Campbell Brown - the public decides

[Pessimistic]

For campbell's reaction to the 'alleged' eye gouging and subsequent events

 

[Rockford]

Needs to be an option for "bluntest tool in the shed". Don't really care whether he lied or not, but to just go "Yep" on national TV, when asked if he told a fib for Judd is dumb, dumb, dumb.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

I'm in favour of the whole "protect your mates" thing, where you don't dob someone in for a punch in a pack or something like that, but in the case of eye-gouging, that's a dirty, low act.

Nobody should protect someone for something like an eye-gouge.

 

[croady_fan24]

Hawks supporter here..Browny is a classic. Legend, bloody sick Back. So wot if he lied to the tribunial?! Look @ didaks incident with that killer.. no suspension or no fine..or browny did was lie. No offence to collingwoods supporters but collingwood players to get favoured badd..tooo much..

 

[DapperDon]

Hawks supporter here..Browny is a classic. Legend, bloody sick Back. So wot if he lied to the tribunial?! Look @ didaks incident with that killer.. no suspension or no fine..or browny did was lie. No offence to collingwoods supporters but collingwood players to get favoured badd..tooo much..

completly different senerio, Brown admitted he lied at te tribunal the AFL had no choice but to punish him.

Didak's incident had nothing to do with the AFL so they couldn't fine him, he club could but the AFL couldn't.

 

[parrot]

For campbell's reaction to the 'alleged' eye gouging and subsequent events

His motive was to help out an opposition player, which was a pretty noble act I thought. Nothing wrong with being open after the fact and admitting why it happened. Who cares what the AFL think or their little fines. BTW, this is in stark contrast to another incident involving Nathan Brown and Fev I remember from a few years back. Nathan did the exact opposite, and did everything he could to get Fev suspended after an onfield incident. No "player-code " involved there, and just locked in Nathan Browns reputation as a pathetic weed.

 

[croady_fan24]

completly different senerio, Brown admitted he lied at te tribunal the AFL had no choice but to punish him.

Didak's incident had nothing to do with the AFL so they couldn't fine him, he club could but the AFL couldn't.

AFl told Didak, to not drink alcohol and go out after 1:00..so ur telling me they didnt set those rules for him?!? and im aware and i said that Browny did lie the tribunial.! But fine the guy so much is ridiculous.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

AFl told Didak, to not drink alcohol and go out after 1:00..so ur telling me they didnt set those rules for him?!?

No, they didn't.

The Collingwood Football Club set those rules for him.

 

[DapperDon]

AFl told Didak, to not drink alcohol and go out after 1:00..so ur telling me they didnt set those rules for him?!? and im aware and i said that Browny did lie the tribunial.! But fine the guy so much is ridiculous.

I agree the fine was a bit high, but he did it to himself. You can't expect the AFL to hear what he said then do nothing about it.

AFL did not tell Didak anything, the club set the rules (after or before the incident i'm not sure). What Didak did was much much worse than Brown's but the AFL couldn't do anything to him.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

AFL did not tell Didak anything, the club set the rules (after or before the incident i'm not sure).

He had no curfew in action on the night of the incident, which, along with agreeing to abide by a curfew, was the reason he wasn't punished a lot more severely.

 

[chaddles]

Campbell Brown is a legend, an expensive boo boo on his behalf though.

They didn't suspend Judd for something that was caught on camera (several angles), yet Baker gets suspended for something with no footage or hard evidence.

 

[croady_fan24]

No, they didn't.

The Collingwood Football Club set those rules for him.

Well so? they r part of the AFL