Chris Judd - The Crime and the Punishment - 4 Weeks

[JeffDunne]

ETA: Regarding your latest post, I was turned around more by the nature of his lies than by their existence. My exact quote included the word "blatant".

It was as least a step-up from his 'pressure points' excuse.

 

[TheFool]

It was as least a step-up from his 'pressure points' excuse.

I try not to even think about that one for fear it'll drive me mad.

 

[Noidenous]

You'll have to pardon my skepticism of another's recounting of Judd's words for Twitter. The amount of times I see shit reworded in the media in general keeps me wary of anything other than direct quotes; and with the hysteria that's has surrounded this incident, this is doubly so now.

Are you crying corruption?

Practically all of those blog entries have been posted in this thread verbatim.

 

[Monkey King]

Okay, fair enough. I think it's probably a fairly accurate representation of his general arguments, but you're right to point out there's room for error. The whole thing's just a bit bemusing to me and his defence struck me as one of the weirder aspects of the evening.

I wish they'd just release a transcript of Judd's account of his actions. As it stands, I don't find the "my intention never changed ... my intention was to prevent an attempt to dispose of the ball" defense weird at all. That's the way I read the first time I saw the incident before the public blow-up.

As for this weekend, I'll take your offer of good luck, as I think we're gonna need it. No kidding, I'd be worried if we were playing against Gold Coast this weekend. Your blokes could do a number on us if we're not careful.​

 

[Monkey King]

Are you crying corruption?

I thought what I wrote was pretty self explanatory. I don't know how I could put it any clearer.

 

[Catswin12]

Until he eye gouges someone I won't think he is the dirtiest player ever in the history of the game..

 

[Noidenous]

I thought what I wrote was pretty self explanatory. I don't know how I could put it any clearer.

Let me get this straight (up in the air *giggle*)...

So now... not only has he been the subject of a witch hunt, he's also been given a larger penalty than what you'll concede the misdemeanour was worth (even though the AFL wanted a longer ban), and the AFL's media rep providing a transcript of the trial is somehow twisting Judd's words worse than Judd twisted Adams' arm?

Well, I'll be...

 

[Monkey King]

Let me get this straight (up in the air *giggle*)...

So now... not only has he been the subject of a witch hunt, he's also been given a larger penalty than what you'll concede the misdemeanour was worth (even though the AFL wanted a longer ban), and the AFL's media rep providing a transcript of the trial is somehow twisting Judd's words worse than Judd twisted Adams' arm?

If that's you getting it straight, I'd hate to see you get it crooked

 

[Noidenous]

If that's you getting it straight, I'd hate to see you get it crooked

A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.

 

[Monkey King]

Oh ... was that not rhetorical? Could have fooled me!

 

[Noidenous]

Oh ... was that not rhetorical? Could have fooled me!

Was it not an apt summation of your stance once stripped of all humour?

 

[Monkey King]

Was it not an apt summation of your stance once stripped of all humour?

No it was not; one point being almost the complete opposite of what I've actually written.

 

[Noidenous]

You'll have to pardon my skepticism of another's recounting of Judd's words for Twitter. The amount of times I see shit reworded in the media in general keeps me wary of anything other than direct quotes; and with the hysteria that's has surrounded this incident, this is doubly so now.

So where else did I go so horribly wrong?

 

[Monkey King]

So where else did I go so horribly wrong?

You pretty much got it wrong on all three of your points

1. Judd's been the subject of a witch hunt. I've never said this in relation to anything other than the posts in this thread. In fact, I've always said Judd should rightly go for his actions.

2. He's also been given a larger penalty than what you'll concede the misdemeanour was worth. Interesting summation when what I've actually written is "I reckon Judd did something wrong and that the punishment fitted the crime".

3. The AFL's media rep providing a transcript of the trial is somehow twisting Judd's words. Firstly, that was not a "transcript". Secondly, there's really no need to translate my words and rephrase them, I'm speaking English yeah. I never said they were twisting anyone's words, but that given my skepticism over how media rewords quotes all the time, that my standard for definitively labeling someone a liar would be to know their own words - and really, your efforts here show just how prudent an attitude that is.

 

[Axle17]

Why did it take so long for this to come out? Have been waiting for days!

Got this at work today.
Raced home to put this up, but guess ive been beaten to it
Nice!

 

[Noidenous]

You pretty much got it wrong on all three of your points

1. Judd's been the subject of a witch hunt. I've never said this in relation to anything other than the posts in this thread. In fact, I've always said Judd should rightly go for his actions. - "I'd say nothing at all with this situation has been taken at face value aside from how bad the action looked. And really, that's been the driving force behind everything ... as AFL as that is."

I highly doubt this particular comment was made purely about the reaction on Big Footy. But, you'll come back with the 'prove my intent' defence.


2. He's also been given a larger penalty than what you'll concede the misdemeanour was worth. - "Hope they do on the basis of Judd being found to have intent to injure. I'd appeal that bullshit!"

If appealing isn't asking for a lighter sentence, then I don't know what is.


3. The AFL's media rep providing a transcript of the trial is somehow twisting Judd's words. Firstly, that was not a "transcript". Secondly, there's really no need to translate my words and rephrase them, I'm speaking English yeah. I never said they were twisting anyone's words, but that given my skepticism over how media rewords quotes all the time, that my standard for definitively labeling someone a liar would be to know their own words - and really, your efforts here show just how prudent an attitude that is.

You, similarly, cannot prove non-intent on the same grounds his defence attempted to have him aquitted of the full charge. Hell, anybody without a map, directions and video footage showing them gloating has to be given a pardon and a lolly. Personally, I don't care what his exact quotes were in the trial. I'm more concerned about what was said amongst the defence counselling both before and during the trial.

