the tapes and bring players up on charges from the previous weekends games? What then? It is the same thing. Because in some circles spitting is abhorrent. Try doing it on a constables shiny blacks and see how you fare. But on the footy field we tolerate it, until someone doesnt and retrospectively calls it misconduct.

What a can of worms you are willing to have opened.

 

[dumb]

There is no such thing as misconduct. A specific action can be described as constituting misconduct but misconduct alone is not any kind of offence. The problem the AFL have, is that they dont specify what if anything constitutes misconduct. What if they decide tomorrow they dont like players that spit. And decide to come down on it hard by giving players suspension, problem is, they decide this on Monday morning and go thought the tapes and bring players up on charges from the previous weekends games? What then? It is the same thing. Because in some circles spitting is abhorrent. Try doing it on a constables shiny blacks and see how you fare. But on the footy field we tolerate it, until someone doesnt and retrospectively calls it misconduct.

What a can of worms you are willing to have opened.

i guess that's two cans of worms then? one for my 'misconduct', and another one for your 'first time free pass'. i think i'd prefer misconduct hanging over their heads so they at least attempt to do the right thing, instead of the players knowing they'll get off if they can come up with something not in your long list of rules.

 

[sherb]

Yes of course I want them listed. There can be no misunderstanding when the rules are spelled out. We have grey areas where they are not, whether in football or life. But where there is no ambiguity there is no confusion or even debate about the penalty, the only debate then is if the action ought to be proscribed. Its not hard. List them, then there is no debate, but you cannot make the rules up as you go along. No matter how bad the action looks, if you missed listing it as not allowed, list it. Otherwise play on. Its not a freebie, it is not an offence until you ban it.

What is so hard for you to understand about that.

Have you read the entire thread? Perhaps not, (same applies to you Stig, if you want to know what we are discussing read the thread, otherwise why make yourself look stupid) but I find it rather annoying to have to repeat points just because readers are too lazy to read, but still want full participation rights in the argument. Nevertheless I dont make the rules around here, but if I did I would find a way to fine you, even though I never mentioned fines would be levied for certain actions........

In the 1920's booze was outlawed. If you got caught drinking in an illegal booze joint you were charged with an offence. Fair enough. Everyone knew the rules, so rule breakers were breaking the rules that were explicit (a law to be legal must be gazetted, that means published so all that want to know can find out what is in the law) and got treated accordingly. But do you think they ought to have persued people who prior to prohibition enjoyed a drink, in other words fining people for retrospectively breaking a law even though at the time of the action it was not an illegal action?

If not, then how can you condone the AFL creating a catch all rule in order to cover things they missed when writing the actual rules, in order to penalise people for doing things they did not list as being illegal, in fact, next week players are free to tackle each other by grabbing their wrists, and they wont be sanctioned, unless there is some kind of public outcry, then, they may invoke the same catchall rule that doesnt specify what it is that it intends to stop you doing. But if they decide they dont like the look of something, look out!

We'll just have to disagree.

No need for the bolded, but clearly you aren't capable of any better.

 

[Stig O'Hara]

Have you read the entire thread? Perhaps not, (same applies to you Stig, if you want to know what we are discussing read the thread, otherwise why make yourself look stupid) but I find it rather annoying to have to repeat points just because readers are too lazy to read, but still want full participation rights in the argument. Nevertheless I dont make the rules around here, but if I did I would find a way to fine you, even though I never mentioned fines would be levied for certain actions........

You seem to be standing on a hill waving a shirt.

By God, you carry on, 40yb.

 

[sherb]

i guess that's two cans of worms then? one for my 'misconduct', and another one for your 'first time free pass'. i think i'd prefer misconduct hanging over their heads so they at least attempt to do the write thing, instead of the players knowing they'll get off if they can come up with something not in your long list of rules.

Whether he likes it or not, there has to be a general misconduct charge. You can't foresee everything.

And then to offer a one off free pass for an offence not listed is ludicrous. You can't get away with a potentially serious offence just because the rule makers aren't clairvoyants.

 

[40yearBLUE]

i guess that's two cans of worms then? one for my 'misconduct', and another one for your 'first time free pass'. i think i'd prefer misconduct hanging over their heads so they at least attempt to do the write thing, instead of the players knowing they'll get off if they can come up with something not in your long list of rules.

