Yes I've seen it. You can rule out eye gouge.

It's simply pressure to the back of his head.

Would it seriously render his opponent unfit to play for at least a few minutes? And did it?

I'm serious in suggesting that Carlton have a case to appeal, because I believe the punishment given is excessive.

I agree that eye gouging is as serious offense, I'm unsure about some so called pressure point behind the ear which is what he admitted. Sure he's guilty of that. Taking into account that Rischitelli (or however you spell his name) played unhampered immediately without any medical issues - to me the punishment doesn't fit the crime. 1 week at most for me would suffice. Or cleared of weeks with a reprimand (points overhanging).

You CANNOT rule out eye gouge from the vision - and he has a clear record of it in the past (if not convicted).

But in any case what has messing with anyone's face got to do with footy?!!! Where do you draw the line as I asked in an earlier post? What is unacceptable to you?

The fact that his opponent was neither unconscious as a result of 'pressure points' or unable to see because of scratched eyes just indicates Judd didn't succeed. But the act is a low act and the effect on the opponent should not be taken into account much (unlike say a negligent bump, where you get rubbed out for longer if the guy ends up in hospital).

The really bad thing about this is that Judd is a great player. You can understand some second-rater who never quite makes it and gets frustrated doing something stupid. But why would a guy with Judd's skills. His actions during the week indicate a surprisingly stupid man . I had assumed he was pretty smart till now.

You CANNOT rule out eye gouge from the vision.

Really? You cannot rule it in either. Not in my opinion. Is it conclusive?

But in any case what has messing with anyone's face got to do with footy?!!! Where do you draw the line as I asked in an earlier post? What is unacceptable to you?

I must have missed that question. Was it to me? I've clearly outlined in my previous post that eye gouging should not be tolerated and handled with heavy penalty - that is unacceptable to me. I'll say it again, is eye gouging conclusive in Judd's case?

Isn't the head sacrosanct?

Hadn't the umpire blown his whistle already?

Wasn't Judd a ways away from the contest at that time?

Low act, with (stated) intent to maim.

Edited September 9, 200915 yr by Trident

Isn't the head sacrosanct?

Hadn't the umpire blown his whistle already?

Wasn't Judd a ways away from the contest at that time?

Low act, with (stated) intent to maim.

Sure.

The Blues have appealed on the basis that the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it, the classification of the offence was manifestly excessive and the sanction imposed was manifestly excessive.

All I am saying, does the penalty fit the crime?

Edited September 9, 200915 yr by High Tower

There's a massive difference between ruling out eye gouging and ruling it in, essentially considering it.

He has a past record, saved because of Brown, and had his finger very close to, if not in, his eye. I can't see how you could possibly rule it out.

There's a massive difference between ruling out eye gouging and ruling it in, essentially considering it.

He has a past record, saved because of Brown, and had his finger very close to, if not in, his eye. I can't see how you could possibly rule it out.

I understand of that past record. Incidentally is that definitely taken into account when this case is considered - by the match review/tribunal?

Edited September 9, 200915 yr by High Tower

Sure.

The Blues have appealed on the basis that the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it, the classification of the offence was manifestly excessive and the sanction imposed was manifestly excessive.

All I am saying, does the penalty fit the crime?

Yes.

Whether he did actually or not eye gouge, what the hell was he doing? It was deliberate attempt to inflict some pain/injury. He had no call to have his hand anywhere near the players head or face.

I hope he still gets the 3 weeks and further loss of reputation. Despicable conduct.

I understand of that past record. Incidentally is that definitley taken into account when this case is considered - by the match review/tribunal?

I dont think so. He was never convicted of a crime due to Campbell Brown lying in evidence.

Never the less the footage is damning and you would have to be naive if you did take this one act on the weekend in isolation.

I agree that eye gouging is as serious offense, I'm unsure about some so called pressure point behind the ear which is what he admitted. Sure he's guilty of that. Taking into account that Rischitelli (or however you spell his name) played unhampered immediately without any medical issues - to me the punishment doesn't fit the crime. 1 week at most for me would suffice. Or cleared of weeks with a reprimand (points overhanging).

I'm staggered that you can look at the vision and rule out eye gouging. The intent was clearly there, and according to the rules of the AFL, intent is what counts not just the consequence. Buddy got 3 weeks for laying a bump, which in most people's eye was within the spirit of the game. What Judd did is so far removed from the spirit and nature of AFL that it is a disgrace.

The pressure point is a martial art technique that, when pressed hard enough can cause dizziness, fainting or worse. Whether his contact caused injury or not is irrelevant. The intention was malicious.

