Tom Bugg - In trouble? how many weeks? - now with a poll!

[Sttew]

Naah
Nothing personal but the notion you can consent to assault is absurd. Fair enough to say charges aren't laid by convention.

Agree. There is voluntary assumption of risk for injuries that are hazards of the sport, but assault is definitely not one. Bit like saying an AFL player consents to having a bottle thrown at his head by an irate supporter. Its garbage

 

[threesixpio]

Naah
Nothing personal but the notion you can consent to assault is absurd. Fair enough to say charges aren't laid by convention.

It's not absurd. See boxing and the case of Pallente

Brown is a fascinating House of Lords case. Sado Masochistic orgy where all parties were found guilty of causing injuries. Consent was not seen as a defence

Weirdly enough Pallente (boxing case) was mentioned - essentially if there is a referee you can consent to an injury (simplistic analysis but basically right).

So if you have a BDSM umpire inspecting fishing hooks through private parts it might be ok

I'M
NOT
KIDDING

 

[kickazz]

Naah
Nothing personal but the notion you can consent to assault is absurd. Fair enough to say charges aren't laid by convention.

It's not absurd is just legal speak.

Assault has a certain definition, and things like cutting somebody open or kicking them fall under this. Yet, if you spar in karate or go in for an operation at hospital, you provide a specific consent.

 

[threesixpio]

It's not absurd is just legal speak.

Assault has a certain definition, and things like cutting somebody open or kicking them fall under this. Yet, if you spar in karate or go in for an operation at hospital, you provide a specific consent.

Yep. Implied consent to a battery - which is an application of force by any means - happens daily.

Someone brushed past me on the tram yesterday, for example.

I decked them

 

[markm106]

The Fahour case is unlike the others.

He ran 15 meters to swing a punch at a blokes head, with intent to do maximum damage.

He most definitely should be charged with assault.


Other bits of niggle, jumper punches, elbows to chests, reflex punches....not in the same ballpark.

Agree. I think Fahour hit worse than Bugg. Bugg was involved in a push and shove. Still what he did was totally wrong and he'll deserve every week he gets.
I don't think the police should come in and charge an AFL player. However if Mills or any other player hit on the ground like that did go to the police it wouldn't bother me. It's their right. Can't see it happening anytime soon though.

 

[kickazz]

Yep. Implied consent to a battery - which is an application of force by any means - happens daily.

Someone brushed past me on the tram yesterday, for example.

I decked them

That is a good, topical analogy.

If you creepily go around brushing up against people in the corridor at an office or any open space, that is not on.

On a crowded tram, that is different. However, there are many cases of people getting "busy hands" on a tram that is unacceptable.

In the rough and tumble of contact support, you consent to stuff that would otherwise be assault.

Late bumps, lazy spoils that transgress into striking, etc are illegal, but handled by the delegated jurisdiction of the AFL.

When you take it further though, it can become criminal. Where this "line" is is not clear however, that is the matter for debate.

 

[Seedsfan]

OP is an idiot assault is a crime against the person and it is up to the victim if the want to press charges or not. All you achieve by you post is displaying you don't fully understand how the legal system works

 

[kickazz]

OP is an idiot assault is a crime against the person and it is up to the victim if the want to press charges or not. All you achieve by you post is displaying you don't fully understand how the legal system works

I thought that crimes by definition were against the state/crown?

 

[DemonTim]

OP is an idiot assault is a crime against the person and it is up to the victim if the want to press charges or not. All you achieve by you post is displaying you don't fully understand how the legal system works

No it's not. Police generally won't proceed unless the victim wants them to, but it's not up to them to press charges. This isn't law and order.

 

[threesixpio]

OP is an idiot assault is a crime against the person and it is up to the victim if the want to press charges or not. All you achieve by you post is displaying you don't fully understand how the legal system works

Um no - you watch US television a bit.....

 

[threesixpio]

I thought that crimes by definition were against the state/crown?

Love it when someone calls someone an idiot and then posts something idiotic....

 

[Snake_Baker]

A truly malicious act should carry the added penalty of the offenders wages going to the victim for the term of the penalty.

 

[threesixpio]

No it's not. Police generally won't proceed unless the victim wants them to, but it's not up to them to press charges. This isn't law and order.

Case in point - Family violence matters are VERY commonly pursued by the police when victims are not favourable to police intervention.

Makes it difficult to compel a witness in that scenario but if, say, two police members see it happen the perpetrator will be extremely likely to face charges....

 

[theyellowsash]

OP is an idiot assault is a crime against the person and it is up to the victim if the want to press charges or not. All you achieve by you post is displaying you don't fully understand how the legal system works

quoted for lols

 

[Seedsfan]

Um no - you watch US television a bit.....

