Chris Judd - The Crime and the Punishment - 4 Weeks

[sherb]

Personally I don't have an issue with that as long as you are putting up a valid and genuine argument. But then I am not a moderator nor have any control over how the board is run so unfortunately my comments regarding this will not hold much weight.
Also I agree that opposition supporters post should be deleted if they are trolling. However being deleted for debating a point?
And sorry but I am not the only one talking about some of the stuff posted on the Carlton board.
With regards to Ziebell I haven't once posted that the decision was wrong......however the majority of the media, experts and supporters from both sides have said that it was. Quite the opposite to the Judd situation, which to me is very hard to justify / defend.

No, you don't get it.

The club boards are for a club's supporters. What they post there doesn't have to agree with majority opinion. And if the majority don't agree with it, too bad. And they aren't automatically entitled to right of reply, more particularly when it comes to delicate issues.

And that's fair enough for me. For all club boards. And I am intelligent enough to respect it. I rarely post on club boards and if I do, it is never about an issue which is delicate or controversial. It is just common sense.

And as I said BigFooty's moderation on this issue on the main board has been virtually non-existent. So people have had open slather here. And yet it is still not enough?

 

[jonbe54]

No, you don't get it.

The club boards are for club supporters. What they post there doesn't have to agree with majority opinion. And if the majority don't agree with it, too bad. And they aren't automatically entitled to right of reply, more particularly when it comes to delicate issues.

And that's fair enough for me. For all club boards. And I am intelligent enough to respect it. I rarely post on club boards and if I do, it is never about an issue which is delicate or controversial. It is just common sense.

And as I said BigFooty's moderation on this issue on the main board has been virtually non-existent. So people have had open slather here. And yet it is still not enough?

Delusional defence draws sarcastic answers, where do the mods draw the line?

 

[sherb]

Delusional defence draws sarcastic answers, where do the mods draw the line?

They don't have to "draw a line". They simply have to enforce the site's own rules and guidelines.

It is not that difficult a principle to understand.

I've broken one myself, because you can't criticize mods. But it is open slather, after all.......

 

[jonbe54]

They don't have to "draw a line". They simply have to enforce the site's own rules and guidelines.

It is not that difficult a principle to understand.

I've broken one myself, because you can't criticize mods. But it is open slather, after all.......

The mods simply can't keep up there were over 100 pages in one judd thread before the verdict was handed down

 

[sherb]

The mods simply can't keep up there were over 100 pages in one judd thread before the verdict was handed down

They've never had a problem with cleaning up threads before.

In any case, you just don't abandon your own rules because it becomes too time consuming to enforce them.

Or, if you do, at the very least put "Rules Can Be Abandoned Due To Time Constraints" as a disclaimer on the rules and guidelines page.

 

[jonbe54]

They've never had a problem with cleaning up threads before.

In any case, you just don't abandon your own rules because it becomes too time consuming to enforce them.

Or, if you do, put "Rules Can Be Abandoned Due To Time Constraints" as a disclaimer on the rules and guidelines page.

Have looked in Bay 13 today?? There are pro and anti Judd threads all over the place, both sides claiming the absolute truth belongs to them, as usual the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

He transgressed the rules and has been made to pay the price.

One side won't accept he did anything wrong.

The other side won't accept the punishment fitted the crime.

Neither side will ever accept the other's point of view.

Perhaps the mods believe its better to let it run its course than try to police it.

 

[blueboy25]

Intention is almost irrelevant.

Whatever he wanted to do the following applies.

1. It had nothing to do with the game, which had stopped.

On your first point the umpire had not blown his whistle so the game had not technically stopped.

 

[blueboy25]

I'm still at a loss. If Judd didn't mean to hurt Leigh Adams what was he trying to do?

This half-arsed apology plays us all for fools. They are weasel words, formulated by Judd and his legal team to distance himself from his own low actions. I'd have a lot more respect for Judd if he took ownership of his own reckless behaviour and copped his punishment like a man.

So for every player that gets reported and then subsequently suspended you would like that player to come out and make a formal apology and state what their intention was when they committed the act.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

So for every player that gets reported and then subsequently suspended you would like that player to come out and make a formal apology and state what their intention was when they committed the act.

No only Judd, hes so evil he has rules that only apply to him

 

[A Swallow]

On your first point the umpire had not blown his whistle so the game had not technically stopped.

Obviously never played football.

 

[blueboy25]

Obviously never played football.

only for the last 25 years and still playing now, how about you.

Ever heard the phrase 'play to the whistle'

 

[A Swallow]

Of course I have, but you should know that play had clearly stopped, being an experienced player and all. Clutching at straws claiming otherwise. It doesn't make Judd look any better.

 

[Monkey King]

I must have missed the part where it's against the rules for Fraser to state why the matter was sent to the tribunal.

Fraser starts his sentences with we felt, not it was.

Now tell me, what's this about making s**t up to suit your own cause?

The direct quote from Fraser prior to the hearing - "We thought it was unsportsmanlike in nature."

But to clarify my original comment, Connors never mentioned a conspiracy and that's what was being accused by the poster I was replying to - that's the made up s**t. Pretty obvious too.

Should have spent more time in Geometry and Physics, bub.

Your internal dialogue is not my concern. It is clear from the footage that after Judd lifts the arm, the weight of Carrots tackle continues push the shoulder into the ground, turning it at roughly this degree. Watch the footage and if you think you're a Geometry whiz, give me your counter figure ... bub

 

[Chief]

I've merged a few threads here - some new ones were popping up which were likely to just repeat the existing ones.

Please have a skim through this thread rather than starting a new one.

 

[Monkey King]

Can the Manager provide evidence where the Head of Football forever interfering in things?

