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

[jonbe54]

Which is pretty much why I loathe meaningless awards like the Brownlow Medal. One player (with a name) plays a good game, 3 votes. A lesser known player plays equally as well or better ... nothing.

You can take it further - how many forwards or backs have one the Chaz???

Its a mid/winger/follower award pure and simple so not the best and fairest PLAYER.

 

[rand corp]

Well, trying to put biases aside: Judd is letting himself down and tarnishing his legacy a great deal in my opinion. I cannot recall a single player in the last twenty years that has behaved the way he has. Sure, there have been plenty of dirty mongrels that have serially tried to iron players out with hip and shoulder, the odd forearm or errant bunch but, Judd now has a history of malicious and unsavory attacks on players that are incapacitated and unable to defend themselves - with eye gouging and now deliberately trying to injure a pinned players strapped shoulder. All the flying bullsh1t aside Judd has attacked a pinned player, grabbed his strapped arm and tried to injure him, successfully popping his shoulder out -that is a low and un-sportsman like act of the severest kind, it has absolutely no place in football and raises serious questions about Chris Judd as a person let alone as a player.

 

[jonbe54]

Well, trying to put biases aside: Judd is letting himself down and tarnishing his legacy a great deal in my opinion. I cannot recall a single player in the last twenty years that has behaved the way he has. Sure, there have been plenty of dirty mongrels that have serially tried to iron players out with hip and shoulder, the odd forearm or errant bunch but, Judd now has a history of malicious and unsavory attacks on players that are incapacitated and unable to defend themselves - with eye gouging and now deliberately trying to injure a pinned players strapped shoulder. All the flying bullsh1t aside Judd has attacked a pinned player, grabbed his strapped arm and tried to injure him, successfully popping his shoulder out -that is a low and un-sportsman like act of the severest kind, it has absolutely no place in football and raises serious questions about Chris Judd as a person let alone as a player.

Rand m8 all of the above may be fair enough EXCEPT

Questioning his personal morals, many players get white line fever and some of the fiercest, most brutal competitors in sport have been some of the most gentle and genuine people you could ever wish to meet.

 

[Chief]

Well, trying to put biases aside: ...deliberately trying to injure a pinned players strapped shoulder. All the flying bullsh1t aside Judd has attacked a pinned player, grabbed his strapped arm and tried to injure him,

He said he wasn't deliberately trying to injure anyone, and there are varying degrees of belief in this statement. Yet we have people stating the above as fact... extrapolated to "he is a dirty player" or "dirtiest ever, should be banned from the league" or "everyone to whom I have aggressively and angrily stated that Judd is a dirty player has agreed and people on BigFooty are idiots if they don't".

You can see these sorts of one-sided conversations happening all over the place:

Delivery man arrives at a business, on for a chat...
A: "Did you see what happened on the weekend? Judd tried to break a guys arm... while he was pinned to the ground!"
B: "I dunno I didn't see it but that sounds pretty bloody shocking."
A: "Yeah he should be rubbed out of the league!"
B: "Sounds a bit like he's in trouble..."
A: "You know he's the dirtiest player ever!"
B: "Yeah? I heard he's had a couple of..."
A: "Yeah! Should be kicked out! Some idiots are trying to defend him!"
B: "I suppose he should cop a punishment. Hey look I have to get back to work mate do you need anything else?"
A: "Nah mate catch you next week."

A (on BigFooty): "Everyone I speak to reckons he is the dirtiest player ever! The people are speaking out!"

 

[Koki Freelander]

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.

Chief, could you please not make this personal. You don't know me. You don't know what I do for a living. You find it abhorrent when others do it, but you seem to feel free to make whatever judgements about other people's character you want.

Back to the topic - I don't disagree with anything you have said there. I think you hurt your case with what you have posted. Was Judd provoked? Was he in an equal fight? Or did Judd grab someone when they were otherwise incapacitated? Now apply what happened with Judd-Adams to everything you have said above. It suggests that Judd should have been (and was might I add) in considerable trouble.

