Cometti defends Judd again

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
May 8, 2003
21,704
33,285
Hamish Paradise
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Islanders, Nuggets
He's gone again, defending Judd. Stunning. Says Judd's actions were trivial. Further evidence that he is the Fonz! :D

TELEVISION commentator Dennis Cometti has intensified his defence of Chris Judd, labelling the incident for which the Blue received a four-week suspension ''trivial'' and saying the AFL had come down hard on the Carlton skipper to appease baying football fans.
The popular Channel Seven host earlier this week denied deliberately downplaying the incident - found by the tribunal to have been serious misconduct - while broadcasting last Friday's Carlton-North Melbourne match because of his friendship with Judd, as alleged by ABC Radio host Francis Leach. However, the tribunal's subsequent imposition of a four-match suspension on the Blues captain has prompted Cometti to declare that his muted reaction during the broadcast was justified, and that rather than him underplaying the incident many vocal football supporters had overplayed it.
''Judd is an interesting target. He galvanises his critics. Not only are they angry with Judd, they're angry with anyone who doesn't share their anger,'' Cometti said in his weekly column in The West Australian.


 
Time to go home Dennis.


padded-cell.jpg
 

Log in to remove this ad.

You expected something else to be said given his commentary.....
 
He's gone again, defending Judd. Freak show. Says Judd;s actions were trivial. Further evidence that he is Fonz.

TELEVISION commentator Dennis Cometti has intensified his defence of Chris Judd, labelling the incident for which the Blue received a four-week suspension ''trivial'' and saying the AFL had come down hard on the Carlton skipper to appease baying football fans.

''Judd is an interesting target. He galvanises his critics. Not only are they angry with Judd, they're angry with anyone who doesn't share their anger,'' ''I think the former Eagle has been harshly treated. His act may have been provocative but nevertheless trivial. My voice is muted [on the issue] because I'm seen as a friend, but so be it.''

Cometti said the entire Channel Seven commentary team last Friday night was ''decidedly underwhelmed'' by the incident where Judd tugged at the arm of the prone Leigh Adams, although he reckoned it was nevertheless exacerbated by the presiding umpire's ''agonisingly slow whistle [which] spelt trouble for both [players]''. Cometti said he was staggered at the ''hysterical'' reaction to Judd having ''strong-armed'' Adams.
Well, I'm decidedly staggered at Dennis' underwhelming intelligence and his patronising tone.

Adams goes off with an shoulder injury caused by an act determined in a long hearing as intentional and serious and Dennis has the temerity to suggest that the umpire not blowing the whistle earlier exacerbated it. To suggest that Judd's actions in any way arose or were caused by the length of time the umpire took to blow the whistle defies logic.

Dennis, a tip for you. I think you might be the one using ad hominem argumentation here. I'm not angry with you; you're entitled to your view. But to dismiss the views of others as hysteria is reasoning better suited to BF ;). If anything the existence of a friendship with Judd is, more likely, the prevailing emotional influence at play. Staggered you can't see how this might influence one's thinking.
 
The way Commetti has acted through this whole episode - from giggling like a school-girl as it happened to the two articles he's written has shown immense disrespect to Leigh Adams and North.

This should not be forgotten.
 
The simple fact of the matter, which Dennis chooses to ignore, is that there is no valid/acceptable reason for Judd to do what he did. If he believes there is I would love to hear it.
 
When Adams hurt his shoulder the second time I think it was Dennis who said that Judd softened him up earlier. Doucebag celebrating the dislocation of a players shoulder. He should be sanctioned by Ch7.
 
Fact - he is paid to commentate on the game. He missed one of the most talked about incidents this season. Fail.

I don't think its Bruce and Dennis's job to commentate the game. They are there to work as a terrible comedy duo, who make watching the footy the most shithouse experience possible. They also have some sort of game going on where whoever mentions Rioli or Judd's name the most, wins.
 
Fact - he is paid to commentate on the game. He missed one of the most talked about incidents this season. Fail.

A failure of immense proportions, considering their chosen "profession" you'd think. To laugh at someone's grief is beyond poor. :thumbsdown: Cometti himself has become trivial.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I don't think its Bruce and Dennis's job to commentate the game. They are there to work as a terrible comedy duo, who make watching the footy the most shithouse experience possible. They also have some sort of game going on where whoever mentions Rioli or Judd's name the most, wins.

Their other role is to work in as many cross-promotions as possible. We can only be grateful they no longer have the olympics, or we would be be hearing more about that than the actual footy.
 
Senile old fool. Hopefully he continues the way he's going, hears the criticism, feels the pressure and retires.

Rex Hunt went stupid and was boned. Cometti should get the same treatment one day (sooner than he thinks).
 
He is appealing to two of the lowest altitude fliers in the history of human kind - Cartlon and West Coast supporters
 
i agree with alot of the sentiments here.... he is trying to justify his own failure on Friday Night.
I actually recall him laughing after it happened...yeah dark moment for an otherwise excellent commentator.
 
Imagine the commentary had Patch chicken winged Judd? They would have plucked Patch up hill & down dale.
Someone needs to pin Cometti down on this : "Had Judd been pinned under an opponent, face down, and a North player had grabbed his arm and applied that same hold, would you have laughed? Or expressed immediate and strong outrage at the potential for serious injury?"

We all know the answer. I just wonder if the **** would be honest enough to admit it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top