His fingers were certainly all over the eye area, he has form and should be dealt with accordingly.

Good call or bad call ?

Edited September 10, 200916 yr by Demonland

good call , hopefully gets rubbed out as he has eye gouged before, but got off against Campbell Brown

We won't go this time because there was no impact. But you have to wonder what the hell he is thinking so deliberatley putting his fingers near an opponent's eyes like that. Especailly considering what happened in Launceston.

We won't go this time because there was no impact. But you have to wonder what the hell he is thinking so deliberatley putting his fingers near an opponent's eyes like that. Especailly considering what happened in Launceston.

one of the frames shows his finger poking the eye so prob be gone.

We won't go this time because there was no impact. But you have to wonder what the hell he is thinking so deliberatley putting his fingers near an opponent's eyes like that. Especailly considering what happened in Launceston.

What happened in Launceston?

What happened in Launceston?

He did exactly the same thing to Campbell Brown, who promptly lied for him at the tribunal

I bet the AFL let it slide. It would do them no PR benefits if a marquee player with B'low prospects were rubbed out eye gouging.

I think the match review committee should definitely look at. I dont the impact of the contact is relevant. Its a no go zone and he had no need to do that.

it was a dog act, simple as that. and it wasnt the first time. the current system is a joke , look only as far as last week. what Llyod did, he copped 4, then Bateman a clothesline/round house got 1, Judd should go for four, his actions and subsequent defence of his actions are a disgrace

I bet the AFL let it slide. It would do them no PR benefits if a marquee player with B'low prospects were rubbed out eye gouging.

I think the match review committee should definitely look at. I dont the impact of the contact is relevant. Its a no go zone and he had no need to do that.

Agreed. he should definately go but the tribunal/A.F.L won't dare taint Judd with an eye gouge charge.

that was almost as dumb as his visy adds.

This might be seriously naive of me, but if it happened in a final is he still rubbed out of Charlie contention???

For a bloke who prides himself on some serious AFL knowledge, I can't believe I am asking this.... LOL

This might be seriously naive of me, but if it happened in a final is he still rubbed out of Charlie contention???

For a bloke who prides himself on some serious AFL knowledge, I can't believe I am asking this.... LOL

My understanding is that he could still win the Brownlow, because this occured in the finals, and not the regular home and away season, and the Brownlow is the player juddged the best and fairest in the home and away season.

I personally hope that he gets rubbed out - I remember the Launceston incident and can recall that Campbell Brown got a wrap over the knuckles when he admitted on On The Couch (or similar) that he lied to help Judd get off. Given him a few weeks. Would have been very interesting had Carlton won.

I bet the AFL let it slide. It would do them no PR benefits if a marquee player with B'low prospects were rubbed out eye gouging.

Good point.

From the footage I've seen, there's no proof of eye-contact. Nonetheless, he's put his hand there for a reason, and that reason is most likely to poke/gouge his eye. I'm pretty confident he did it, but I'm pretty confident he won't be punished for it.

judd reckons he "was trying to push on a pressure point behind the ear with his thumb"

i reckon he will surley get off

but really he should atleast get a reprimand its foul play

Edited September 6, 200916 yr by DaveyJones'sLocker

He's got form of being a mutt but he will get off because the AFL thinks the sun shines out of his arse. Shame the game is so "sanitised" these days. 30 years ago he'd get carried off on a stretcher for that crap.

if he admits he "was trying to push on a pressure point behind the ear with his thumb" should the tribunal not charge him with misconduct (eye gouging or unnessecary unreasonable contact to the face) (which is a specific offence in the 2009 tribunal dbooklet), citing contact to the head, intentional and low impact as the level of offense?

6 activation points, 325 demerit points or 3 weeks provided no prior tribunal record.

a) this shows that judd should go because there is a specific offence relating to what he did (unreasonable and unnessecary contact to the face)

B) this shows the tribunal system is a farce, that someone can technically get 3 weeks just for touching someone regardless of impact etc

if he admits he "was trying to push on a pressure point behind the ear with his thumb" should the tribunal not charge him with misconduct (eye gouging or unnessecary unreasonable contact to the face) (which is a specific offence in the 2009 tribunal dbooklet), citing contact to the head, intentional and low impact as the level of offense?

6 activation points, 325 demerit points or 3 weeks provided no prior tribunal record.

a) this shows that judd should go because there is a specific offence relating to what he did (unreasonable and unnessecary contact to the face)

B) this shows the tribunal system is a farce, that someone can technically get 3 weeks just for touching someone regardless of impact etc

And while they're conducting the investigation why not also examine how much money he's really earning at Carlton? I'm sick and tired of the Visy ambassador crap!

Edited September 6, 200916 yr by Deeman

Judd's mister nice guy image and his credibility must surely be in tatters now. He lost the trust of many Melbourne supporters two years ago when he announced us as one of his four favoured clubs and then dumped us when he said it was between Carlton and Collingwood before choosing the Blues. He was entitled to take the money and run but if, what Carlton insiders (read one was a board member at the time) tell me is true, he was signed, sealed and delivered even before he announced he was leaving the Eagles, then he was jerking three other AFL clubs around during this farcical process.

Then we discover that part of Judd's package is a high paying role as environmental ambassador (please spare me!) for the club president's company and Australia's biggest corporate crook. All of this outside the salary cap and carrying the AFL's full blessing.

