Liam Jurrah facing 4 extra charges

[Wonaeamirri33]

Fair point.

At the end of the day, if you believe what you're saying and you subscribe to Westminster justice; than Liam is innocent until proven guilty.

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

 

[lethalselbow]

I don't understand the positives that Melbourne get out of selecting him? Heaps of negatives are there and if it goes pear shaped, for some reason, it could be disastrous.

Why play him? His form's nothing to write home about and there may be question marks over his mental state.

What about all the guys at Melbourne who can't get a game ahead of a guy of highly questionable character.

This is doing no favours for Indigenous round.

 

[Dalphonso]

Don't worry about Matt Rendell not chasing blokes from the bush.
Liam Jurrah was the AFL poster boy 3 years ago and every club wanted an indigenous bloke from an isolated community on their list to appease the masses.
Now they have all certainly changed their tune thanks to Liams alleged actions.

 

[royals1922]

Here's what also gets at me re Jurrah.

Indigenous round is supposed to be about the great contribution made by aboriginal players. I remember blokes like Adrian McAdam, the Krakeour Brothers and then there's Maurice Rioli, Gilbert McAdam, Nicky Winmar, the list could go on and on.

So who are people going to talk about in indigeous round- a piece of garbage like Jurrah who is accused of nearly killing a man and Melbourne have seen fit to recall him as if it's a statement. Jurrah has contributed nothing but pus for the indigenous cause and Melbourne have seen fit to recall, for what, the chance to get smashed by sydney.

Well done Melbourne for staining the indigenous round with this ill thought out selection.

 

[LBJ6]

I am literally sitting here laughing at all the overreactions in this thread.

Jurrah has not been proven to have done anything wrong, so why can't he play?

He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

He has served an internal suspension for drinking alcohol whilst in rehab.

He has completed a (late) full pre season.

He has played in the VFL the last two weeks and performed exceptionally well. Where was the outrage about him playing VFL?

Now he has earnt his selection in the senior side.

So why should he never play again? What if he deemed to be innocent?

Everyone on BigFooty seems to think he has been convicted and sentenced of these crimes?

 

[Masto]

Liam Jurrah should be suspended, end of story. These very serious charges should not be tolerated by the AFL.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Suspended because accusations have been made? Seriously?

Pretty sure you wouldn't say that if it was a player of yours...

 

[lethalselbow]

I am literally sitting here laughing at all the overreactions in this thread.

Jurrah has not been proven to have done anything wrong, so why can't he play?

He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

He has served an internal suspension for drinking alcohol whilst in rehab.

He has completed a (late) full pre season.

He has played in the VFL the last two weeks and performed exceptionally well. Where was the outrage about him playing VFL?

Now he has earnt his selection in the senior side.

So why should he never play again? What if he deemed to be innocent?

Everyone on BigFooty seems to think he has been convicted and sentenced of these crimes?

Why not wait till after the 28th of July? Not far off and if he's innocent of all chargers, then everything is just fine and dandy.

I don't understand the positives for Melbourne of actually selecting him. Why play him now? Melbourne's season is shot and i bet the sponsor doesn't love having a player accused of assaulting a woman, amongst the host of other disgusting acts, running around with their brand name.

What benefit do Melbourne get out of playing him????

 

[Masto]

Suspended because accusations have been made? Seriously?

Pretty sure you wouldn't say that if it was a player of yours...

Not just accusations, a police investigation has found there is at least a reasonable chance of conviction, thus the charges laid against him - so yes, it is enough.

 

[Blues_Man]

Can't believe the Demons are considering playing this bloke....the club is goind downhill onfield and off.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Um... you're a Carlton fan, right?

Innocent until proven guilty. Yes, even if you play for the Demons.

 

[King Elvis]

Im not concerned of the ramifications the decision will have on the Melbourne footy club, I have no sympathy for Liam, he made his own bed, the problem I have is the message this will show the kids that are being dragged up in these situations.
You southerners have no idea the damage these feuds cause our kids, instead of breaking the cycle Melbourne is saying it is acceptable, well its not.
Some are saying it is cultural, well it was part of english culture 2000 years ago as well. Just because something is cultural in any society does not mean it is acceptable and it should continue, I for 1 am glad the incas stopped sacrificing humans by the thousand to their sun god.
And I will be even happier when the violence stops in our communitys.

Good post mate.

