Chris Judd - The Crime and the Punishment - 4 Weeks

[Pedro59]

Except that this contradicts the evidence Judd himself gave. His intention was to prevent the player handballing. He also stated that the reason the arm got bent upwards was not because he was pulling it away from the body, but that the boudy was being pulled away from him. The video evidence contradicts this.
If judd was dragged off the body holding the arm , it may indeed have felt at the time the body was instead dragged from him holding the arm.Surely judds defence advice would have reviewed the video evidence before the tribunal appearance and not been dumb enough to run with a story easily contradicted by video and don't players grab one arm all the time to stop a handball




Perhaps the other players action contributed to the damage, however from their reaction it suggests they were aware this was already a painful action, possibly from hearing the player cry out.
Pain will come well and truly before any sort of injury or dislocation eg pinch yourself and create pain but where is the injury?




So what you're arguing, is that if Judd hadn't have done it in a way which caused the player discomfort, pain and injury, he wouldn't have been charged and there wouldn't have been a 'media circus'? Wow, that's genius.
My point was that if Judd had done exactly what he had but the opponent was on his back instead of front no injury would have occurred and I am trying to point out that IMO it was not an intent to injure and obviously no injury no media circus



I don't buy the whole 'Judd is a dog etc.' rubbish either. However, his explanation of how this occurred doesn't match up with the video evidence, and I think that is damning.
Fair enough but see above -surely no one is dumb enough to go to trial with knowledge that the video will show him being pulled away from the body and not the body being pulled away from him and at the time it may very well have felt like the body was being pulled away from him and this was what he was alluding to.

 

[dumb]

There's twats at every club. He simply stated that you are a twat, regardless of what club you support. Capiche?

well i got that bit. but i have to say it's not really filling me with confidence that carlton supporters can come in here innocently without being called a twat... comprende?

 

[Noidenous]

well i got that bit. but i have to say it's not really filling me with confidence that carlton supporters can come in here innocently without being called a twat... comprende?

They have when posting something that isn't slack-jawed gibberish about how 'everyone just hates Judd/Carlton, including the AFL' blah, blah, blah. Vu?

 

[Chief]

You are a twat is what you are I mentioned sycophants - that's plural - when calling someone a name you need to make it singular of identify the target person by name - neither of which I have done. Take it to the sook board for heaven's sake.

If there's one thing we don't like to see it is personal insults. End of story.

 

[Chief]

There's twats at every club. He simply stated that you are a twat, regardless of what club you support. Capiche?

Carrying this on will just score you another break from BigFooty. Kapieren?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

No the damage was an accident he was simply trying to pull him off

"stop taking what ever you are consuming".............nice

You are completely delusional.

He was forcing the arm up behind the back. If he were trying to pull him off he would have pulled backwards, not stood over him and gone "Hmm, here's my opponent's arm poking out. My teammate is pinning him to the ground so why don't I... hmm, here we go, I've got his arm, now instead of pulling back on it, putting my own back into the motion, why don't I just lift it straight up... yep, here we go.. and see how far I can go before I feel something give in that complicated system of bones and muscles that make up the human shoulder"

The only time he pulls it back is at the end because the North players shoved him over and he was still holding on to Adams' arm.

 

[Pie eyed]

Someone change the thread title please.
It makes me nauseous reading it.
OP must be under medication.

 

[tigers_of_old_08]

Conveniently ignoring the mitigating factor of Carazzo on top of Adams back, pinning him down and completely changing the physics of the situation as you describe it?

Stop trying to baffle a jujitsu instructor of 20 odd years experience with science!

 

[GreatBradScott]

Stop trying to baffle a jujitsu instructor of 20 odd years experience with science!

 

[tonk]

What they do or don't call it is irrelevant. Thus this thread is irrelevant.

Exactly..........Judd got his right whack.

 

[wcesam]

Didn't read the thread.. but I wasn't aware that Judd was convicted of 'misconduct involving jujitsu'?

They so should have used you as an expert witness Pedro!

 

[Righteo]

What a joke people questioning CJ's character, joke, if you have watched enough of Judd over the past 5 years as I have week in and out live you will see that he is the most negated player in the history of the game, he is mauled at every stoppage and if there was a rule for all and not one for Judd you'll realise that he should by the letter of the rule book get a free kick for intereference and or holding every time there is a bounce!....all good players get tagged that is true...none to the level of Judd and that's a fact...he's done well to lose his cool 2 or 3 times in his career in my opinion, he's that heavily watched by the opposition on the field i'd doubt he'd enjoy playing much!

