I dont care that Brown did what he did. But I do question his mental capacity to come out and admit this whilst still playing and having a contract stating he would abide by the AFL requirements.
Sheer stupidity.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Judd did eye gouge Brown
- Thread starter lazy
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I dont care that Brown did what he did. But I do question his mental capacity to come out and admit this whilst still playing and having a contract stating he would abide by the AFL requirements.
Sheer stupidity.
- Banned
- #127
Tell me did umpire Rosebury lie as well ? He was standing directly over the incident and he reported to the tribunal there was no eye gouge. MMM
Yes Judd is guilty. We know this from the evidence of a confessed liar !!!!
Yes Judd is guilty. We know this from the evidence of a confessed liar !!!!
Did they fine Chick for his "effort" at the tribunal?
The camera doesn't lie..
Not to mention Mitchell's "he f...ing gouged him" comment at the time of the incident.
Flukey!
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 23, 2005
- 10,551
- 12,127
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Arsenal, Toronto BlueJays
No, thats not the point I was making.
The poster I responded to called Brown a Liar.
My point is Judd should be seen the same way if he went up to the tribunal saying he didnt do something he clearly did.
And if you think Judd wasnt guilty, get your eyes tested
Gee look at all of the Wet Toast EGirls going of the planet trying to protect their beloved Judd.
Fact - Chris Judd either unwittingly or wittingly placed his hand near Brownies eyes - cameras fairly conclusive that it was some type of contact to the eye.
Fact - Brownie and a number of other players remonstrated with the umpires saying the a player eye gouged him.
Fact - Chris Judd was offered a deal, appealed, relied on evidence from another player, was acquitted and then thanked the other player for his "help".
All over - I think not - Chris Judd then slammed Brownie in his weekly article for trying to fake a free kick and in the process ruin his reputation as a player by inferring he was an eye gouger - now Brownie does not have any right to reply to these comments as he doesnt have a newspaper column so he is forced to let it stew.
Obviously it has been building and the first chance he gets he tells everyone watching what really happened.
I dont really care what happened on the field and at the tribunal but when Chris Judd made his comments in his weekly article I was spewing and felt it was grossly unfair. Simply put Chris Judd cant have it both ways - he thanked the player which was nice but he should of left it there for he would of known what he did either intentionally or unintentionally was WRONG and should of resulted in him being suspended - FACT. Chris Judd is the fool in this situation for he should of realised that one day Brownie would of told everyone what really happened.
One more point - every person lies - so what
but does everyone eye gouge - oh no - Juddie what have you done......
Fact - Chris Judd either unwittingly or wittingly placed his hand near Brownies eyes - cameras fairly conclusive that it was some type of contact to the eye.
Fact - Brownie and a number of other players remonstrated with the umpires saying the a player eye gouged him.
Fact - Chris Judd was offered a deal, appealed, relied on evidence from another player, was acquitted and then thanked the other player for his "help".
All over - I think not - Chris Judd then slammed Brownie in his weekly article for trying to fake a free kick and in the process ruin his reputation as a player by inferring he was an eye gouger - now Brownie does not have any right to reply to these comments as he doesnt have a newspaper column so he is forced to let it stew.
Obviously it has been building and the first chance he gets he tells everyone watching what really happened.
I dont really care what happened on the field and at the tribunal but when Chris Judd made his comments in his weekly article I was spewing and felt it was grossly unfair. Simply put Chris Judd cant have it both ways - he thanked the player which was nice but he should of left it there for he would of known what he did either intentionally or unintentionally was WRONG and should of resulted in him being suspended - FACT. Chris Judd is the fool in this situation for he should of realised that one day Brownie would of told everyone what really happened.
One more point - every person lies - so what
but does everyone eye gouge - oh no - Juddie what have you done......
Expect Brown to feature in the next episode of the "Bladder"
Brown sanctioned by the AFL
'We cant have players running around on TV telling the truth !'
Brown sanctioned by the AFL
'We cant have players running around on TV telling the truth !'
There is a photo somewhere of YOUR GOLDEN BOY'S FINGER IN CAMPBELL BROWN'S EYE.
PLEASE, TELL ME HOW THAT IS NOT EYE-GOUGING?
OR IS AN EYE-POKE AN ACCEPTABLE FORM OF "OH, HE JUMPED ON ME (AND WAS HURTING ME) AND I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO TO GET HIM OFF"?
Some West Coke E-girls supporters have the brains of a peanut!
Let's just sit back and laugh at the responses we get from the Egirls supporters over these photos!!
West Coast Eagles = Shame of the Nation.
West Coast Eagles = Shame of the Nation.
There is a photo somewhere of YOUR GOLDEN BOY'S FINGER IN CAMPBELL BROWN'S EYE.
PLEASE, TELL ME HOW THAT IS NOT EYE-GOUGING?
OR IS AN EYE-POKE AN ACCEPTABLE FORM OF "OH, HE JUMPED ON ME (AND WAS HURTING ME) AND I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO TO GET HIM OFF"?
Some West Coke E-girls supporters have the brains of a peanut!
So to get him off you go for the eyes ? hes not a shark you know
ExTasDeeMan
Cancelled
all i can think about is the amount of money lost on Juddy for the brownlow if he was found guilty...
Old news.
If they're going to punish Brown for lying, they may aswell sit the tribunal again and suspend Judd for 5 weeks.
If they're going to punish Brown for lying, they may aswell sit the tribunal again and suspend Judd for 5 weeks.
Umm, yeah, we've seen the pictures months ago. No revelations there, sorry.
If Judd did eye-gouge Brown, then its a low-act, and I certainly dont endorse it by anyone. Only those two know EXACTLY what happened, without one iota of doubt.
If you seriously think the Eagles are the "shame of the nation", you really need to get out more. Go here, and maybe enlighten yourself as to what actually matters in our nation
http://www.news.com.au/national/
Or maybe just step outside and get a life.
Hope my comments have you rolling in the aisles...
- Thread starter
- #147
Maybe Brown was being serious about wearing an eye patch next time he plays WC.
Funny that, the Hawthorn Doctor and the umpire who was standing next to Brown when it happened said that Judd didn't eye gouge.
I think the Hawthorn Dr and the umpire has slightly more credibility than the self confessed liar Brown.
But then again you don't need evidence to convict an Eagle do you?
- Banned
- #149
Out of all of this , this makes the most sense.
Whether you think Brown was right or wrong in revealing it, the punishment meted out would deter other players from admitting it, not deter them from lying
It's all fun and games trying to scrag, injure and take out Judd. Until someone loses and eye.
Or in Kerr's case, a testicle.
It's all good.
Similar threads
