Cometti defends Judd again

[tazaa]

He wasn't "muted", he f****** laughed did he not?

This. Dennis and Lethal have been let off far too easy.
The fact they were chuckling and having a laugh at what Juddy did is a disgrace.
Just watched it again. Laughter the whole way through.
****in dogs. They are lucky they have escaped scrutiny. ****wits.

 

[ROORAGE]

Much like Judd himself, Cometti has lost a lot of respect and credibility over this with the public at large. Mud sticks. Digging a deeper hole for himself is actually quite sad for him. Very pleasing for those who think he's a overrated muppet. About time his conflicted interests were exposed.

 

[ozzyoslo]

News coming through that many other media folk are potting channel 7 for their lack of coverage of the incident......maybe ol golden tongue is feeling the pinch. You only have to listen to SEN to hear theyre commenting on BRUSE´s love for Judd. Bordering on laughable.

 

[sutcliffe's hotel]

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?".

He would have said some lame comment like: "It takes a chump to try and wrestle with a champ.... hope the Adams family enjoy the holiday... it will be a long one". As the video was endlessly replayed they would have continued to ignore our great play & talked about the sour taste this has left in everyone's mouth & if Judd had reappeared & got the ball that would have exploded with some crap like: cometh the hour, cometh the champ, cometh me...

 

[giantroo]

HAHAHAA Sam Newman has just slammed Channel 7.

 

[TheKanga]

Dennis must love these

 

[GoNorth]

"Would'nt you just love to be tackled by Juddy?"

Still staggered at this comment! Was it Cometti who said it or Brrruuuuuuuuuuuce?

 

[sutcliffe's hotel]

Still staggered at this comment! Was it Cometti who said it or Brrruuuuuuuuuuuce?

It was Bruce. Then stunned silence. Its was getting all a bit Carry On Up The Juddy at that point. We knew we were a heartbeat away from: "What about Juddy's tackle?".

 

[TheKanga]

Still staggered at this comment! Was it Cometti who said it or Brrruuuuuuuuuuuce?

Kind of speaks volumes for their homosexual feelings for Judd.

 

[Twinkletoes]

"Had Judd been pinned under an opponent, face down.............."

The thought of another man pressed against the aft area of his man love Juddy would have Dennis enraged with jealousy.

 

[Diesel1993]

He's gone again, defending Judd. Stunning. Says Judd's actions were trivial. Further evidence that he is the Fonz!

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/judd-punishment-harsh-cometti-20120718-22anb.html#ixzz211bOZhtX​

Hello - Friendly comment on the way - Not here to take the pisser.

For part of Cometti's argument, let's take the name 'Judd' out of the equation and you'd find anyone else doing the same thing would either get 2 weeks or nothing. This has been proven in the past, and has been proven this year when Rioli applied the chicken wing to Warnock which led to time on the sidelines for the big man, but not even so much as a mention for Rioli. I didn't even know about the tackle until it was higlighted afterward, such is the sneakiness of players these days they can hide or get away with such foul play.

I appreciate that this is a delicate time for Nth supporters and I too agree 100% that Judd made a bad tackle and that
this type of tackle must be stamped out of the game. Cometti should not be making light of the situation whatever his relationship with Judd might be, and Judd got the right ban.

As for the Ziebel case, it's an issue with ALL AFL midfielders that when they jump into a contest they always rotate their upper body into the on coming player as a way to protect themselves. On the ground that's fine, but in the air it's very dangerous and isn't part of the game.

If you watch good defenders in the AFL they always challenge FRONT ON in aerial contests. Typically the 'pack' is crashed and minimal damage is done.

Players in the case of Ziebel and Wellingham need to attack the ball front on if they want to contest in the air, otherwise it's an illegal challenge.

If a Carlton player were to make the same challenge I would put my hands up and cop to the punishment. There is a correct way to challenge in the air and if Ziebel had jumped front on into Joseph and punched the ball, rather than rotating his torso and elbowing him instead, then he would be playing this week. The same goes for Wellingham. had he jumped front on into Simpson it would have been play on.

No one wants to see any player suspended, but this type of midfield challenge needs to be addressed.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Just heard Bruce saying that while they through they did ok on the night, now, if they had a second crack at it (his exact words), they'd cover it differently.

The specifics of what they said or didn't say about Judd are a little bit beside the point. It's the whole incestuous, self-indulgent, out of touch commentary performance they keep displaying that's the problem - they all need a serious talking to.

 

[scottywiper]

Just heard Bruce saying that while they through they did ok on the night, now, if they had a second crack at it (his exact words), they'd cover it differently.

The specifics of what they said or didn't say about Judd are a little bit beside the point. It's the whole incestuous, self-indulgent, out of touch commentary performance they keep displaying that's the problem - they all need a serious talking to.

Not what Dennis reckons. And Dennis is happy to speak for the rest of the team, seemingly.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Hello - Friendly comment on the way - Not here to take the pisser.

