Carlton in the Media (articles, podcasts etc)

[The Old Dark Navy's]

This isn't semantics - don't get precious. This is a leader of our club (king?) hitting a bloke.

Scotland's wife or child wasn't hit - and he was retaliating for a man who was arguably fully capable of diffusing the situation himself. And whilst the quote from the manager says Scotland 'went out of his way to stay under the radar', it doesn't say the same for his brother.

Maybe if you'd lost a wife or child in this situation, (not that I have) you'd appreciate the gravity more.

I'm failing to see the 'good' in Scotland's reasoning.

I'm not getting precious. You knew the answer but wanted to hear my explanation so you could tell me I was wrong. All I said is that there were mitigating circumstances and there were, like it or not. I made no personal defence of Scotland's decision making. In fact I have said he was out and made a bad decision to go back. You can not possibly comment as to the lead up or the emotions involved because you weren't there. Put it this way, if I smacked someone in a bar, I'd probably be expecting one back. There is more than one idiot involved here and I am sure in the heat of the moment, he wasn't thinking 'I had better stop, I am a leader at the club'.

He made a poor decision being out and about at that time, and he made a bad decision by taking matters into his own hands. The fact that the guy he hit had hit his brother, human response mechanisms being quite different and all, I find his actions a step down from coldcocking a random stranger. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

I'm not getting precious. You knew the answer but wanted to hear my explanation so you could tell me I was wrong.

I don't 'know' the answer. I'm unsure of what I know of the situation to be true. I was curious as to whether you 'knew' something that contradicted my understanding.

That is getting precious.

Further to that, I dislike people perpetuating the notion that Scotland was defending his brother, and that Scotland's circumstances should be taken into consideration, but not the bloke that started Scotland's brother.

The underlying reason being that Scotland should know better (by now). Not only of what it is to be a club leader, but of the crowd a ski club like that might attract, and of the likely behaviour of his brother (not that I know anything about that), and the list goes on.

I can appreciate the stresses that come from constant scrutiny, but in a few years, he can waste his $500,000 p/a pay packet in Mulwala and belt every man and his dog - after all, that's why he's payed as much as he is - because of the media.

All I said is that there were mitigating circumstances and there were, like it or not.

You said he was defending someone, and he hit the bloke with 'good' reason. I was curious as to why you'd thought those two things, when I think the opposite.

I made no personal defence of Scotland's decision making.

Nor have I asserted as much.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Further to that, I dislike people perpetrating the notion that Scotland was defending his brother, and that Scotland's circumstances should be taken into consideration, but not the bloke that started Scotland's brother.

I never commented on the other bloke's circumstances, because I don't know them. Do you?

The underlying reason being that Scotland should know better, by now.

Contention has not been disagreed with.

You said he was defending someone, and he hit the bloke with 'good' reason. I was curious as to why you'd thought those two things, when I think the opposite.

I never said he hit the bloke with good reason, I said this wasn't a case of hitting a random bloke for no good reason. Emphasis is on he random part. This wasn't a random bloke, this was a bloke that hit his brother who was in a group that were needling Scotland's group and other patrons during the night.

Nor have I asserted as much.

Well you did above by saying I said he hit the bloke for a good reason.

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

I never commented on the other bloke's circumstances, because I don't know them. Do you?

I know there's no suggestion that the bloke hit goes out of his way to cause trouble with random members of society. But that's not to say I 'know' anything.

Alas, you comment on Heath's circumstances like you do know them - when you/we don't.

Is it borne out of some bias?

Not defending violence, just mitigating the circumstances and the notion that Scotland hit some random bloke for no good reason.

(I'm) Not defending violence...just (mitigating)(sic) the notion that Scotland hit some random bloke for no good reason.

This to me is inferring he hit the bloke for more than 'no' good reason, ie 'some' good reason

Tell me if my paraphrasing has taken things out of context.

I said this wasn't a case of hitting a random bloke for no good reason. Emphasis is on he random part.