Now he responds to a charge of eye gouging by saying he wasn't gouging Michael Rischitelli's eyes but instead he was applying his thumb to a pressure point on his opponent's head. "Nonsense," say the martial arts experts. If they're right then Judd is not only guilty of the low act of eye gouging but also of telling porkies. But if he's telling the truth then he's guilty of what could be more serious because the ultimate outcome of applying martial arts manouevres is to render a player unconscious. If the AFL really had the balls they would call a special investigation into what happened. The points system wasn't really established to cater for people who try to disable opponents by these means.

My understanding is that he could still win the Brownlow, because this occured in the finals, and not the regular home and away season, and the Brownlow is the player juddged the best and fairest in the home and away season.

If you're right, it would be yet another AFL farce if he wins the Brownlow & then gets rubbed out for this low act. Let's face it, it's the sort of act that even the NRL takes a dim view of.

And it would beg comparisons with Chris Grant who got the most votes but was ineligible for the Brownlow only because he got rubbed out for a week for the softest tripping charge in the history of the human race.

Now he responds to a charge of eye gouging by saying he wasn't gouging Michael Rischitelli's eyes but instead he was applying his thumb to a pressure point on his opponent's head. "Nonsense," say the martial arts experts. If they're right then Judd is not only guilty of the low act of eye gouging but also of telling porkies. But if he's telling the truth then he's guilty of what could be more serious because the ultimate outcome of applying martial arts manouevres is to render a player unconscious.

The question is not whether he's telling the truth, but whether he's given the AFL enough of a "fig leaf" for them to turn a blind eye. The rules of "spin" are that it doesn't have to be the truth, it just has to be "defensible".

Maybe he was just using acupressure to relieve Rischitelli's headache!!! That would fit in with the existing "fig leaf" of "Judd the philanthropist" which allows the AFL to turn a blind eye to the Visy deal!

Edited September 7, 200916 yr by Akum

The incident ought to be cited and investigated. If guilty it will only prove that he is not the Mesiah, and is just a naughty boy !!

Judd's mister nice guy image and his credibility must surely be in tatters now. He lost the trust of many Melbourne supporters two years ago when he announced us as one of his four favoured clubs and then dumped us when he said it was between Carlton and Collingwood before choosing the Blues. He was entitled to take the money and run but if, what Carlton insiders (read one was a board member at the time) tell me is true, he was signed, sealed and delivered even before he announced he was leaving the Eagles, then he was jerking three other AFL clubs around during this farcical process.

Then we discover that part of Judd's package is a high paying role as environmental ambassador (please spare me!) for the club president's company and Australia's biggest corporate crook. All of this outside the salary cap and carrying the AFL's full blessing.

Now he responds to a charge of eye gouging by saying he wasn't gouging Michael Rischitelli's eyes but instead he was applying his thumb to a pressure point on his opponent's head. "Nonsense," say the martial arts experts. If they're right then Judd is not only guilty of the low act of eye gouging but also of telling porkies. But if he's telling the truth then he's guilty of what could be more serious because the ultimate outcome of applying martial arts manouevres is to render a player unconscious. If the AFL really had the balls they would call a special investigation into what happened. The points system wasn't really established to cater for people who try to disable opponents by these means.

Good post WJ. Judd's silly assertion that he was applying a manouvre (ie pressure points) behind the ear should be enough reason for a special investigation in itself. He's losing credibility in the eyes of many IMO, because his hands don't seem to be anywher near behind the oppositions ears. They look closer to the eyes of the opponent if anything. Porkies.

PS. Yes, he is still eligible for the Brownlow. If he is found guilty, I understand he is ineligible for the 2010 Brownlow.

Edited September 7, 200916 yr by High Tower

Once just a mercenary, now also an eye gouger/ face poker.

All class Chri$ Judd, all class!

But why was he doing it?

Impact is irrelevant if you consider Moloney was ouoted for attempting to bump!!

Let me start by saying that Judd is one of the best footballers I have seen. He would also be generally accepted as a ball player. However the anger on this site directed towards him I believe comes from his turning his back on the Dees and taking the bucks offered by my most hated team, clearly not because he is a "dirty player".

Obviously Dees fans have long memories, though I suppose it wasn't actually that long ago that he shunned us.

He has been accused on this thread of being an eye gouger, a pressure point manipulator, a liar, a mercenary, a participant in salary cap rorting etc.

Do you think that we should all just wait for a few hours to see what the Match Review Panel do and given all of the publicity, one would think they will do something.

Then maybe we should all draw breath and accept the fact that he is a great player and that he has the right to take the best offer and secure his future just like every other sportsman or employee.

PS. I was also extremely disappointed he chose them over us, but I believe that the side effects of that decision will ultimately work in our favour. We did not lose any high draft picks or top players getting him. IMO that will work in our favour. Also if he played for us this year and last would we be looking at 1 & 2 this next draft day?

Edited September 7, 200916 yr by Redleg

Then maybe we should all draw breath and accept the fact that he is a great player and that he has the right to take the best offer and secure his future just like every other sportsman or employee.

It's not what he did, but how he did it.

He is a self-serving, manipulative ass who wasted the time of 3 clubs in an effort to bump up his own price. The way he conducted himself is a disgrace, and what he did on the field on Saturday is also a disgrace.

The subsequent decision of the MRP is unlikely to be reflective of his actions on the field. It hardly ever is in most cases.

He is a bloody good player, one of the best, but his reputation has really been tarnished since moving to Victoria IMO. He could have ended his career as the next Hird. Instead he'll probably end up being seen in the same light as Buckley. Both champs, but one was hated and one was loved.