And your final statement - I agree. Just like intent to drink drive does not mean an intent to kill. Just like intent to king hit someone does not equate to an intent to kill. But you tell me Chief, what did that guy in King's Cross get charged with?

 

[PieNSauce]

When have they let Judd off for being a superstar?

The last week proves that couldn't be further from the truth. Judd received a two week (before the appeal) suspension for what he did for Rischitelli. Plus a week for striking Baker when he was an Eagle. Yet everyone seems to think he was let off the next charge because he's Chris Judd. The Pavlich contact was as soft as Dale Thomas giving a Carlton player a jumper punch to the chin two weeks ago.

Four or five instances in a 200 plus career is nothing compared to what other superstars and players have done. This doesn't put Judd in the upper echelon of dirty players. Judd is a choir boy compared to the number of times Lockett, Matthews, Williams, Rhys-Jones Dustin Fletcher and Carey have fronted the tribunal. These players are still respected.

You're talking from the view point of modern footy. LOL'd at Maclure saying next time, Judd should just punch a player in the face because that's a more traditional and silly act of footy violence. You should ask Carlton people for their view on Neil Balme who broke Southby's jaw in two places. Balme would be lynched if he set foot in Visy Park.

Judd will be more respected than a player who took part in a group assault on a cleaner after a night out with his mates.

Clearly I'm not going to waste time on those who fail to ever open both eyes even for long enough to read and understand what another poster says!

 

[Chief]

Chief, could you please not make this personal. You don't know me. You don't know what I do for a living. You find it abhorrent when others do it, but you seem to feel free to make whatever judgements about other people's character you want.

It's not a character judgment. It's just an observation about the content of your arguments about legal situations. You missed the bits where I pointed out you're in the same boat as most people and how this is not your fault and is not surprising. And the bit about how I'm in the "little knowledge is a dangerous thing" category.

Back to the topic - I don't disagree with anything you have said there. I think you hurt your case with what you have posted. Was Judd provoked? Was he in an equal fight? Or did Judd grab someone when they were otherwise incapacitated? Now apply what happened with Judd-Adams to everything you have said above. It suggests that Judd should have been (and was might I add) in considerable trouble.

Those examples were just general issues surrounding assault. Earlier in this thread there was a little bit of an exchange about 'duty of care'. Probably the only relevant part of my post about assault was the sporting field where there is consent to 'assault' within the rules of the game.

Was Judd's action in itself - taking hold of a player's arm - outside the rules of the game? No.
Was taking hold in that way in that situation reckless, that is, without concern for the obvious risk of injury? Judd says yes, give me my punishment.
Was it intended to harm? Judd says no, tribunal disagreed. I reckon he intended to give him a bit of a tweak of momentary pain without actual injury while trying to get the ball out.
What was the result? Injury.

All these things added up to 4 weeks off (of course the actual calculation is more complicated but that's the general drift I get from it). I called 2-3 and in the end 4 is probably right: I'm no expert.

So in my opinion, based on the above, "He intentionally dislocated Adams' arm!!!!" is just hysteria and should be treated as such.

And your final statement - I agree. Just like intent to drink drive does not mean an intent to kill. Just like intent to king hit someone does not equate to an intent to kill. But you tell me Chief, what did that guy in King's Cross get charged with?

You're still getting mixed up on the intention point and I don't have the skills to explain it any better than I have.

 

[Max zero]

So you talk out of fear and ignorance, you should have just posted that so we could get straight to the point.

You want to ban cults do you?? So we get rid of all religions and for that matter all footy clubs

Ignorance? Please tell me where I have been mistaken in my description of Scientology beliefs? If It's embarrassing to have those beliefs in the public domain then perhaps you should re asses your faith in them.

As for banning other cults? Sure why not? Oh did you think I was just picking on your preferred fairy tale? A quick check of my posting history will show you that I am just as critical of every other religeon.

 

[Chief]

... aaaand there's another board for religion.

 

[jonbe54]

Anyone who comes here to argue religion or politics is WEIRD

 

[Max zero]

It's not a character judgment. It's just an observation about the content of your arguments about legal situations. You missed the bits where I pointed out you're in the same boat as most people and how this is not your fault and is not surprising. And the bit about how I'm in the "little knowledge is a dangerous thing" category.