Again, the inference is that there is some good reason behind it.

Your emphasis was obscure before - take that into account for my (prior) interpretation.

 

[steveo898]

Well as you all might have seen on the news about that young man "David Cassai" being killed by a king hit, clearly you can see the damage it can do. I knew him personally & its this exact same BS that took his life.

And as much as people debate this, I believe AFL players are role models for the community & so they should be, they are on top dollars & represent rich history of a family sport where children & women come from all suburbs to watch there team play. Kids look up to these guys (I know I did) and to have a player like Scotland being seen King hitting someone in a bar is just disgusting.

Here's what I don't like:
1.Scotland is a senior player of the club & should be a role model for the younger players.
2.Why is he out that late at night in the first place? And he should of left when things were getting heated.
3.No surprise that you don't see Judd ever being involved in a circumstance such as this, Scotland has been in trouble before.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

a
Alas, you comment on Heath's circumstances like you do know them - when you/we don't.

Well, I know that some bloke hit his brother just prior and the video bears this out. I recall some statement from hotel management that the other group were causing problems and I read an alleged eyewitness account supporting that view. I don't know first hand, but I'm going to take some of the other stuff as evidence to form a reasonable belief. I have heard nothing of why the other bloke hit Heath's brother, because it was not reported. My contention in a nutshell.

The rest I will leave alone because it is just 'I said this because you implied that', 'I thought you meant this because I put the emphasis on that part while you say it is on the other part.' All too literal for mine and really doesn't change the crux of my argument.

 

[Stig O'Hara]

Couldn't care if he is a famous footballer or the Shah of Persia.

A dickhead in a bar fight is a dickhead in a bar fight.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Well as you all might have seen on the news about that young man "David Cassai" being killed by a king hit, clearly you can see the damage it can do. I knew him personally & its this exact same BS that took his life.

And as much as people debate this, I believe AFL players are role models for the community & so they should be, they are on top dollars & represent rich history of a family sport where children & women come from all suburbs to watch there team play. Kids look up to these guys (I know I did) and to have a player like Scotland being seen King hitting someone in a bar is just disgusting.

Here's what I don't like:
1.Scotland is a senior player of the club & should be a role model for the younger players.
2.Why is he out that late at night in the first place? And he should of left when things were getting heated.
3.No surprise that you don't see Judd ever being involved in a circumstance such as this, Scotland has been in trouble before.

I agree with everything you don't like, and I am truly sorry for the loss of your friend. Heartbreaking for all concerned. I'm no fighter and I am no justifier of violence I assure you.

An article on this case says he was punched and kicked on the ground. It makes no contention as to any part your friend played in this altercation. It does say one of the perpetrators said he was attacked first, but of course he will say that.

My only contention here is that something occurred to provoke Scotland. He should have been better placed to walk away and he exercised poor and arrogant judgment IMO. Violence begats violence and Scotland has no real excuse but provocation is often a defence and while not excusing the person, it mitigates their penalty.

My first thought when this happened was 'why the hell was he out drinking with a group late at night and stayed even when this group were allegedly taunting them?' He had every opportunity to walk away but his pride probably got the better of him. No excuse for finding himself in the situation he was in, but the established fact that his brother was assaulted, is a mitigating circumstance that does get looked at.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Couldn't care if he is a famous footballer or the Shah of Persia.

A dickhead in a bar fight is a dickhead in a bar fight.

And I dare say Scotland is probably not the type of bloke I would hang around. I hate guys who let their fists and egos solve their problems. I investigate incidents for a living (not criminal or police work). My own personal feelings on incidents do not impede on my ability to gather evidence that might help or hurt one side or another.

 

[zeeCFC]

Couldn't care if he is a famous footballer or the Shah of Persia.

A dickhead in a bar fight is a dickhead in a bar fight.

