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

[Koki Freelander]

who knows?

I wonder what his thought process was when he decided to attack Brown's eyes, or when he attacked the face of Riscatelli? Or perhaps when he cracked Pavlich in the face with a cheap little elbow?

When you have a history of such dirty little snipes, you don't get the benefit of the doubt in regards to your intention or thoughts, you are judged on your actions.

Chief - "Do you honestly believe that Judd formed the thought "This move oughta dislocate his arm! ... pop... Success!"


Do you think the person who commits manslaughter says "I am going to drink too much tonight and kills someone as I drive home? Success!" - you are way out of your league here Chief. Maybe you would be happier at the Carlton board where people you disagree with can be carded

 

[Koki Freelander]

They what now... ??

You need to get an idea about how team boards work on BF. They are boards FOR the members of that club. Everyone else is a guest.

Which one is it Chief - are you saying "it didn't happen" or are you saying "too bad, it is our board". You know, some central American countries are still basically communist - should I make a reservation for you?

 

[Koki Freelander]

I agree he and Wellingham are cowards atleast Judd admitted to it and told them he was there to cop his whack. He did not go on TV and brag about taking out a player and laugh about it. So out of the 2 evils i would take Judd because he can face what he did and admit he was wrong, Wellingham just want to keep on sniping. I can see thats fine by you so that make you a coward

Wellingham accepted the early guilty penalty and stated during the week he will accept whatever the tribunal dishes out! You know, Google is super easy to use. Ask a friend

 

[HeCanGetAndGo]

Are you saying that he accidentally picked up his arm? That it fell into his lap? Sorry to bring reality into a carlton landscape, but go and break someone's jaw in a pub, then go and tell the judge "Yes I hit him, but I did not deliberately break his jaw" and see what the judge says.

One is accountable for the consequences of one's actions, even when the consequences were not what were intended.

Bang on champ. (Y)

 

[Chief]

Are you saying that he accidentally

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.

Bang on champ. (Y)

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.

 

[Chief]

Which one is it Chief - are you saying "it didn't happen" or are you saying "too bad, it is our board". You know, some central American countries are still basically communist - should I make a reservation for you?

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.

 

[Chief]

Thats not want I want to believe, that the reality.

It isn't mate. Eyes off the ball and breaking another player's jaw by leaping up to slam into his head is not a regulation hip and shoulder. It is lunacy to suggest it is. Wellingham admitted the intention was to harm, and the harm was very, very severe.

Judd lied and didn't accept responsibility while Wellingham did the opposite.

In your opinion it was a lie. There is no evidence showing intent to injure. In Wellingham's case the evidence for intent is out of his own mouth.

 

[Oneiros]

C'mon Chief, you know he strode into that pack with a swagger, picked up that flopping arm and thought to himself, "Just gonna pop this like a cherry".

 

[HeCanGetAndGo]

It isn't mate. Eyes off the ball and breaking another player's jaw by leaping up to slam into his head is not a regulation hip and shoulder. It is lunacy to suggest it is. Wellingham admitted the intention was to harm, and the harm was very, very severe.


In your opinion it was a lie. There is no evidence showing intent to injure. In Wellingham's case the evidence for intent is out of his own mouth.

Okay you lie flat on your stomach and I'll wrench your arm up behind your back. You'll find it isn't pleasant. His intent, whilst obviously he won't admit it, was to injure Adams' dodgy shoulders.

If anyone did this to Judd they'd be the filthiest player to ever play AFL, yet Judd is still an angel to you...

 

[Chief]

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.

 

[Chief]

C'mon Chief, you know he strode into that pack with a swagger, picked up that flopping arm and thought to himself, "Just gonna pop this like a cherry".

OH! When you put it like that it becomes blindingly obvious.

 

[laminex]

See how frustrating it is when people defend the indefensible?

So maybe you peons should stop it then hmm?

another big mouth who talk to much with out knowing anything, Read my post and it will show you i have never defended the chicken wing. Check before you mouth off because you only come off as stupid.

What's the bet there is some kind of link here?

