Liam Jurrah facing 4 extra charges

[Lord of the Pies]

The Jurrah selection puzzles me. A lot of players have had club imposed suspensions for, relatively minor, off field discretions. Even if he is proven inocent he was still involved in a drunken brawl. Same goes for Scotland who also faces assault charges. Seems like double standards to me.

 

[Malifice]

The highlighted, did he?

Skipped a number of training sessions after being tipped off that drug testers were present.

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.

Good point, I was more alluding to the fact that on the balance of probabilities not many would seriously question the decision to give Cousins the ass when he was finally given the chop.

Even many on your board conceeded it was appropriate.

And he was the favored son over there on a scale never seen before or since.

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

And Fevolas catalyst was telling a community support officer to **** off.

They were not isolated incidents, and they followed a series of warnings and club imposed sanctions for both players (senior players) who should have known better.

Youre taking the incident out of context, and without consideration of a high rate of recidivism from Cousins.

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.

Arguable. Youre doing two things here though; deflecting blame from Ben, and lessening the blame on the club by shifting the focus to the media. The club knew about his issues or were willfully blind in the Nelsonian sense of holding the telescope to their wrong eye. We could have handled Fev better; you blokes could have handled Ben better.

I feel for Ben - my brother is a smack addict - but you cant say he wasnt given enough chances, or that he wasnt aware of what a **** up on the scale of getting arrested shirtless in the middle of the day in northbridge hanging around with known drug dealers and escaping charge on a technicality (while on a last warning no less) would lead to.

Can you honestly say you were surprised he was given the flick when he was or that Ben was treated unfairly given all the circumstances leading up to his axing?

 

[yaco55]

Think Melbourne has handled the Jurrah case without tact - And I will lump the Scotland case in with this - Collingwood set the example with Wellingham - Drinking when on duty - suspended for 2 weeks - But could VFL - Jurrah played the last 2 weeks for the VFL - if Melbourne was smart - They would have announced that he was suspended ( back at the time ) for 2 weeks - He plays his 2 weeks at VFL ( which he has already done ) and there would be less criticism.

Unsure what happened with Carlton and Scotland ?

And the strangest thing is that Sylvia was suspended for one week for his incident before the Irish games - Once Sylvia was fit after his pre-season injury the club announced that he was serving a 1 week suspension.

Sylvia/Jurrah had different penalties applied.

Why is this so ?

 

[MightyTiger]

Think Melbourne has handled the Jurrah case without tact - And I will lump the Scotland case in with this - Collingwood set the example with Wellingham - Drinking when on duty - suspended for 2 weeks - But could VFL - Jurrah played the last 2 weeks for the VFL - if Melbourne was smart - They would have announced that he was suspended ( back at the time ) for 2 weeks - He plays his 2 weeks at VFL ( which he has already done ) and there would be less criticism.

Unsure what happened with Carlton and Scotland ?

And the strangest thing is that Sylvia was suspended for one week for his incident before the Irish games - Once Sylvia was fit after his pre-season injury the club announced that he was serving a 1 week suspension.

Sylvia/Jurrah had different penalties applied.

Why is this so ?

Hardly, Richmond suspended Connors a couple years back for I think it was 8 weeks for having one to many drinks at the hotel after a loss in Sydney, we then suspended him again during the pre-season this year and he didn't attend our training camp over seas.

IMO by Melbourne allowing Jurrah to play this week given his circumstances (Whether he be innocent or otherwise) sends the wrong type of message to the playing group.

 

[BORK]

Okay I would like to hear some standard Demon fans defend their clubs position if hypothetically Craig Thomson was named for you this weekend and your clubs integrity was put under the spotlight here. "Hasn't been found guilty in a court" ect.

 

[Tbone McGraw]

Jurrah will be a late withdrawal.

 

[jadr76]

The Jurrah saga demonstrates that the AFL need clear rules and consequences for inappropriate off field player behaviour. That includes rules and consequence for players charged with criminal offending.

 

[Black Diamond]

The Jurrah saga demonstrates that the AFL need clear rules and consequences for inappropriate off field player behaviour. That includes rules and consequence for players charged with criminal offending.

And this is what most posters are concerned about. The image before substance approach by the big wigs at AFL house is definitely eroding public confidence.

Jurrah is innocent until proven otherwise and deserves the presumption of innocence. It's just so hard to escape the feeling at the moment that if he wasn't aboriginal, the league would have found a way to exclude him.

 

[campbell]

Suspended because accusations have been made? Seriously?

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

Not just allegations, he s charged with these offences. His co accuser has been remanded in custody.

Says it all really.

 

[campbell]

The Jurrah saga demonstrates that the AFL need clear rules and consequences for inappropriate off field player behaviour. That includes rules and consequence for players charged with criminal offending.

agreed.

 

[pantskyle]

As a man with aboriginal heritage I think it is disgusting Melbourne are going to play this guy.