Assault is a low level crime against the person if the victim doesn't want to press charges that is where the matter ends

 

[JackFlash]

Maybe this is an unpopular opinion but I think it's about time punches like hall, bugg, fahour etc are considered criminal acts and charges laid by the police like any normal person on the street would face.

Dangerous tackles and bumps can be dealt with by the game even though these could also be considered as assault, because they are simply reckless or overly aggressive applications of one of the elements of the game. However punching someone in the face has NEVER been part of the rules of the game, and so that same protection cannot be used. Particularly when you look at the hall and bugg punches, which were 50+ meters away from the ball. In a strangely perverse way, the fahour punch was the one most related to the actual game because it was during a melee rather than a random punch like hall and bugg. The argument that what happens on the field stays on the field is total crap and quite frankly is an invalid argument. Regular people don't get to go around breaking laws on the sporting field, so why should these dogs? And where do you draw the line? Those hits could easily have caused significant brain damage or death. Do the players get away with murder just because it was on the field? If players should get charged for murder then they must be charged for assault too, which could easily cause significant injury or death.

The sentence will obviously vary depending on severity, from the conca hit from behind that didn't do much to the hall hit that floored stalker, but that should be entirely up to the courts to decide, and they should be offered no protection simply because they play sports.

Anyone who disagrees should get their head out of their ass and imagine it was their son that was assaulted on the weekend. If they still don't care, then I suggest the next time they are on the sporting field they invite their opponent to punch them in the face for no reason and see how they feel about it then.

Here we go!
Look, we have a highly charged emotional game that is a body contact sport and temperaments flare up on occasion. AFL games are policed, players are pushing and shoving from the get go, we want to see them crash into one another, it's a smash, bash crash sport. It's a rarity we see these hits, but unfortunately we've had a spate of incidents in recent weeks that are being highlighted and they will be ultimately dealt with by the right authorities. Criminal charges is not the right authority. If that happens then all contact must be banned and we become a Gaelic football competition.
Bugg will cop 6 weeks and Fahour will probably lose his gig at the AFL. No knee jerk reactions, just deal with it.

 

[DemonTim]

Assault is a low level crime against the person if the victim doesn't want to press charges that is where the matter ends

No. No it's not.

 

[sherb]

I don't have issue with players being charged for assault.

In fact, I've never understood the line adopted by just about everybody (including the police) that serious transgressions should only be dealt with by football authorities.

Belting (or kicking, or biting, etc) someone is a criminal act, it's as simple as that, the fact that it occurs on a sporting field doesn't change that.

Of course, someone has already been charged at AFL level for his actions on the field, only the Victorian Police know why they plucked that one out for action. There had been a multitude of other incidents for them to choose from over the preceding years.

 

[Seedsfan]

No. No it's not.

Lol, without a victim complaint charges will not be laid for any of these cases

 

[B4Bear]

OP has absolutely NFI how these things are handled in the courts. While you might get some charged, the mitigating circumstances, the workplace element, and the extremely loose legislation around assault, would lead to a complete circus.

AFL punishments are getting harder and harder. In my opinion they should get harder still for punches on players (yes that includes Bugg). The AFL is the best mechanism to deal with it, and as the punishments get harder, the incidents get rarer - a trend even blind freddy can see over the last 30 years.

**** that. You punch a player like has happened recently, and they are found guilty at the tribunal; deregister the player and let the courts deal with criminal element of it.

It would stop these flogs thinking they can get away with shit like this after the first one was prosecuted and they had lost their livelihood.

 

[ShriekingShack]

One of the greatest boxers of all time has weighed in on the Bugg hit on Mills, saying there was nothing in it and that Mills was incredibly unlucky to be knocked out.

Danny Green has said that Bugg did not intend to hit Mills in the head and that the only reason Mills was knocked out was because he has a weak chin.

This has changed my opinion on the incident. Danny Green is a champion Boxer, it's his job to throw punches. He knows the force required to knock someone out, what is deliberate and what isn't. I think people should give Bugg a break, as an expert on the topic has given an opinion that sheds new light on the incident.

Article:
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/cou...s/news-story/2e646e3e2e3aeb072727f91b25f9c2b1

 

[Russian Demon]

**** that. You punch a player like has happened recently, and they are found guilty at the tribunal; deregister the player and let the courts deal with criminal element of it.

It would stop these flogs thinking they can get away with shit like this after the first one was prosecuted and they had lost their livelihood.

If you want a deterrent, you can achieve that with stronger AFL penalties. Go as far as de-registering if you want, but AFL controlled sanctions will achieve the same thing without the legal nightmare that would follow.

 

[iluvparis]

Look forward to Martin Bryant's thoughts on Levi Casboult's shooting for goal

 

[ApplecrossWC]

Bugg deserves 6 months jail. They should make an example of him

 

[Seedsfan]

Bugg deserves 6 months jail. They should make an example of him

Lol hahahahahaha