LOL. The first time I've seen someone from BigFooty claim Adrian Anderson doesn't put his nose into everything.

I reckon you blokes would canonise Ricky Nixon if it made Judd look bad. BigFooty gone mad

 

[Noidenous]

The direct quote from Fraser prior to the hearing - "We thought it was unsportsmanlike in nature."

But to clarify my original comment, Connors never mentioned a conspiracy and that's what was being accused by the poster I was replying to - that's the made up s**t. Pretty obvious too.



Your internal dialogue is not my concern. It is clear from the footage that after Judd lifts the arm, the weight of Carrots tackle continues push the shoulder into the ground, turning it at roughly this degree. Watch the footage and if you think you're a Geometry whiz, give me your counter figure ... bub

I repeat...

Did you notice the upwards movement of Adams' torso before it moved downwards?

That's right, it's completely in time with Judd's initial lift.

Cause:

Lifting of the torso using the shoulder as the pivot point.

Force required:

Lots.


On your first paragraph... the conspiracy is:

Connors ~ "Then you've got the head of football Adrian Anderson ... if he hasn’t been speaking to Fraser and telling the world why this has to go direct to the tribunal, then I’ll go he.

"It's just another case of AFL interference for mine."

He's claiming the AFL conspired to overrule any natural course of justice. On what grounds?

That Fraser was telling the footballing world why the case was being passed on from the tribunal? All one could tell from this is that the charge was going to be heavy because of the way Fraser described it. That doesn't mean the verdict was set in stone. He got 3 weeks knocked off the charge the AFL wanted.

Am I incorrect in thinking this is the first season where the MRP have openly discussed cases in the first place? Am I also incorrect in thinking there's been no other cases referred directly to the tribunal this season?

 

[Monkey King]

Have looked in Bay 13 today?? There are pro and anti Judd threads all over the place, both sides claiming the absolute truth belongs to them, as usual the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

He transgressed the rules and has been made to pay the price.

One side won't accept he did anything wrong.

The other side won't accept the punishment fitted the crime.

Neither side will ever accept the other's point of view.

Perhaps the mods believe its better to let it run its course than try to police it.

Wow! So are these the only two views you can have on the situation? I'm living on another planet it seems; I reckon Judd did something wrong and that the punishment fitted the crime (well close enough anyway - I reckon 3 games was the correct penalty). I also agree with Paul Connors saying that anyone who thinks Judd set out to harm or injure Adams has rocks in their head. And also the journalist who noted that the public reaction has more to do with the public themselves than it does Judd.

 

[Monkey King]

Intention is almost irrelevant.

Whatever he wanted to do the following applies.

1. It had nothing to do with the game, which had stopped.

You are wrong. The ump needs to blow the whistle for play to stop. He had not. In play ... game on!

 

[jonbe54]

Wow! So are these the only two views you can have on the situation? I'm living on another planet it seems; I reckon Judd did something wrong and that the punishment fitted the crime (well close enough anyway - I reckon 3 games was the correct penalty). I also agree with Paul Connors saying that anyone who thinks Judd set out to harm or injure Adams has rocks in their head. And also the journalist who noted that the public reaction has more to do with the public themselves than it does Judd.

Perhaps you are overstating my case Monkey??

There are two opposing camps neither side will see the other's point of view.

The rest is mere noise.

 

[Monkey King]

I repeat...

Did you notice the upwards movement of Adams' torso before it moved downwards?

Yes. Judd lifted the arm and Adams moved with that motion; if Carrots wasn't on top of him, he would most likely have rolled all the way over. What creates the twist in the shoulder is Carrots then weighting the tackle forward after Judd lifts the arm, thus pushing the shoulder into the ground - which is when Adams starts to kick. Just watch the footage dude. This is what happens.

 

[Monkey King]

Perhaps you are overstating my case Monkey??

There are two opposing camps neither side will see the other's point of view.

The rest is mere noise.

Hahaha. And yet I'm in neither camp. I guess there is truth in the saying - your side, their side ... and the truth

 

[holybishop]

Just to put things into perspective

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...ackle-in-the-nrl/story-e6frexwr-1226429497948

The Daily Telegraph learnt last night Judd would have spent twice as long on the sidelines had he made the "chicken-wing" tackle in league.

The NRL's match review committee chairman Greg McCallum said Judd would have been slapped with a grade five dangerous contact charge, which carries a minimum 725 base points, or what equates to a seven- to eight-week suspension

.​

 

[jonbe54]

Hahaha. And yet I'm in neither camp. I guess there is truth in the saying - your side, their side ... and the truth

Totally correct monkey the truth almost always is between the two extremes.

 

[Noidenous]

Yes. Judd lifted the arm and Adams moved with that motion; if Carrots wasn't on top of him, he would most likely have rolled all the way over. What creates the twist in the shoulder is Carrots then weighting the tackle forward after Judd lifts the arm, thus pushing the shoulder into the ground - which is when Adams starts to kick. Just watch the footage dude. This is what happens.

You do understand that if simply having Carazzo press down causes Adams' shoulder to pop, then Judd was in fact pulling vigorously and far in excess of that required to simply 'hold the arm out of the way'?

He's not simply applying the inertia required to keep the arm motionless.

 

[ipswichpies]

Just to put things into perspective

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...ackle-in-the-nrl/story-e6frexwr-1226429497948

Yes that is true and it it also would have caused a brawl and Judd would have been the first player punched,in either code of Rugby if Judd had done some of the things he has done he would not be still playing.

Eye gouge = 6 to 8 weeks x2
Chicken wing tackle =6 to 10 weeks only if 1st offense but as we all know he has a history of such offenses he would have been drummed out rugby or any sport for continuing such things.