Personally, due to the seriousness of it all, I think he should be suspended from the AFL until its resolved; cleared he plays again, guilty, he's deregistered.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Guy is innocent until proven guilty. Time for you to all shut up until further notice. That or go and live in France where it's the opposite way around.

He is.

The club should definitely offer him all the support it can, but the charges are serious and I would suggest extreme caution should be exercised when MFC consider whether or not to play Jurrah, likewise any club with any individual who has been charged with such serious offences.

Party boy behaviour and confessed drug abuse, which should see both support, as well as punishment where prudent, instead saw a player de-registered.

Violent crime is far more serious, yet it seems to garner a more cavalier and in some cases apologetic response.

Support him, let him train and stand by him if you are confident but I am not sure if playing him yet is the best idea?

 

[jockey-sized midfielder]

Can't believe the Demons are considering playing this bloke....the club is goind downhill onfield and off.

Agreed. Melbourne couldn't actually get any lower than they are right now could they? Accusations/Innocent till proven guilty aside, the guy was found with a machete on him moments after a machete attack on a guy who's last name was Jurrah.. Hmmm

 

[scottwade]

Why not wait till after the 28th of July?

I don't understand the positives for Melbourne of actually selecting him. Why play him now?

What benefit do Melbourne get out of playing him????

This week is RD 8. 28 July is RD 18.

I would have thought Melbourne hopes he kicks a few goals, helps them to a win or two in the next 10 rounds, that you'd have him miss because he has been charged with an offence.

He is on bail, he has not been convicted.
Why should his professional football career be put on hold whilst he is facing charges?

 

[Masto]

Um... you're a Carlton fan, right?

Innocent until proven guilty. Yes, even if you play for the Demons.

Innocent until proven guilty is only applicable in a court of law. This is the court of public opinion. Its up to the AFL to decide at what point Jurrah damages their brand enough that they cut him loose. Its going to be interesting to see if those charges are upgraded further still at some point. Maybe Demetriou is willing to go the whole way with Liam Jurrah.

 

[kane249]

Suspended because accusations have been made? Seriously?

Pretty sure you wouldn't say that if it was a player of yours...

Wona if one of our players was accused of assault with a deadly weapon I would want him sitting in the WAFL until all allegations were cleared up one way or another.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Fairy nuff. Personally, I think Scott Wade summed it up best.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Wona if one of our players was accused of assault with a deadly weapon I would want him sitting in the WAFL until all allegations were cleared up one way or another.

And Wona would be one of the first throwing stones.

For me though, this screams of a PR gamble.

If Jurrah is found to be guilty, or things get a little more intense and pressure mounts, MFC can always use loyalty, the fairly legitimate "innocent until proven guilty" argument (assumes the club has no knowledge of what has transpired) and a play on sensitive cultural issues etc.

But, if Jurrah is exonerated and especially if he plays well, in indigenous round on his first day back, the club will be lauded as brave, Jurrahs effort heroic and playing him a masterstroke (well maybe the last is a little cynical). Would be a huge PR boon and good story for MFC and the AFL.

Personally I have no bias either way in terms of making a judgement re what Jurrah is alleged to have done. Violence is abhorrent, but it would also be awful to be the victim of false accusations/persecution by law enforcement.

 

[Malifice]

People need to be responsible for their own actions and the media are the absolute worst in this situation and only show what an absolute bunch of hypocritical fools they are. Lets all feel sorry for a bloke who was a part of a lynch mob that almost killed someone...........

You left out the word 'accused'.

Accused of being a part of a lynch mob.

But yeah, should be suspended (on full pay) pending the outcome of the charges.

And for those mentioning Cousins, the charge (or lack of charge as the case may be) had nothing to do with it. He was suspended for consistent and repeated misdemeanors and dragging the club into shit, failing to attend drug testing and training, association with convicted drug dealers and other shady figures, numerous brushes with the law and intoxication and his aknoweldged drug habit.

He brought the game (and code) into disrepute (notwithstanding any criminal charges).

A better comparison would be Lovett.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

And Wona would be one of the first throwing stones.

Seriously mate, I wouldn't do that on the main board. On the Bay, yeah, that'd be inevitable. In other words, not seriously.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

You left out the word 'accused'.

Accused of being a part of a lynch mob.

But yeah, should be suspended (on full pay) pending the outcome of the charges.

And for those mentioning Cousins, the charge (or lack of charge as the case may be) had nothing to do with it. He was suspended for consistent and repeated misdemeanors and dragging the club into shit, failing to attend drug testing and training, association with convicted drug dealers and other shady figures, numerous brushes with the law and intoxication and his aknoweldged drug habit.