Some of our communitys are being destroyed by violence, so many of our youth end up in jail. Women are beaten to within an inch of their lives, even a womans murder is not that uncommon and what do you do, you reward someone who is standing trial for some seriously violent crimes, but wait, why not highlight this by rewarding him during indigenous round.
What kind of message does this send to our communitys where a lot of our kids only indigenous role models are agoriginal afl stars.

You are saying it is ok to war with other familys, its alright to attack someone with a weapon and why shouldnt women get a beating as well.
Thankyou Melbourne Footy Club and Jurrah for undoing the good work the likes of Kevin Sheedy and Michael Long have managed over the past 20 years.

Epic post.

 

[Jef Costello]

A few points of note. People can make up their own mind of course but it's important that this opinion is an informed one.

1. For mine the presumption of innocence is paramount and he should not be punished regarding those specific charges until he is convicted. There has been other examples of non-indigenous players who have received the same opportunity eg : Hurley and Scotland etc. l don;t presume to know what happened until a court makes a judgement on that.

2. The laying of charges in no way conveys guilt. Moreover there are two accused in this situation and both are being charged without distinguishing between who may or may not have been responsible for the alleged attacks, if anyone. No idea if this will happen in this case but here in the NT it is common early on for a range of charges to be laid and then to be peeled back as a case proceeds and evidence is evaluated at committal hearings.

3. The co-accused has been remanded because he has violated parole a very short time after being released for a prior offence, hence placing him in a competely different position.

4. The nature of the case, two family groups from the same community split by a bitter and tragic feud, makes the nature and motivation of witness statements from either side difficult to receive objectively. The feud has been incredibly significant in its sad consequences for this small community.

5. Moreover as even the prosecutor noted yesterday Mr Robson told the court alcohol may have been a factor among some of the witnesses, as many people allegedly present at the dispute had been drinking. "To be fair, there is some disparity in the oral evidence in terms of who did what," he said.

6. July is only a committal hearing. The case will not go to trial, if it does so, until late this year or even more likely next year. This is the standard course here in the NT. To stand someone down for a whole season based on accusations seems unjust to me.

7. Jurrah has been sanctioned by the club for admitting to being drunk whilst on rehab. All other matters he has denied and they are subject to the course of the courts at this stage. Since his club sanction he has completed the program laid out for him by the club, spent many weeks in training, then 2 weeks at VFL and earnt an opportunity at AFL level.

8. More broadly anyone stating that Indigenous people get an advantaged ride in Australian society, most especially in the courts, well....it would be funny if it wasn't so ****ing sad.

 

[pantskyle]

I wonder if it wasn't Indigenous Round would he have been chosen. That concerns me. This man is facing some serious jail time for some serious crimes that he has been charged with. Yes innocent until proven guilty but fair dinkum this is serious.

He is about to enter a fight for his freedom and the MFC parade him and have made him the centre of attention. I can imagine the commentators now if he does something good on the field. Massive wankfest. Will any of them condemn him?

How can he be in the right mindset?

 

[scroda]

St Kilda took a stand with Lovett. No innocent until proven guilty there even though in the end he was found not guilty.

St Kilda must have better moral code than Dees...

 

[Jef Costello]

St Kilda took a stand with Lovett. No innocent until proven guilty there even though in the end he was found not guilty.

St Kilda must have better moral code than Dees...

Lovett was released because his position in the playing group was untenable. He had been at the club for five minutes before those events, which also implicated/included other Stkilda players. This was on the back of him coming to the club as a second chance after prior misdemeanours and even court convictions whilst at Essendon (l think, happy to be corrected if wrong).

Saints didn't stand down Milne or Montagna for the duration of that serious investigation did they?

 

[scroda]

Lovett was released because his position in the playing group was untenable. He had been at the club for five minutes before those events, which also implicated/included other Stkilda players. This was on the back of him coming to the club as a second chance after prior misdemeanours and even court convictions whilst at Essendon (l think, happy to be corrected if wrong).

Saints didn't stand down Milne or Montagna for the duration of that serious investigation did they?

Were they charged though? I didn't think so whereas Lovett and Jurrah were. Correct me if I'm wrong

 

[danehill123]

Not sure if this has been mentioned, can't be bothered reading twelve pages of drivel, but Heath Scotland is facing assault charges yet noone finds it strange he is playing?!

 

[pantskyle]

Not sure if this has been mentioned, can't be bothered reading twelve pages of drivel, but Heath Scotland is facing assault charges yet noone finds it strange he is playing?!

Not only is he facing them but the police have video evidence that he is guilty. All on surveillance camera's.

Should not be playing.

 

[Jef Costello]

Were they charged though? I didn't think so whereas Lovett and Jurrah were. Correct me if I'm wrong

l'm completely not sure either mate and also stand to be corrected Need someone else to help us out.