For about the hundredth time there is no free pass on breaking a law that does not yet exist. Anyone that does whatever it is that becomes illegal, is not doing anything illegal until it is called illegal. So its not a free pass at all. A free pass is giving the first few people caught a free pass, and sometimes we have moratorium periods, fair enough if you agree with moratoriums, I dont.

You cannot retrospectively call something illegal because otherwise anything someone else doesnt like could land people in trouble even though it wasnt illegal when they did it, how is that in any way fair, or hard to understand. So how about we knock off this concept of a free pass.

If we dont like what Judd did, make it against the rules. Remember the Hawks players that deliberately rushed behinds. They were not paid free kicks on the goal line against because what they did was not against the rules at the time they did it. Imagine if the umpires got a call from Vlad mid game and they started paying them without telling anyone beforehand. That is effectively what they did to Judd. They made what he did against the rules temporarily, after he did it, but no mention of it before hand so he could decide that if I do that I am breaking a rule. Just bizarre that anyone could defend such a course of action.

 

[dumb]

oh but you can foresee everything. except terrible late night spelling mistakes

or maybe i should just expect those, like i should expect the game to collapse one day given that we've been on the dangerous path of misconduct for who knows how many years...

 

[40yearBLUE]

You seem to be standing on a hill waving a shirt.

By God, you carry on, 40yb.

Is that the best you;ve got Stig? I have been insulted by way better interlocutors than that. If you have something intelligent to offer the debate, why not offer it. Otherwise I think it fair to ask, what is your point?

 

[40yearBLUE]

oh but you can foresee everything. except terrible late night spelling mistakes

or maybe i should just expect those, like i should expect the game to collapse one day given that we've been on the dangerous path of misconduct for who knows how many years...

Well one thing is sure, we are on a dangerous path to the Supreme court, what has baffled me is that the AFL has people so bluffed that they have not challenged it in the courts. But there are so many areas that AFL's so called rules breach Laws of the land and natural justice that I am staggered no one has. But I can assure you, moment they do, the AFL will have itself a serious problem. Swiss cheese has less holes in it.

(and I was given the impression that pointing out posters spelling mistakes was not considered de rigueur, if I am mistaken I am happy to avial myself of the frequent misuse of his for he's, their and there, etc etc. just say the word brother).

 

[dumb]

For about the hundredth time there is no free pass on breaking a law that does not yet exist. Anyone that does whatever it is that becomes illegal, is not doing anything illegal until it is called illegal. So its not a free pass at all. A free pass is giving the first few people caught a free pass, and sometimes we have moratorium periods, fair enough if you agree with moratoriums, I dont.

You cannot retrospectively call something illegal because otherwise anything someone else doesnt like could land people in trouble even though it wasnt illegal when they did it, how is that in any way fair, or hard to understand. So how about we knock off this concept of a free pass.

If we dont like what Judd did, make it against the rules. Remember the Hawks players that deliberately rushed behinds. They were not paid free kicks on the goal line against because what they did was not against the rules at the time they did it. Imagine if the umpires got a call from Vlad mid game and they started paying them without telling anyone beforehand. That is effectively what they did to Judd. They made what he did against the rules temporarily, after he did it, but no mention of it before hand so he could decide that if I do that I am breaking a rule. Just bizarre that anyone could defend such a course of action.

which player is going to pull their shorts down for me, to illustrate how ridiculous your stance is? is this in the rules? i don't think so. are you saying it should happen? no, but you're saying it's ok.

 

[40yearBLUE]

which player is going to pull their shorts down for me, to illustrate how ridiculous your stance is? is this in the rules? i don't think so. are you saying it should happen? no, but you're saying it's ok.

You are going to have to expand on this. Are you saying it ought to be an offence to pull your own shorts down. What say for example the physio wants to spray something on your groin, is it ok to pull your own shorts down then?

Or are you saying a player ought not be allowed to pull another players shorts down? If so, make it a rule. What possible justification could there be for one player to deliberately (not accidently in the course of an otherwise legal tackle) pull another player shorts down. So why not write the rule down? What is the problem with having the rules clear?

 

[dumb]

You are going to have to expand on this. Are you saying it ought to be an offence to pull your own shorts down. What say for example the physio wants to spray something on your groin, is it ok to pull your own shorts down then?

Or are you saying a player ought not be allowed to pull another players shorts down? If so, make it a rule. What possible justification could there be for one player to deliberately (not accidently in the course of an otherwise legal tackle) pull another player shorts down. So why not write the rule down? What is the problem with having the rules clear?

why do i need to expand on it? either it's illegal or not, isn't it?