Still feel I have legitimate claims to both

#CanHitATit

 

[mediumsizered]

Well as you all might have seen on the news about that young man "David Cassai" being killed by a king hit, clearly you can see the damage it can do. I knew him personally & its this exact same BS that took his life.

And as much as people debate this, I believe AFL players are role models for the community & so they should be, they are on top dollars & represent rich history of a family sport where children & women come from all suburbs to watch there team play. Kids look up to these guys (I know I did) and to have a player like Scotland being seen King hitting someone in a bar is just disgusting.

Here's what I don't like:
1.Scotland is a senior player of the club & should be a role model for the younger players.
2.Why is he out that late at night in the first place? And he should of left when things were getting heated.
3.No surprise that you don't see Judd ever being involved in a circumstance such as this, Scotland has been in trouble before.

AFL players should never be relied on to be role models. They are no different to employees of any organisation. They are drawn from various socio-economic backgrounds, just like the employees you will find in any large workplace. Some are well adjusted human beings, some aren't. Some take drugs, many don't. Some consume alcohol, some don't. Some enjoy a fight, some don't.

AFL clubs & the AFL generally can spend millions on providing the best facilities, professional advice/assistance, auxillary staff etc etc, but at the end of the day you are not going to turn Fev into Craig Bradley, nor are you going to turn Heath Scotland into Chris Judd. On every AFL club's playing list you will find flawed personalities, this is why the community should never look to AFL players for their role models.

 

[pjhad1]

I agree with everything you don't like, and I am truly sorry for the loss of your friend. Heartbreaking for all concerned. I'm no fighter and I am no justifier of violence I assure you.

An article on this case says he was punched and kicked on the ground. It makes no contention as to any part your friend played in this altercation. It does say one of the perpetrators said he was attacked first, but of course he will say that.

My only contention here is that something occurred to provoke Scotland. He should have been better placed to walk away and he exercised poor and arrogant judgment IMO. Violence begats violence and Scotland has no real excuse but provocation is often a defence and while not excusing the person, it mitigates their penalty.

My first thought when this happened was 'why the hell was he out drinking with a group late at night and stayed even when this group were allegedly taunting them?' He had every opportunity to walk away but his pride probably got the better of him. No excuse for finding himself in the situation he was in, but the established fact that his brother was assaulted, is a mitigating circumstance that does get looked at.

Provocation is a primitive Defense that has long been abolished in Victoria. It doesn't hold up in Court and it shouldn't be used to defend Scotland either.

His brother is a grown man who got in a fight. The fight was over and done with. Scotland went back for more. Whether AFL players like it or not, they are role models - people look up to them. IMO his actions were deplorable and, for me, the punishment is welcomed.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Provocation is a primitive Defense that has long been abolished in Victoria. It doesn't hold up in Court and it shouldn't be used to defend Scotland either.

His brother is a grown man who got in a fight. The fight was over and done with. Scotland went back for more. Whether AFL players like it or not, they are role models - people look up to them. IMO his actions were deplorable and, for me, the punishment is welcomed.

That's nice. I defend your right to have your opinion. Whilst I agree with almost all of your opinion, I still maintain that there was some provocation, regardless of how primitive or how relevant people find it.

 

[thylacine60]

Still feel I have legitimate claims to both

#CanHitATit

Post needs more applause. You complete nonster!

 

[mediumsizered]

Provocation is a primitive Defense that has long been abolished in Victoria. It doesn't hold up in Court and it shouldn't be used to defend Scotland either.

His brother is a grown man who got in a fight. The fight was over and done with. Scotland went back for more. Whether AFL players like it or not, they are role models - people look up to them. IMO his actions were deplorable and, for me, the punishment is welcomed.

Do you look up to them? I certainly don't. We know kids do, but then they look up to action heroes, older siblings, friends, celebrities etc etc.

Because someone is looked up to, that does not make them a role model. I can't imagine any parent telling a child to look up to a footballer, or any other sportsperson as a role model. By all means admire their football ability, but if you want your child to find a role model perhaps point them in the direction of a Prof Graeme Clark or the late Fred Hollows & other similar Australians.