Those examples were just general issues surrounding assault. Earlier in this thread there was a little bit of an exchange about 'duty of care'. Probably the only relevant part of my post about assault was the sporting field where there is consent to 'assault' within the rules of the game.

Was Judd's action in itself - taking hold of a player's arm - outside the rules of the game? No.
Was taking hold in that way in that situation reckless, that is, without concern for the obvious risk of injury? Judd says yes, give me my punishment.
Was it intended to harm? Judd says no, tribunal disagreed. I reckon he intended to give him a bit of a tweak of momentary pain without actual injury while trying to get the ball out.
What was the result? Injury.

All these things added up to 4 weeks off (of course the actual calculation is more complicated but that's the general drift I get from it). I called 2-3 and in the end 4 is probably right: I'm no expert.

So in my opinion, based on the above, "He intentionally dislocated Adams' arm!!!!" is just hysteria and should be treated as such.


You're still getting mixed up on the intention point and I don't have the skills to explain it any better than I have.

So your view is he intended to hurt him but not seriously hurt him?

And according to you accusing Judd of intending to seriously hurt Adam's instead of just hurting him in a minor way amounts to hysteria?

I am glad you can draw such grand conclusions from such a fine line. Especially when the end result (ie evidence) was a serious injury.

Claim Judd attempted to cause a serious injury -> caused a serious injury = hysterical

Claim Judd attempted to cause a minor injury -> caused a serious injury = sensible

 

[laminex]

Ignorance? Please tell me where I have been mistaken in my description of Scientology beliefs? If It's embarrassing to have those beliefs in the public domain then perhaps you should re asses your faith in them.

As for banning other cults? Sure why not? Oh did you think I was just picking on your preferred fairy tale? A quick check of my posting history will show you that I am just as critical of every other religeon.

Wrong?? pick where you are wrong??

You added nothing other than a TMZ type of sweeping generalisation of somthing you know nothing about but are too far in now to admit you mouthed off and have nothing real to add. If you want to bag something learn about it not from TMZ and then post until then grow up.

 

[laminex]

So your view is he intended to hurt him but not seriously hurt him?

And according to you accusing Judd of intending to seriously hurt Adam's instead of just hurting him in a minor way amounts to hysteria?

I am glad you can draw such grand conclusions from such a fine line. Especially when the end result (ie evidence) was a serious injury.

Claim Judd attempted to cause a serious injury -> caused a serious injury = hysterical

Claim Judd attempted to cause a minor injury -> caused a serious injury = sensible

Got it now, you are a child and want to make noise to get attention.

good for you mate, have a feeling you will go far.

 

[Syd]

Anyone who comes here to argue religion or politics is WEIRD

And yet there's a board for it.

 

[Off The Couch]

It's probably been said time and again in this thread but nothing highlights the phrase 'a week is a long time in football' moreso than this thread. Two weeks ago we had some blue supporters screaming that Wellingham was a dirty sniping dog who deserved hanging for his hit on simpson which resulted in a broken jaw and yet this week we have some of those same blues supporters saying that Judd didn't mean to hurt Adams and shouldn't have copped 4 weeks. I'd like to say we could probably all learn something from that but no doubt we will all be back to square one and sledging one another and throwing stones should another incident occur on the weekend.

 

[Chief]

I haven't seen any arguments that Judd should not have gotten 4 weeks.

A broken jaw putting a player out for 6 weeks or so is not the same as a dislocation that put a player out for... about 12 minutes in total. However, I'm not sure what it will be in future rehab for the shoulder - I've seen people call it as a reconstruction etc but not seen any links to actual reports on it.

 

[Chief]

So your view is he intended to hurt him but not seriously hurt him?

Intended to cause him a bit of momentary pain or discomfort as happens in many tackles in footy, not injury. And I don't think the whole object was to cause pain, just a shade above disregard for the possibility. You can pick that apart and develop a whole line of thought that you think I hold but it's probably pointless.

Judd could have done other things but he chose a way that would be a bit painful and it ended up in injury: hence reckless rather than intentional.