Regardless to me being under serious investigation, or then being charged, or even being committed to stand trial are not the points of sufficient judgment on which to act. The final judgment of a court is. From that judgment the AFL or Demons or Saints or whoever can act with confidence and clarity on what must be considered as established evidence.

Just my opinion of course.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Lovett was released because his position in the playing group was untenable.

........it was untenable because his alleged offence occured within the proximity of his teammates and involved friends of his teammates

Jurrahs offence on the other hand occured thousands of kms away from the club.

Thats the only difference.

At the end of the day it shouldnt matter WHERE the alleged crime occurs and who it at the club is affected by it. If youre charged with a serious crime that will attract a jail sentence you should be stood down from playing seniors until the matter is resolved one way of the other.

Both StKilda and Melbourne have got this wrong. Both clubs should have suspended the players on full pay and let them remain at the club playing VFL until justice is served.

 

[Jef Costello]

l don't think the 'where' was the only reason as per my earlier post.

However fair enough, that's your view well expressed on the general principles of these matters, agree to disagree.

 

[Eagle87]

Jurrah is innocent until proven guilty. It is a serious crime, and he could very well wind up in jail for a long time. But that is a 'what if' scenario. Should he be playing? I'm 50/50. Arguably, it does bring the game into disrepute, but I think that has already happened and Jurrah playing will not amplify it. What I mean is, there is already a media storm over him; 'AFL player charged with several counts of aggravated assault with machete!' It's been all over the news for a while, which would have damaged the image of the game anyway. Having him play this weekend is hardly going to amplify that.

Melbourne are clearly throwing their support behind their guy, and showing it by selecting him to play. I haven't seen any evidence, it's a very blurred situation and I'll let the court decide Jurrah's fate regarding the issue. In the meantime, I don't see the harm in allowing him to play.

And before you get into me because I'm a Melbourne fan, and he'd be a big addition to our struggling team: he's coming off injury, and has this shit hanging over his head. I doubt he will star for us; but until things become a little clearer one way or the other, and until the issue is resolved, I have no big reservations with him playing.

With utmost respect to our indigenous players, aren't Melbourne increasing the "50:50" nature of this selection decision by doing it in indigenous round?

I mean it's a celebration of what indigenous players bring to the game, there is increased focus on those players, so Melbourne think that's an opportune moment to bring back Jurrah? And to do so on the day he has appeared in court on serious charges (oddly apparently in his Melbourne AFL tie)?

I'd suggest that sort of decision making reflects poorly on the club and suggests a lack of professionalism and sense from those who run it.

 

[LeverPuller]

- Jurrah is, to a point, one of the stars of the game. Most highlight reels produced of the game show him flying for a mark. He's exciting as all hell.

- The MFC did suspend him for being drunk.

- Jurrah has denied the other accusations. Moreover, perhaps the MFC has learnt from the Lovett and decided that they can't move early on this? I know Lovett was different with the teammates etc. but at the same time he was definitely charged. To remove a player on such charges before the courts act could be regarded as influencing opinion as another body has 'found him guilty' and thus influences the opinion of a jury.

- A case this serious can take a bloody long time to get before a court for trial. Yesterday was the first of what can be a series of hearings that occurs before a trial date is even set. It probably won't be heard til at least October, if not next year. The reality is, to 'suspend a player til their case is heard' could take years and ruin their career.

 

[Baldur]

........it was untenable because his alleged offence occured within the proximity of his teammates and involved friends of his teammates

Jurrahs offence on the other hand occured thousands of kms away from the club.

Thats the only difference.

At the end of the day it shouldnt matter WHERE the alleged crime occurs and who it at the club is affected by it. If youre charged with a serious crime that will attract a jail sentence you should be stood down from playing seniors until the matter is resolved one way of the other.

Both StKilda and Melbourne have got this wrong. Both clubs should have suspended the players on full pay and let them remain at the club playing VFL until justice is served.

Do you think Carey should have been allowed to stay at North? Of course it makes a huge difference if it affects other people at the club.

I feel for Melbourne here. No matter what they do they are in going to appear to be in the wrong to some people. Indeed at least one poster here would no doubt consider them to be in the wrong regardless of what they do. Not that he would ever admit this.

Sack or suspend him & they will be the bad guys who have prejudged his guilt & some will call them racist as well.
Play him & many will say they are not taking violence seriously enough.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Not sure if this has been mentioned, can't be bothered reading twelve pages of drivel, but Heath Scotland is facing assault charges yet noone finds it strange he is playing?!

Quite. I'm wondering where all the outrage is about that issue. Given the fact that as PK said after this post, in Scotland's case, unlike Jurrah's, the police actually seem to have clear video evidence confirming what he did.

Doubtless everyone's just taking a while to warm up on that one, and the main board will be flooded with all manner of comments and quips about the Scotland issue soon enough, I'm sure