At the end of the day AFL players have a gift of football ability, this does not shield them from having flawed personalities.

 

[thylacine60]

Do you look up to them? I certainly don't. We know kids do, but then they look up to action heroes, older siblings, friends, celebrities etc etc.

Because someone is looked up to, that does not make them a role model. I can't imagine any parent telling a child to look up to a footballer, or any other sportsperson as a role model. By all means admire their football ability, but if you want your child to find a role model perhaps point them in the direction of a Prof Graeme Clark or the late Fred Hollows & other similar Australians.

At the end of the day AFL players have a gift of football ability, this does not shield them from having flawed personalities.

How many likes can I give this without disturbing the earth's broadband continuum?

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

#CanHitATit

Like this on so many levels

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

...while not excusing the person, it mitigates their penalty.

I think his firefighting 'excuse' will hold water (also).

But the established fact that his brother was assaulted, is a mitigating circumstance that does get looked at.

As a matter of curiousity, does it work if his brother didn't press charges?

3.Scotland has been in trouble before.

This is what irks me the most.

You know. You know what that place is like. You must know.

You know what you're like. You know what you're brother's like (not saying anything - but just saying). You know what that community is like. You know it's the weekend around Australia Day (IIRC). The list goes on.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I think his firefighting 'excuse' will hold water (also).

It's a stupid excuse. Shouldn't come into it really but I do realise this happens in courts every day. Don't blame anybody for trying to negotiate a lesser penalty though. Not sure why people think that anybody on charges should put their hands in the air and ask the court to impose the highest penalty. It's up to the courts to impose an appropriate penalty, not the defendant to ask for it.

As a matter of curiousity, does it work if his brother didn't press charges?

I'm not sure if it works at all. It is just part of the evidence that a judge can look at and consider or dismiss as he sees fit. There is probably other evidence we are not privy to. However, theoretically the police can press charges even if a victim does not want to, based on eyewitness accounts or the video footage, as I understand it. Works that way in my line of work too.

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

It's a stupid excuse. Shouldn't come into it really but I do realise this happens in courts every day.

I definitely prefer it to the 'my brother was whacked' one, TBH. But I digress...

Don't blame anybody for trying to negotiate a lesser penalty though.

The irony being that whilst the Main Board calls for his head, it's the judges themselves that are trying to ensure that they don't ruin someone's (legitimate) future over something the judges probably think the other bloke 'went looking for'.

 

[Stig O'Hara]

However, theoretically the police can press charges even if a victim does not want to, based on eyewitness accounts or the video footage, as I understand it. Works that way in my line of work too.

Don't want to get into legal stuff, but of course the Police can lay charges, that's why they arrest people, and wear shiny uniforms.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Don't want to get into legal stuff, but of course the Police can lay charges, that's why they arrest people, and wear shiny uniforms.

Of course, my point is that just because a victim does not want to press charges, the police can still do so. If they see domestic violence for example, it doesn't matter if the wife doesn't want to pursue it.

 

[Stig O'Hara]

Of course, my point is that just because a victim does not want to press charges, the police can still do so.

Police are police, doing their job, of course.

They arrest bad people, and send them off to court.

.....by golly, (and I'm hearing Jimmy), the bad people deserve gaol.

Long Haired Hippies deserve a Haircut & Whipping.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Police are police, doing their job, of course.

They arrest bad people, and send them off to court.

.....by golly, (and I'm hearing Jimmy), the bad people deserve gaol.

Long Haired Hippies deserve a Haircut & Whipping.

Oh preach to me brother.

 

[Dramoth]

Police are police, doing their job, of course.

They arrest bad people, and send them off to court.

.....by golly, (and I'm hearing Jimmy), the bad people deserve gaol.

Long Haired Hippies deserve a Haircut & Whipping.

and everyone is a bad person who is guilty of doing something evil...