Stephen Hill will probably become the dirtiest player in the comp soon then considering he's been tagged from his first year. I think it's the character of Carlton supporters that needs to come into question for blindly defending someone like Chris Judd.

 

[Righteo]

And not a minute too soon. It's pathetic the way the media gush all over that guy. Even when he makes a mistake (which is often) they still find a way to praise him for it.

I remember once he was caught like a rabbit in spotlight, holding the ball. The comment, "Look at the way Judd stood up in the tackle!!!". I mean, Who gives a toss? he was holding the ball!! Another time he received the ball from a team mate, kicked it through from 20 metres, straight in front ... the comment "Only Judd could have done that!!!".

It is sickening, and about time the other side was highlighted for a change.

Great post, the spotlight has finally been turned on the unsavoury nature of Judd and it's long overdue let's be honest.

 

[Malifice]

And the AFL tribunal agrees with you.

And they also agree that Ziebell deserved 4 weeks for his 'hit' on Joseph.

Guess that decision was right too hey?

 

[D-N-R]

If judd was dragged off the body holding the arm , it may indeed have felt at the time the body was instead dragged from him holding the arm.Surely judds defence advice would have reviewed the video evidence before the tribunal appearance and not been dumb enough to run with a story easily contradicted by video and don't players grab one arm all the time to stop a handball

18:52

Nick Bowen: ​

Wilson for Judd; Judd admits became involved in a tackle being executed by Carrazzo. HIs intention initially was to strip the ball, then as he moved in it was then to grab Adams' arm to stop him from attempting to dispose of ball. As the tackle took Adams closer to ground his arm moved backwards as Judd continued to hold onto it. During this time, Judd's intention never changed. Denies any intentional manipulation of arm. He recklessly retained grip of Adams' arm without addressing possibility of the injury that could be caused to Adams​

This is from the AFL live feed. This is the evidence he gave. "As the tackle took Adams closer to the ground..." Adams was already on the ground. This all happened before the Roo's player pushed Judd off.

There is no problem with players grabbing an arm to tackle. There never has been. The problem with this tackle was that Judd was trying to bend the arm in a way it's not meant to go.

Pain will come well and truly before any sort of injury or dislocation eg pinch yourself and create pain but where is the injury?

I have no idea what you mean here. Are you suggesting that Judd's action didn't cause, or at least contribute to, the injury?

My point was that if Judd had done exactly what he had but the opponent was on his back instead of front no injury would have occurred and I am trying to point out that IMO it was not an intent to injure and obviously no injury no media circus

When laying on your back with an arm extended, there is a lot more movement available, thus if someone were to grab an arm this way it would not cause too many problems. I agree. There is a damn site less movement when you are on your front and Judd, being a professional athlete with a great deal of knowledge about body mechanics, should know this. In fact, just about any movement that would involve your arms being off the ground whilst in this position would be uncomfortable. Adams arm was quite a distance off the ground and Judd's explanation of how it got there is flimsy.

Stick a fork in this topic, it's done.

 

[motr]

Pretty sure Judd personally apologised to Adams for his action. I'm assuming Adams accepted his apology no? What more do you want? Maybe we could partition for him to apologise to the Bigfooty community for all the pain he has caused us...

I think you are looking for the word petition. Partition is what Judd had a go at with Adams' shoulder joint.

"We're disappointed but we respect the tribunal's decision. I'd just like to reiterate it was never my intent to hurt Leigh Adams but obviously I will express that apology to him personally and we'd like to extend this apology to the Carlton Footy club and their supporters for letting them down."

I'm still at a loss. If Judd didn't mean to hurt Leigh Adams what was he trying to do?

This half-arsed apology plays us all for fools. They are weasel words, formulated by Judd and his legal team to distance himself from his own low actions. I'd have a lot more respect for Judd if he took ownership of his own reckless behaviour and copped his punishment like a man.

 

[Waynesworld]

No more stupid than those levelling the accusation.

Well I am sorry to say that I disagree with you here - the amount of crap that has been posted on the Carlton boards throughout this whole dirty episode has been laughable to say the least. The number of people justifying Judds actions with the weakest of excuses and justifications, to the point of blaming North players, the AFL etc. is simply mind boggling. Now I know that I can't judge all Carlton supporters on what has been posted here, but geez those posting here give you guys a bad rap.

