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

[laminex]

Regulation bump in a sense you see few of those every year, at the same time what Judd did was akin to Hopoate's or Filandia's indiscretions - a very weird and rare act of unsportsmanlike conduct.
Wellingham didn't admit his intent was to harm, he said he didn't mean to hurt him that much, basically admitted he wanted to make Simmo earn it and was very remorseful about the outcome. And the tribunal saw it this way, charging Wellingham with reckless while Judd was accused of an intentional act.

Yes he was i thought that when he was laughing at it on game day and saying he never even bothered to think about it, just move on because its nothing. His act was intentional and he should have gotten 8 weeks for it.

 

[laminex]

It was different to Judd's, as he wasn't bending a players arm backwards who was lying on the ground.

Twisting an arm around a players back like both did is not on and if it happened this weekend instead of 3 weeks ago he would go for it, but he plays for the hawks and that makes it nothing.

 

[laminex]

Face it - what he did was a dog act. You can quote pyschology books or pretend that this is not his go, but facts are that he has a history of doing low acts (gouging, pressure points etc) on defenceless players. It's part of his nature.

Maybe it's because he's forced to play a lone hand because his team mates contribute **** all and the pressure has got to him. Still - no-one forced him to go to Carlton.

what has you reply got to do with anything i posted other than you wanted in and could not come up with anything, i never said anything that your post relates too. But to answer the bold part i suggest you watch the game and look at the hard ball stats, the only place well down in the game was scoring, we won or broke even on most things we just could not score goals only points. We also did not get 9 goals directly from free kicks and 2 50m penalty's.

Go talk your shit else where mate.

 

[laminex]

He was laughing at Robinson, that is gamemanship.

Wellingham hasn't got a history of being a dirty player who snipes like Judd, he is a fair ball player & made 1 mistake. He admitted his guilt, he was remorseful. This is unlike Judd, who wouldn't admitt guilt & tried to weasel out of the charge.

Yes by getting on stand saying what he did wrong and telling them he was there to cop his whack, the only reason he did not plead guilty was because as he said it was not an intentional act.

gamemanship is going for the ball not the jaw do you get that.

 

[bodazoka]

<------------ This is chewbacca

 

[Thommo 42]

No they are judged by little people on footy forums who account for nothing in the life of Chris Judd, My bet is he has never posted or talk about you, me or any other knob here. so lets not get carried away with some sort of self importance.

what on earth does that have to do with anything?

 

[laminex]

what on earth does that have to do with anything?

People on here bang on about how they judge or respect thing, i am saying that out side ....well even inside this forum our thoughts and judgements do not mean anything.

 

[Koki Freelander]

You're saying it was a deliberate dislocation, indicating the intent was to dislocate the arm and all actions were aimed at that purpose.

Judd says holding the arm was aimed at allowing the ball to be stripped out. The resulting injury was the result of lack of care in the deliberate acts aimed at that outcome, which in itself doesn't seem to be against the rules.


Not at all.

There is a difference there and I don't think it is surprising that many people are confusing "deliberate act" in relation to the arm grab with "deliberate act" in relation to the injury. It took me a while to get it into my head at Uni.

The big issue is that people don't even know what they don't know. Here we have someone saying "deliberate dislocation" and eliding it to "deliberate arm grab".

So, in simple dot points:

Deliberate arm grab? Yes - obviously.

Deliberate dislocation? No evidence for this at all.

Refer to my legal metaphor above buddy - I'm not going to repeat myself. You would be a very liberal Justice indeed ("I accept the defense's claim that the punch was intended to stun, not break the accuser's jaw")

 

[Diesel1993]

Judd is like the kid at school who gets bullied (tagged) day after day after day, until one day (friday night - game against Brisbane) he snaps and gives the bully (tagger) a good old dose of his own medicine. Typically the AFL (School Principal) is a law unto themselves and don't look after this good kid (Judd) who is getting bullied and then this happens. Then they over-react, and label the good kid (Judd) a menace that must be dealt with.

Have seen it all before.

The very real issue in the game today, and let's take the jumper that the player is wearing out of the equation, the Wellingham incident, the Ziebel incident - Players are too often leaving the ground to contest against a player who still has his feet on the ground. The issue isn't so much that they are leaving the ground, but it's how they are ultimately attacking the ball in the air that is the issue.

For example, both Wellingham and Ziebel could have taken possession of the ball in the air, but rather they both elected to turn side-on to create a high, and high-impact hip and shoulder. If Wellingham or Ziebel had continued FRONT ON, then there is no issue, as they are then GENUINELY playing the ball and puttign themselves in the same danger as Simpson and Joseph did. That would be a fair contest.