He brought the game (and code) into disrepute (notwithstanding any criminal charges).

A better comparison would be Lovett.

Only so much as the media, the AFL and certain elements of the publics obsession with drug use extends.

Nor were the strikes against him as numerous as you imply.

In the end the wrong course of action was taken by both the club and AFL and it was heavily influenced by the medias desire for scandal.

 

[Malifice]

Only so much as the media, the AFL and certain elements of the publics obsession with drug use extends.

Nor were the strikes against him as numerous as you imply.

In the end the wrong course of action was taken by both the club and AFL and it was heavily influenced by the medias desire for scandal.

Its arguable.

If I (as a Lawyer) ran from a booze bus, spent the night in the lock up after being found in a 'confused state' in the city, repeatedly hung around notorious drug figures (despite constant warnings not to), skipped drugs tests and so on I'd probably be struck from the roll of practitioners. notwithstanding I hadent actually been charged with an offence.

Admittedly I'd get a chance to put my case forward to the Legal Services Commission first.

Thats why I support the suspension of Cousins (and Fevola). They had numerous chances (and warnings) before the axe finally fell, and neither were under any illusions as to where continued screw ups would lead.

I mean... just how many warnings can one get before shit gets real?

You can put it to a poll if you want, but both those blokes made their beds, and despite numerous warnings not to, proceeded to lie in it.

OT, I also support suspension of Jurrah (subject to no further disadvantage i.e. he gets renumerated for the duration of his suspension) until the matter is heard out in the courts. Its a serious enough offence for mine (GBH, Rape, Murder etc) to mitigate any subjective context re his customary role as an Elder and community expectations.

Minor offences such as common Assault, driving offences, theft etc OTOH, the player should be able to continue to play (Hurley, Scotland) subject to any 'club imposed' sanctions (again also bearing context in mind).

Hurley punched out a Cabbie for no reason (that ive seen) other that it appeared to be a good idea at the time. Scotland was (rightly or wrongly) coming to the aid of his Brother when he is alleged to have decked that bloke.

Bringing the game into disrepute is a fine line with a ton of gray, and subjective context, intent, background and recidivism are all important factors.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Its arguable.

If I (as a Lawyer) ran from a booze bus, spent the night in the lock up after being found in a 'confused state' in the city, repeatedly hung around notorious drug figures (despite constant warnings not to), skipped drugs tests and so on I'd probably be struck from the roll of practitioners. notwithstanding I hadent actually been charged with an offence.

Admittedly I'd get a chance to put my case forward to the Legal Services Commission first.

Thats why I support the suspension of Cousins (and Fevola). They had numerous chances (and warnings) before the axe finally fell, and neither were under any illusions as to where continued screw ups would lead.

I mean... just how many warnings can one get before shit gets real?

You can put it to a poll if you want, but both those blokes made their beds, and despite numerous warnings not to, proceeded to lie in it.

OT, I also support suspension of Jurrah (subject to no further disadvantage i.e. he gets renumerated for the duration of his suspension) until the matter is heard out in the courts. Its a serious enough offence for mine (GBH, Rape, Murder etc) to mitigate any subjective context.

Minor offences such as common Assault, driving offences, theft etc OTOH, the player should be able to continue to play (Hurley, Scotland) subject to any 'club imposed' sanctions (again also bearing context in mind).

Bringing the game into disrepute is a fine line with a ton of gray, and subjective context is important.

The highlighted, did he?

Since when is a poll a genuine measure of the right or wrong of a situation? I have seen many HS polls that have left me baffled.

BTW Cousins was not simply suspended but de-registered. The catalyst him being arrested and wrongfully charged.

Both the club and AFL mishandled his situation, which was a case of genuine drag addiction. This was mainly down to media pressure, where player welfare is the last thing on the administrations mind.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Since when is a poll a genuine measure of the right or wrong of a situation? I have seen many HS polls that have left me baffled.

I'm going way off on a tangent here of course... but yeah, so many HS polls, like Murdoch online 'polls' in general - primarily those of a political nature, are stacked as a matter of course by the usual Boltist/Jonesian/general wingnut crowd. So are NineMSN 'polls' of the same kind, and other similar ones on major media outlet websites in Australia.

It's tragically obvious - the right-wing/lunar right-wing/wingnut option invariably gets a ridiculously high vote count.