And to top it off anyone who would dare try to raise an argument with them gets their posts deleted. God help any reason being brought into the argument....

 

[jonbe54]

Live feed of defence counsel's excuses do not in any remote way match the clear live video or still pics of the incident, either the feed was f@cked or the counsel was idiot or a liar.

 

[mufassa]

This is proof that media hysteria influences the (independent) tribunal

I'm a jujitsu instructor of 20 odd years experience and that was not a chicken wing arm lock
The chicken wing arm lock has a bent elbow and can not be executed from a standing position by holding on to the wrist FFS (other wise the opponent would simply roll or stand up

So if that technique doesn't exist how can Judd be accused of doing it deliberately?

Judd was simply trying to pull him off the ball and if the roo player was on his back instead of his stomach everyone could see it for what it was

If anything the other roo players trying to pull Judd off of him whilst he was still holding the arm would have been what would have caused any damage

Also Did this roo player have any prexisting injury in that same region?

Nope no intent at all to do damage and unfairly beaten up by the media

No great fan of Carlton or Judd but Carlton shoulsd have taken on the tribunal with science

Can you please tell me what his intention was? As you are a 20 year master jujitsu warrior ninja did you use your jedi mind to know what Judd was thinking while pulling Adams arm back?

How do you know he was not thinking - "please break, please break or please dislocate, please dislocate" - jedi mind?

 

[sherb]

Well I am sorry to say that I disagree with you here - the amount of crap that has been posted on the Carlton boards throughout this whole dirty episode has been laughable to say the least. The number of people justifying Judds actions with the weakest of excuses and justifications, to the point of blaming North players, the AFL etc. is simply mind boggling. Now I know that I can't judge all Carlton supporters on what has been posted here, but geez those posting here give you guys a bad rap.

And to top it off anyone who would dare try to raise an argument with them gets their posts deleted. God help any reason being brought into the argument....

Only to ignorant morons who generalize and stereotype.

As for crap being posted on club boards, what's your view on a thread being started on a club board discussing what is being talked about on another club's board? Is that intelligent debate?

 

[sherb]

Great post, the spotlight has finally been turned on the unsavoury nature of Judd and it's long overdue let's be honest.

Don't give AH too much credit. He has a pathological and obsessive hatred of Judd which he has been displaying on these boards for years. Spewing hate about Judd is his specialty. This episode is just another day at the office for him, although I reckon it would have got even him pretty damn hot and excited.

 

[Waynesworld]

Only to ignorant morons who generalize and stereotype.

As for crap being posted on club boards, what's your view on a thread being started on a club board discussing what is being talked about on another club's board? Is that intelligent debate?

Nope - but it sure is fun!

 

[Waynesworld]

Only to ignorant morons who generalize and stereotype.

As for crap being posted on club boards, what's your view on a thread being started on a club board discussing what is being talked about on another club's board? Is that intelligent debate?

And there is certainly no chance of anyone else ever being allowed to post a response on your board, so where else do we debate your comments????

 

[sherb]

And there is certainly no chance of anyone else ever being allowed to post a response on your board, so where else do we debate your comments????

You've had free reign on the main board. With no moderation. Not good enough for you?

Club boards are for club supporters. And are rightly protected. If for no other reason to give the supporters a chance to discuss their club freely without the distraction of (often trolling) opposition supporters.

The North board would be no different. Or should I go there and try and argue how Ziebell fully deserved four weeks? How do you reckon I would be treated and how long would I last?

 

[Waynesworld]

You've had free reign on the main board. With no moderation. Not good enough for you?

Club boards are for club supporters. And are rightly protected. If for no other reason to give the supporters a chance to discuss their club freely without the distraction of (often trolling) opposition supporters.

The North board would be no different. Or should I go there and try and argue how Ziebell fully deserved four weeks? How do you reckon I would be treated and how long would I last?

Personally I don't have an issue with that as long as you are putting up a valid and genuine argument. But then I am not a moderator nor have any control over how the board is run so unfortunately my comments regarding this will not hold much weight.
Also I agree that opposition supporters post should be deleted if they are trolling. However being deleted for debating a point?
And sorry but I am not the only one talking about some of the stuff posted on the Carlton board.
With regards to Ziebell I haven't once posted that the decision was wrong......however the majority of the media, experts and supporters from both sides have said that it was. Quite the opposite to the Judd situation, which to me is very hard to justify / defend.