 

[jonbe54]

And yet there's a board for it.

Excuse please I meant here - big footy - didn't realize I would need to make that so crystal clear, nevertheless there you go. Hope I'm clear now.

 

[keepzitreal]

wonder what that Carlton tweeter who sent death threats to Sam Lonergan for his tackle that was 'a bit too rough' thinks about his teams captain...

 

[Off The Couch]

I haven't seen any arguments that Judd should not have gotten 4 weeks.

A broken jaw putting a player out for 6 weeks or so is not the same as a dislocation that put a player out for... about 12 minutes in total. However, I'm not sure what it will be in future rehab for the shoulder - I've seen people call it as a reconstruction etc but not seen any links to actual reports on it.

That is where we differ Chief - they shouldn't be treated any different and just because one sustained a more serious injury than the other is irrelevent - it was never the intent of wellingham to break his jaw, just as it wasn't ziebell's intent to knock Joseph out and according to you not Judd's intent to cause serious harm either and that is what leads me to your statement about 'hysteria' - the hysteria factor applies across the board and includes Wellingham and Ziebell and no doubt some other player at some point during the remainder of the season it's the nature of the bf beast.

 

[Max zero]

Intended to cause him a bit of momentary pain or discomfort as happens in many tackles in footy, not injury. And I don't think the whole object was to cause pain, just a shade above disregard for the possibility. You can pick that apart and develop a whole line of thought that you think I hold but it's probably pointless.

Judd could have done other things but he chose a way that would be a bit painful and it ended up in injury: hence reckless rather than intentional.

Well at the end of the day the only objective evidence we have as to Judd's intention (since we can't read minds and statements are self serving) is the outcome (serious injury) and past history (which is also not favourable to Judd). Pretty much everything else is personal opinion.
Based on the objective evidence (history and outcome) what would someone with no prior knowledge think Judd's intention would be?

You may not agree but it is
certainly not 'hysterical' to believe Judd had sinister intentions based on the evidence.

 

[Max zero]

Wrong?? pick where you are wrong??

You added nothing other than a TMZ type of sweeping generalisation of somthing you know nothing about but are too far in now to admit you mouthed off and have nothing real to add. If you want to bag something learn about it not from TMZ and then post until then grow up.

So I ask again where have I incorrectly described Scientology beliefs? Is the claim of Xenu false? Thetans false?

If I am clearly wrong you should have no trouble correcting me. Instead you have a hissy fit and call people names.

I have stated my question twice now (and its a very simple one) so are you going to have a crack at answering it?

 

[laminex]

So I ask again where have I incorrectly described Scientology beliefs? Is the claim of Xenu false? Thetans false?

If I am clearly wrong you should have no trouble correcting me. Instead you have a hissy fit and call people names.

I have stated my question twice now (and its a very simple one) so are you going to have a crack at answering it?

If you choose to take a simple view of it then by all mean you are correct, A view held many years ago and has nothing to do with it.

But your TMZ view shows you know nothing at all, you want to have a conversation about it then go and learn more than a 2 second google and a dumbed down version that has been spouted for the stupid people. Also check out landmark and the matrix movie s while you are at it they all run into one.

 

[Max zero]

If you choose to take a simple view of it then by all mean you are correct, A view held many years ago and has nothing to do with it.

But your TMZ view shows you know nothing at all, you want to have a conversation about it then go and learn more than a 2 second google and a dumbed down version that has been spouted for the stupid people. Also check out landmark and the matrix movie s while you are at it they all run into one.

Sorry your post seems a bit jumbled.

From what I have deciphered you agree that my descriptions were right or that they used to be. Can to fill me on the latest Scientology advances or is that a secret? Do you still believe in Xenu and Thetans? E-meters?

 

[laminex]

Sorry your post seems a bit jumbled.

From what I have deciphered you agree that my descriptions were right or that they used to be. Can to fill me on the latest Scientology advances or is that a secret? Do you still believe in Xenu and Thetans? E-meters?

Mate i am done with this because you do not have enough knowledge to argue about this properly, i know you think you do and that is the most frighting part.