Judd got four weeks, and there's no issue there. but let's not kid ourselves. He gets bullied every second of every game and doesn't get half the free kicks he is entitled to. He's not dirty, he's frustrated.

 

[Astro Bomber]

/end thread

Is it me or does Shaw pull that face in every action shot taken of him.

 

[Koki Freelander]

After he made light of it on game day, but i get it what Welingham did was fair and great and should be held to a higher god, Judd only because he does not play for Collingwood should be hung naked at the city sqr so young children can throw rocks at him.

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

Actually, if you read my post, you will see that I don't defend Wellingham at all. In fact, like Wellingham, I was prepared to accept whatever he was offered. He got 5 weeks, reduced for good behaviour.

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

 

[Koki Freelander]

Judd is like the kid at school who gets bullied (tagged) day after day after day, until one day (friday night - game against Brisbane) he snaps and gives the bully (tagger) a good old dose of his own medicine. Typically the AFL (School Principal) is a law unto themselves and don't look after this good kid (Judd) who is getting bullied and then this happens. Then they over-react, and label the good kid (Judd) a menace that must be dealt with.

Have seen it all before.

The very real issue in the game today, and let's take the jumper that the player is wearing out of the equation, the Wellingham incident, the Ziebel incident - Players are too often leaving the ground to contest against a player who still has his feet on the ground. The issue isn't so much that they are leaving the ground, but it's how they are ultimately attacking the ball in the air that is the issue.

For example, both Wellingham and Ziebel could have taken possession of the ball in the air, but rather they both elected to turn side-on to create a high, and high-impact hip and shoulder. If Wellingham or Ziebel had continued FRONT ON, then there is no issue, as they are then GENUINELY playing the ball and puttign themselves in the same danger as Simpson and Joseph did. That would be a fair contest.

Judd got four weeks, and there's no issue there. but let's not kid ourselves. He gets bullied every second of every game and doesn't get half the free kicks he is entitled to. He's not dirty, he's frustrated.

He must be entitled to a lot of bloody free kicks then

 

[Tex_21]

If Ziebell continues on front on to contest the ball, he would be ignoring the instinct that every kid is taught growing up, to turn side on to protect yourself (ignoring the fact the AFL seems to prefer both players going at a ball to not protect themselves).

Its a ****ing load of shit.

Judd has a track record that would make Roger Merrett blush too.

 

[Koki Freelander]

You're saying it was a deliberate dislocation, indicating the intent was to dislocate the arm and all actions were aimed at that purpose.

Judd says holding the arm was aimed at allowing the ball to be stripped out. The resulting injury was the result of lack of care in the deliberate acts aimed at that outcome, which in itself doesn't seem to be against the rules.


Not at all.

There is a difference there and I don't think it is surprising that many people are confusing "deliberate act" in relation to the arm grab with "deliberate act" in relation to the injury. It took me a while to get it into my head at Uni.

The big issue is that people don't even know what they don't know. Here we have someone saying "deliberate dislocation" and eliding it to "deliberate arm grab".

So, in simple dot points:

Deliberate arm grab? Yes - obviously.

Deliberate dislocation? No evidence for this at all.

But this, as you so elegantly have been repeating, is not a fact. It is your opinion.
And, the law does not work this way.
"Did I punch the guy?" - yes, guilty
"Did I intend to break his jaw?" - no, not guilty
That is not how the law works - sports tribunals are subject to the same rules of natural justice as courts of law

 

[Koki Freelander]

There is no evidence of any intent to injure. I think he intended to cause a bit of pain while getting the ball out, not pop his arm out of its socket. Had there been no injury this would have been ignored.

Soooo ... you agree then. He is guilty

 

[Diesel1993]

If Ziebell continues on front on to contest the ball, he would be ignoring the instinct that every kid is taught growing up, to turn side on to protect yourself (ignoring the fact the AFL seems to prefer both players going at a ball to not protect themselves).

Its a ******* load of shit.

Judd has a track record that would make Roger Merrett blush too.

So what you are saying is that Joseph should have turned side-on too and that neither player should have actually played the ball?

That's soft if ever I've heard it.

Ziebel could have dived forward to punch the ball, as all good defenders do, but he buttered up like all midfielders do and made illegal high contact. You need to learn the game, and please don't teach children to play that way.

Man up front on or don't contest the ball.

