Make an argument that Judd is not the dirtiest player in the game.

[PieBeast]

What exactly was Wellingham going to plead? Not guilty? get real.

It was more obvious that what Judd did was deliberate yet he still pleaded not guilty, shows what a weak liar he is.

The only injustice in the Wellingham case was the MRP wanting their 5 seconds of fame to say, "hey look everyone, we're still relevant!"

But they got it wrong because INTENT was clear for all to see. AFL didn't want it going to tribunal where he would have been up for a 7-10 week ban with no reduction.

Absolute garbage, 5 weeks for Wellingham's action is more than adequate.
Funny thing is if Judd's case stayed in MRP's hands where they wouldn't have had Gleeson tell them to ignore Judd's previous record and not to add on 30% loading he would have got 7 weeks and you know it.

 

[Diesel1993]

And isn't it a ******* disgrace that a bloke can't even look after himself anymore. The AFL, in trying to make the game safer for little kiddies, has made it more dangerous by creating a bunch of "Kosis" that can run around with no awareness and ability to protect themselves.


True ball players should also have the right to protect themselves.

Now you are just arguing for the sake of it. I love a good bump. But the reality of the game is that the speeds at which players operate is too quick for certain actions. If you want to lay a hit then you need to get your technique and decision making right. Otherwise, as I said, don't enter a contest that you won't win legally.

The best thing Ziebel could have done was time his run so that jospeh caught the ball and then nail him in a LEGAL cracking tackle.

if we are talking about players looking after themselves, I think for the most part players today are just more honest and accountable than in the good ol' days

 

[PieBeast]

BTW - I will only remember Didak for being the gutless coward he is and not calling the police, and Dane Swan for being the gutless coward he is for giving an innocent man a permanent brain injury. Good to see you have such outstanding role models to look up to!

Thats just pathetic, even by carlton's standards.

 

[Diesel1993]

Your B&F is named after a person who served time in Pentridge Prison.

You have three players currently on your books that should be in prison...

 

[Tex_21]

The best thing Ziebel could have done was time his run so that jospeh caught the ball and then nail him in a LEGAL cracking tackle.

And that wouldn't be soft as butter?

 

[Diesel1993]

Thats just pathetic, even by carlton's standards.

your 'hero' didn't even have the decency to pay the poor bloke.

http://www.news.com.au/national/afl...ttlement-default/story-e6frfkvr-1225796131338


Didak - And Collingwood let him appear in the Anzac game...WOW - your club has standards.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/teams/grieving-mother-slams-alan-didak/story-e6frf9kx-1111113856025

 

[Diesel1993]

And that wouldn't be soft as butter?

Opportunistic, but then it's an honest contest and it means players who have courage to run with the flight of the ball will continue to do so.

 

[PieBeast]

your 'hero' didn't even have the decency to pay the poor bloke.

http://www.news.com.au/national/afl...ttlement-default/story-e6frfkvr-1225796131338


Didak - And Collingwood let him appear in the Anzac game...WOW - your club has standards.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/teams/grieving-mother-slams-alan-didak/story-e6frf9kx-1111113856025

Just a heads up seeing you're new here, this isn't the board to sling mud at each other but you're quite welcome to venture into teh Bay where I'll take this thing further, a lot further
And in any case, anyone should be able to realise that pointing out the off-field indiscretions of another club's players doesn't justify Judd's unsportsmanlike and repulsive behavior on the footy field. Anyone, unless you're a carlton supporter I guess.

 

[Diesel1993]

Just a heads up seeing you're new here, this isn't the board to sling mud at each other but you're quite welcome to venture into teh Bay where I'll take this thing further, a lot further
And in any case, anyone should be able to realise that pointing out the off-field indiscretions of another club's players doesn't justify Judd's unsportsmanlike and repulsive behavior on the footy field. Anyone, unless you're a carlton supporter I guess.

Typical gutless Collingwood. Fight where you stand mate, or you want to run off behind eddie like Dids did.

 

[Diesel1993]

Just a heads up seeing you're new here, this isn't the board to sling mud at each other but you're quite welcome to venture into teh Bay where I'll take this thing further, a lot further
And in any case, anyone should be able to realise that pointing out the off-field indiscretions of another club's players doesn't justify Judd's unsportsmanlike and repulsive behavior on the footy field. Anyone, unless you're a carlton supporter I guess.

to make the point, Didak and Swan shouldn't even be allowed to play AFL after their off-field indescretions. Nothing makes me sicker as a parent to see a low cowardly member of society like Didak and swan being hailed as a hero running aroud the G, being lauded for his 'shimmy' - that's repulsive.

 

[PieBeast]

You were allowed to breed??? damn....

 

[Madblue]

Just a heads up seeing you're new here, this isn't the board to sling mud at each other but you're quite welcome to venture into teh Bay where I'll take this thing further, a lot further
And in any case, anyone should be able to realise that pointing out the off-field indiscretions of another club's players doesn't justify Judd's unsportsmanlike and repulsive behavior on the footy field. Anyone, unless you're a carlton supporter I guess.

Didak, Shaw, Swan etc....make Judd look like Mother Theresa !