For part of Cometti's argument, let's take the name 'Judd' out of the equation and you'd find anyone else doing the same thing would either get 2 weeks or nothing. This has been proven in the past, and has been proven this year when Rioli applied the chicken wing to Warnock which led to time on the sidelines for the big man, but not even so much as a mention for Rioli. I didn't even know about the tackle until it was higlighted afterward, such is the sneakiness of players these days they can hide or get away with such foul play.

I appreciate that this is a delicate time for Nth supporters and I too agree 100% that Judd made a bad tackle and that
this type of tackle must be stamped out of the game. Cometti should not be making light of the situation whatever his relationship with Judd might be, and Judd got the right ban.

As for the Ziebel case, it's an issue with ALL AFL midfielders that when they jump into a contest they always rotate their upper body into the on coming player as a way to protect themselves. On the ground that's fine, but in the air it's very dangerous and isn't part of the game.

If you watch good defenders in the AFL they always challenge FRONT ON in aerial contests. Typically the 'pack' is crashed and minimal damage is done.

Players in the case of Ziebel and Wellingham need to attack the ball front on if they want to contest in the air, otherwise it's an illegal challenge.

If a Carlton player were to make the same challenge I would put my hands up and cop to the punishment. There is a correct way to challenge in the air and if Ziebel had jumped front on into Joseph and punched the ball, rather than rotating his torso and elbowing him instead, then he would be playing this week. The same goes for Wellingham. had he jumped front on into Simpson it would have been play on.

No one wants to see any player suspended, but this type of midfield challenge needs to be addressed.

Please don't compare the Ziebell incident to the Wellingham incident, totally different. At no time was Wellingham going for the ball, and at no time was Ziebell NOT going for the ball.

You're in the vast minority re this incident.

 

[Diesel1993]

Please don't compare the Ziebell incident to the Wellingham incident, totally different. At no time was Wellingham going for the ball, and at no time was Ziebell NOT going for the ball.

You're in the vast minority re this incident.

You are missing the point. Ziebel got suspended because of his body shape in the contest, not the contest itself. He turned his shoulder into the on coming player and caught him with an errant elbow to the head. As such so he physically challenged the opposition player the same way Wellingham did, regardless of his intent to win the ball.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

You are missing the point. Ziebel got suspended because of his body shape in the contest, not the contest itself. He turned his shoulder into the on coming player and caught him with an errant elbow to the head. As such so he physically challenged the opposition player the same way Wellingham did, regardless of his intent to win the ball.

OMG

So, if Wellingham attacked Simpson front on, eyes not on the ball, you would say play on, no case to answer,

But, when Ziebell attacks the BALL side on, eyes on the ball, you say suspend him for 4 weeks.

Please don't tell me this is what you are trying to argue here. It's all about intent here buddy, nothing to do with the angle of your body when going for the ball.

 

[Thewlis Dish]

You are missing the point. Ziebel got suspended because of his body shape in the contest, not the contest itself. He turned his shoulder into the on coming player and caught him with an errant elbow to the head. As such so he physically challenged the opposition player the same way Wellingham did, regardless of his intent to win the ball.

Am going to be nice, but I'm really not sure what you're hoping to achieve by posting this in here.

 

[Diesel1993]

Am going to be nice, but I'm really not sure what you're hoping to achieve by posting this in here.

Well while I love my football club, just as I'm sure you all do in here, I just don't understand why people think Ziebel should have got off and that what he did was so good. You can play the ball, but you still have to do it legally. He shouldn't have gotten 3 weeks, 2 would have been better.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Well while I love my football club, just as I'm sure you all do in here, I just don't understand why people think Ziebel should have got off and that what he did was so good. You can play the ball, but you still have to do it legally. He shouldn't have gotten 3 weeks, 2 would have been better.

He didn't do anything illegal in contesting the ball.

 

[shintemaster]

Am going to be nice, but I'm really not sure what you're hoping to achieve by posting this in here.

Cool. The not nice version being piss off, obviously.

 

[Diesel1993]

He didn't do anything illegal in contesting the ball.

He elbowed the player in the head...

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

He elbowed the player in the head...

Richard Douglas kneed Rhys Palmer in the head taking a mark.

He had an alternative. He should have stayed on the ground as to not cause injury to his opponent.

 

[Diesel1993]

Richard Douglas kneed Rhys Palmer in the head taking a mark.

He had an alternative. He should have stayed on the ground as to not cause injury to his opponent.

My bad, I didn't realise that Ziebel was going for a mark.

 

[Twinkletoes]

Am going to be nice, but I'm really not sure what you're hoping to achieve by posting this in here.

Scratching my head re. this as well.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

My bad, I didn't realise that Ziebel was going for a mark.

Going for a mark- ball is in dispute.

Jumping to gain possession- ball is in dispute. If his eyes are ONLY ON THE BALL he should be allowed to contest the ball however the **** he feels like.

It really isn't that hard.