 

[Koki Freelander]

a) Let's not stray into the personal.

b) If you have a complaint about moderation, here is the link: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/misc/contact Posting half the story in this thread does nothing to help anyone.

I honestly don't know what you are meaning. If you want to see "personal" have a look at some of your fellow Carlton supporter's posts.
I don't want to report you man; I thought we were having a conversation.

I repeat, central America.

I'm not trying to silence you buddy.

 

[Pj.Rj.Hj]

Wellingham hasn't got a history of being a dirty player who snipes like Judd, he is a fair ball player & made 1 mistake. He admitted his guilt, he was remorseful. This is unlike Judd, who wouldn't admitt guilt & tried to weasel out of the charge.

The last 2 fixtures West Coast has had against Collingwood, Wellingham did little else but snike. Glad it's caught up with him while he's still young so he can focus more on the ball before his reputation is too tainted.

 

[Tex_21]

So what you are saying is that Joseph should have turned side-on too and that neither player should have actually played the ball?

That's soft if ever I've heard it.

Have you ever played the game? Kids are taught (or at least were when I was a junior) to grab the ball, and turn side on to both protect yourself, and keep your hands free in a tackle. Joseph and Ziebell should have turned side on, and gone the footy, you have a shoulder to shoulder collision (maybe some high contact if one is shorter than the other) and the game continues.

There is also the issue of the hospital pass to Joseph.

Ziebel could have dived forward to punch the ball, as all good defenders do, but he buttered up like all midfielders do and made illegal high contact. You need to learn the game, and please don't teach children to play that way.

Man up front on or don't contest the ball.

The AFL has structured the rules over the past few years to reward stupidity by getting players to stop protecting themselves going into contests. Watch old footage, blokes come at the ball, then turn side on as they collect it, to protect themselves and the ball. Now we see guys going in fully front on, wide open because they know a free is waiting for them. Joel Selwood is a classic example. Tough as nails, but plays stupid.

 

[worthy]

There is no evidence of any intent to injure. I think he intended to cause a bit of pain while getting the ball out, not pop his arm out of its socket. Had there been no injury this would have been ignored.

I agree with this, apart from the bolded, he intended to cause pain but accidently injured Adams.
Wellingham intended to cause pain (not injury as you suggested) muffed it up and caused injury.

They both got their fair whack.

 

[PieBeast]

Yes he was i thought that when he was laughing at it on game day and saying he never even bothered to think about it, just move on because its nothing. His act was intentional and he should have gotten 8 weeks for it.

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.

 

[Diesel1993]

Have you ever played the game? Kids are taught (or at least were when I was a junior) to grab the ball, and turn side on to both protect yourself, and keep your hands free in a tackle. Joseph and Ziebell should have turned side on, and gone the footy, you have a shoulder to shoulder collision (maybe some high contact if one is shorter than the other) and the game continues.

There is also the issue of the hospital pass to Joseph.



The AFL has structured the rules over the past few years to reward stupidity by getting players to stop protecting themselves going into contests. Watch old footage, blokes come at the ball, then turn side on as they collect it, to protect themselves and the ball. Now we see guys going in fully front on, wide open because they know a free is waiting for them. Joel Selwood is a classic example. Tough as nails, but plays stupid.

Played the game at TAC level. The game has changed and it's no longer acceptable to leave the ground and turn side on into a player. Joseph played the ball fairly, Ziebel didn't. If it were the other way around i would say the same. If a plyer in Ziebel's case can't/doesn't have the ability to play front on when he decides to leave the ground then he shouldn't.

What the tribunal came back with was just that. He could have gone front on and challenged honestly and opened himself to the dangers that he was in fact putting Joseph in. The players that we love to watch, the honest hard ball winning players go front on. Mitch Robinson and Joel Selwood are the best in comp at it. True ball players.

 

[Diesel1993]

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.

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

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.

 

[Diesel1993]

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.

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!

 

[Tex_21]

Played the game at TAC level. The game has changed and it's no longer acceptable to leave the ground and turn side on into a player. Joseph played the ball fairly, Ziebel didn't. If it were the other way around i would say the same. If a plyer in Ziebel's case can't/doesn't have the ability to play front on when he decides to leave the ground then he shouldn't.

And isn't it a ****ing 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.

What the tribunal came back with was just that. He could have gone front on and challenged honestly and opened himself to the dangers that he was in fact putting Joseph in. The players that we love to watch, the honest hard ball winning players go front on. Mitch Robinson and Joel Selwood are the best in comp at it. True ball players.

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