 

[laminex]

Deflect all you want mate, doesn't change the fact what Wellingham did has been a part of our game for over a hundred years as opposed to lowlife acts Judd will be remembered for.
What makes it worse is carlton and Judd spent 2 hours lying about it last night. Wellingham pleaded guilty and accepted the full responsibility for his actions while Judd is sorry about getting suspended lol
I'll reiterate, you've got nothing.

Taking out a player with his eyes on the ball is part of the game, ok i have been watching the wrong game mu mistake. Why did he get 5 weeks if is part of the game i wonder ??

 

[laminex]

Didak, Shaw, Swan etc....make Judd look like Mother Theresa !

Please do not compare Murder, drunk driving, and bashing a bloke to deafness for the rest of his life to a tackle, the tackle is much worse. just ask anyone who supports Collingwood.

 

[laminex]

Thats just pathetic, even by carlton's standards.

so what he did was ok, he was with a person driving around shooting up factory's. Then that same person kills someone shortly after, no i feel for him because it is a bad situation but it is a situation he put him self in and should have called the police. Wrong place wrong time i agree but it turned bad.

 

[laminex]

You were allowed to breed??? damn....

What and opening for a comeback that would get me banned from big footy for life

 

[CF]

dirtiest player in the game is not Judd..it is Hayden Ballantyne from Freo. Complete dog.

 

[Chief]

Got it, nothing more simple or down right dumb than a good ol boy Collingwood supporter.

This thread does not need this type of comment. Leave it out.

 

[Chief]

Chief - are you going to warn Laminex now for abuse? Didn't think so.

WTF?
a) Report it.
b) I did before I read your whinge about it.

 

[Chief]

go and tell the judge "Yes I hit him, but I did not deliberately break his jaw" and see what the judge says.

The judge might take that into account. If it was a fight which both people agreed to then the judge would look at what the generally accepted (explicit or implied) terms of the fight were.

The judge would look at intent and circumstances. Intent is impossible to determine with 100% accuracy so they would use other factors to discern the most likely intent.

Going back to case law. If you agreed to a fist-fight outside a pub and I ripped a paling off a fence and beat you with it, the judge would call that assault because it was outside the terms of the fight. If I glassed you, the judge would likely call that assault. If we just punched on and I broke your jaw, immediately stopped and called you an ambulance the judge would take that into account. On the sports field there is consent to certain rough play, but actions straying outside the rules can attract assault charges. Some jurisdictions disallow a consent defence if the injury is severe. You cannot plead consent in the case of murder, by the way.

If you and I had an argument and I pushed you away but you tripped and broke a bone the judge would look at the circumstances. Remorse, the victim saying "there was nothing in it", admission that the act of pushing was wrong, the lack of premeditation, in Queensland the defence of provocation would be assessed etc etc etc.

If I just smacked you one, and broke your jaw, with no legal excuse or valid defense of course it would be assault and the circumstances would be considered to judge if it was aggravated, sentence and so on.

General article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault

You are arguing points in a way which shows you, like a lot of people, don't know anything about the law. This is not your fault and not surprising - it isn't covered in schools when I think it deserves a compulsory subject. I only know some basics - and of course I learned this stuff a couple of years ago so I'm not spot-on either. I am sure there is a criminal lawyer reading this and itching to correct my errors. The tribunal is not a chapter 3 court so it will look at things differently and consider its own criteria (as mentioned in a previous post by DawOfSuspension ).


But intention to grab an arm still does not indicate intention to dislocate a shoulder. And we are arguing over an incident that took about 2 seconds from start to finish.

 

[db swannie]

In ansswer to the OP: Because all the Carlton posters on the Carlton board say so. And they're obviously unbiased.

 

[Chief]

yet Judd is still an angel to you...

You're using a false dichotomy there. The choices of opinion are more numerous than either "angel" and "low dog psycho killer". In fact there are probably as many opinions of Judd as there are people who have seen him play.

 

[galindez]

But intention to grab an arm still does not indicate intention to dislocate a shoulder. And we are arguing over an incident that took about 2 seconds from start to finish.

Does it really matter if Judd had a specific injury in mind? I doubt Wellingham was thinking "broken jaw" as he crashed into Simpson, and that doesn't make his actions any better. Wellingham wanted to hurt a bloke, just like Judd

 

[Chief]

Does it really matter if Judd had a specific injury in mind? I doubt Wellingham was thinking "broken jaw" as he crashed into Simpson, and that doesn't make his actions any better. Wellingham wanted to hurt a bloke, just like Judd

Judd says he had no intention of hurting anyone. Wellingham said he intended to harm, but not break anything. Why should we believe Wellingham but not Judd?

Take it further: If you killed someone, would it make a difference if you said you wanted to hurt someone but not kill them?

 

[Macca81]

put simply. There is no dirtier player in the game than Judd. The most worrying part is that he is doing these things in the latter part of his career. Arent people meant to mature as they get older and stamp out this kind of stuff?

That and the fact he pleads innocent for things such as eye gouging, and attempting to dislocate or break someones arm says alot about his character. Shit bloke, and since the retirement of Barry Hall has become the dirtiest player in the AFL.