 

[jasonwilde]

You pretty much got it wrong on all three of your points

1. Judd's been the subject of a witch hunt. I've never said this in relation to anything other than the posts in this thread. In fact, I've always said Judd should rightly go for his actions.

2. He's also been given a larger penalty than what you'll concede the misdemeanour was worth. Interesting summation when what I've actually written is "I reckon Judd did something wrong and that the punishment fitted the crime".

3. The AFL's media rep providing a transcript of the trial is somehow twisting Judd's words. Firstly, that was not a "transcript". Secondly, there's really no need to translate my words and rephrase them, I'm speaking English yeah. I never said they were twisting anyone's words, but that given my skepticism over how media rewords quotes all the time, that my standard for definitively labeling someone a liar would be to know their own words - and really, your efforts here show just how prudent an attitude that is.

I don't really care about Chris Judd or your second rate club (probably third rate now TBH)

But I do know that I'm really happy that you're hurting so much right now.

 

[rose jam]

If Judd had fronted on the day after and said something like "you know, what I did last night was stupid and a brain fade and I'll front the tribunal this week and accept whatever suspension is handed out to me as it wasn't an example a captain and leader should be setting."

If he'd done that, he would have completely controlled the situation and people might have actually started to like him. But oh no, there he goes again running away from responsibility with his shirting another issue again.

 

[Linda Crescent]

What goes around comes around.

'INTENTIONAL MISS CONDUCT'

Forever a tainted player is Chris.

 

[Hodgepodge]

... is actually central to your first point - that the game had stopped. It hadn't. You were wrong to say that.

Play had stopped to the piont that the ball carrier was incapacitated. Hence Judd's action being extraneous.

As for saying there was no need to hold on to Adams arm, I guess you could say the same thing for Rioli on Warnock, but that wouldn't be right either.

It wouldn't be right in Rioli's case as that was the only body part available to him, and thus he had no reasonable alternative. There's no rule to say you can't tackle by the arm, and it's not misconduct to do so.

Rioli's tackle was also a tackle, and quite a good one too. None of this applies to Judd's action, which was out of proportion and not a tackle.

 

[Monkey King]

I highly doubt this particular comment was made purely about the reaction on Big Footy.

Pfft. It's called context mate. I'd say it's straightforward, but you're too crooked for that.

If appealing isn't asking for a lighter sentence, then I don't know what is.

This is not what you said though is it? What you said was that I thought Judd was given a larger penalty than what the incident merited, when in fact I had pretty much written the opposite. No need to reword it now for a play on semantics about a lighter sentence. The ship has sailed, just admit your error and move on.

Personally, I don't care what his exact quotes were in the trial.

So then why chime in with a poorly worded re-take on what I'd said about direct quotes?

 

[Monkey King]

Play had stopped to the piont that the ball carrier was incapacitated.

Play does not stop until the whistle is blown.

It wouldn't be right in Rioli's case as that was the only body part available to him, and thus he had no reasonable alternative. There's no rule to say you can't tackle by the arm, and it's not misconduct to do so.

Rioli's tackle was also a tackle, and quite a good one too. None of this applies to Judd's action, which was out of proportion and not a tackle.

Nothing wrong with Rioli grabbing Warnock's arm. Nothing wrong with Judd grabbing Adams arm. Players grab "a handle" as David King put it, often enough during a game; it's when it twists the arm that it's a problem and Rioli twisted Warnock's arm and shoulder to the point of pain. Neither what he or Judd did should be accepted in AFL, but they are of course entitled to hold another players arm during a tackle anywhere up to this point.

 

[Hodgepodge]

Nothing wrong with Rioli grabbing Warnock's arm. Nothing wrong with Judd grabbing Adams arm. Players grab "a handle" as David King put it, often enough during a game;it's when it twists the arm that it's a problem and Rioli twisted Warnock's arm and shoulder to the point of pain.

The vision on Rioli's tackle on Warnock only shows him dragging Warnock to the ground by the arm as he lost a grip on his body and was falling to the ground himself. There's nothing wrong with players being hurt in the process of a legitimate tackle.

This is completely different from walking up to a prostrate player and pulling his arm back, a completely uncalled for maneuver, regardless of his intention.

 

[Noidenous]

Pfft. It's called context mate. I'd say it's straightforward, but you're too crooked for that.

I'm prudent in using, nay, directly quoting your own words, remember?



This is not what you said though is it? What you said was that I thought Judd was given a larger penalty than what the incident merited, when in fact I had written the opposite. No need to reword it now for a play on semantics about a lighter sentence. The ship has sailed, just admit your error and move on.

Ok, so what's the intent of appealing a sentence? To plead absolute innocence or to lessen the initial outcome? You'd appeal the 4 week ban if your words are anything to go by. What was the exact context of your declaration?



So then why chime in with a poorly worded re-take on what I'd said about direct quotes?

I'm not agreeing with your paranoia about the quotes and I don't think you've internalised what was stated.

What I'm saying is that you cannot claim non-intent for precisely the same reason your lot have argued no-one can claim intent, and the scepticism in this case is founded on looking for a way out. Trying to use the 'are you a mind-reader' defence about intent is a double-edged sword, begging for impasse.

The reason I'm not concerned about direct quotes from the AFL media rep is that if something (exceedingly) ridiculous was specifically stated during the defence statement, they would have highlighted it, even in summary.

 

[Monkey King]

The vision on Rioli's tackle on Warnock only shows him dragging Warnock to the ground by the arm as he lost a grip on his body and was falling to the ground himself. There's nothing wrong with players being hurt in the process of a legitimate tackle.

No mate, he got posterior to Warnock and used a single arm as leverage twisting the arm and shoulder in the process. As Judd's defense team said ... a legitimate exercise in an illegitimate manner. Neither of these types of "tackles" should be performed on an AFL field.