Big footy is not TMZ i see whith the gutless hoards dancing in the streets with glee because someone they would kill to be as good as has fallen. How pathetic are you mate.


Just to add to this what do you know about scientology??

What you have posted is raciest and ignorant

 

[HeCanGetAndGo]

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.

 

[laminex]

who knows?

I wonder what his thought process was when he decided to attack Brown's eyes, or when he attacked the face of Riscatelli? Or perhaps when he cracked Pavlich in the face with a cheap little elbow?

When you have a history of such dirty little snipes, you don't get the benefit of the doubt in regards to your intention or thoughts, you are judged on your actions.

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.

 

[Necromancer Beth]

In your opinion it was a lie. There is no evidence showing intent to injure. In Wellingham's case the evidence for intent is out of his own mouth.

No evidence, I agree, but there are a string of bizzare incidents involving Judd and defenceless players. He eye gouged Brown in a pack, tried to use a pressure point on Rischitelli when he was laying on the ground, elbowed Pavlich when he was laying on the ground, and now this whole sordid affair. Four times in the space of five years, he has attempted, or tried to attempt to harm players who are defenceless. Too many times to be a coincidence.

The funny thing is, I have never seen him go toe to toe with someone. Always seems to be trying to inflict damage on people who can't fight back.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

another big mouth who talk to much with out knowing anything, Read my post and it will show you i have never defended the chicken wing. Check before you mouth off because you only come off as stupid.

I think you also misread my post.

 

[galindez]

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.

I don't know if it was a deliberate dislocation. But believing Judd's claim that he didn't intend to cause pain and injury is extremely charitable. It is obvious that maneuvering someone's arm in the manner he did would be excruciating. Picture yourself doing it. I don't believe he didn't realise what he was doing.

 

[PieBeast]

It isn't mate. Eyes off the ball and breaking another player's jaw by leaping up to slam into his head is not a regulation hip and shoulder. It is lunacy to suggest it is. Wellingham admitted the intention was to harm, and the harm was very, very severe.
In your opinion it was a lie. There is no evidence showing intent to injure. In Wellingham's case the evidence for intent is out of his own mouth.

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.

 

[laminex]

Wellingham accepted the early guilty penalty and stated during the week he will accept whatever the tribunal dishes out! You know, Google is super easy to use. Ask a friend

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.

 

[laminex]

I don't know if it was a deliberate dislocation. But believing Judd's claim that he didn't intend to cause pain and possibly injury is extremelycharitable. It is obvious that maneuvering someone's arm in the manner he did would be excruciating. Picture yourself doing it. I don't believe he didn't realise what he was doing.

I agree what he did was wrong and all the rest of, my argument is that all are judging this from and arm chair in slow motion add to that the hate, jealous and bitter posting is really saying something about the quality of low life people who come to this forum.

 

[Necromancer Beth]

I agree what he did was wrong and all the rest of, my argument is that all are judging this from and arm chair in slow motion add to that the hate, jealous and bitter posting is really saying something about the quality of low life people who come to this forum.

You keep on banging on about what knobs we are, so why do you bother posting here if we are all lowbrow pond scum?

 

[laminex]

You keep on banging on about what knobs we are, so why do you bother posting here if we are all lowbrow pond scum?

Because i can, you seem to think i am excluding my self from my sweeping generalisation. I am not.

 

[Leg End]

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.

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.

 

[laminex]

No evidence, I agree, but there are a string of bizzare incidents involving Judd and defenceless players. He eye gouged Brown in a pack, tried to use a pressure point on Rischitelli when he was laying on the ground, elbowed Pavlich when he was laying on the ground, and now this whole sordid affair. Four times in the space of five years, he has attempted, or tried to attempt to harm players who are defenceless. Too many times to be a coincidence.

The funny thing is, I have never seen him go toe to toe with someone. Always seems to be trying to inflict damage on people who can't fight back.

so what are you thoughts on Cyril Rioli's chicken wing tackle ???

 

[Necromancer Beth]

so what are you thoughts on Cyril Rioli's chicken wing tackle ???

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