You touch a player's head with any sort of force or intent to harm, and you get done. Take into consideration his prior attempt at eye gouging and he should have said thanks for the two weeks and walked away.

I wouldn't think it would, or should, be considered as i don't think he was punished for it.

I am comfortable with the charge given the possible consequences of injuring the eyes can have.

I'm staggered that you can look at the vision and rule out eye gouging. The intent was clearly there,

All I am saying, is it conclusive? Eye gouging is scraping or digging into the eyes. Is the vision proof of this Jaded? You'd want to be right when accusing someone of doing this.

Yes, his fingers are near the face (eyes) when his thumb is behind his ear. But is he gouging Rischitelli's eye(s). I don't believe he is. I'm staggered you could definitely say Judd is gouging with intent, which you say, "The intent was clearly there (to gouge)."

Edited September 9, 200915 yr by High Tower

The really bad thing about this is that Judd is a great player. You can understand some second-rater who never quite makes it and gets frustrated doing something stupid. But why would a guy with Judd's skills. His actions during the week indicate a surprisingly stupid man . I had assumed he was pretty smart till now.

And that's part of what bothers me about this. If it was a lesser player, would the same fiasco be taking place?

Judd is seeking special favours here, just because he's St Judd and thinks he should be untouchable.

Why should special favours be sought or given just because he's a great player, club captain or Brownlow medallist? Or the Visy man? Is this just all a desperate attempt to rescue Judd's reputation? That seems to be what's motivating Judd himself, and possibly Carlton (he is their club captain, and their so-called "environmental ambassador" - they stand to lose a lot if he DOESN'T get special treatment). Time will tell whether Judd's reputation is more important to the AFL than the integrity of their own system of upholding the rules.

Because if Judd gets off a second time, the barrier to any sort of contact to the face will be in tatters. The AFL will have condoned this act two times out of two. It will put the MRP in an impossible position if another player does it, or especially if Judd does it again, so there will be no point in dishing out a sanction of any kind. And it sets a precedent, based on the fact that the player on the receiving end was not seriously disabled.

OK, Judd and Carlton are seeking a special deal to be judged on another level to the rest of the competition. The question is, will the AFL lie down and allow this to happen? Yes, he's a great player, but if he was a great man, he'd cop it sweet.

I must have missed that question. Was it to me? I've clearly outlined in my previous post that eye gouging should not be tolerated and handled with heavy penalty - that is unacceptable to me. I'll say it again, is eye gouging conclusive in Judd's case?

Sorry, it wasn't to you in particular, but to those who say it is just part of footy.

So what makes it conclusive gouging in your view? (this one is to you).

Blood pouring from the eyes? The next Campbell Brown telling the truth? Someone rubbing their eyes? - but they could just be acting trying to get the other bloke into trouble. Sometimes the tribunal just has to decided on the evidence before it.

And yes, I'd be a more inclined to give Judd the benefit of the doubt but for 2 things. One he did it in the past and less importantly he approached the small pack with the clear intent to do what he did - it didn't happen in a jumble of a large pack - which makes him even stupider.

Sorry, it wasn't to you in particular, but to those who say it is just part of footy.

So what makes it conclusive gouging in your view? (this one is to you).

Blood pouring from the eyes? The next Campbell Brown telling the truth? Someone rubbing their eyes? - but they could just be acting trying to get the other bloke into trouble. Sometimes the tribunal just has to decided on the evidence before it.

And yes, I'd be a more inclined to give Judd the benefit of the doubt but for 2 things. One he did it in the past and less importantly he approached the small pack with the clear intent to do what he did - it didn't happen in a jumble of a large pack - which makes him even stupider.

Clear vision that makes it conclusive to see scraping/pressure/swiping of the opponents eyes. From what I have seen, Judd backs that up with what he has stated, which is stupid & dumb. And if it was conclusive enough in regards to eye gouging - throw the book at him and the kitchen sink. However, as I have said with the evidence at hand and the excessive penalty (IMO), I believe there is a case to answer for an appeal - and if you were Carlton why wouldn't you explore that option.

Put it this way, if Davey or Jurrah did the same thing, wouldn't we be happy for Melbourne to explore the options of reversing a 3 match ban for the start of 2010, based on the same evidence? (Try and block out the hatred for Judd in this regard)

The tribunal have charged him with unnecessary and unreasonable contact to the face. Based on contact to the head, intentional & low impact, correct?

Which basically resulted in something like 6 activation points/325 points and therefore 3 weeks.

IMO the system is questionnnable, because anyone could get 3 weeks for touching a player in the face, regardless of impact.

That is why Carlton should explore the appeal because IMO the penalty is excessive. Ie "the classification of the offence was manifestly excessive and the sanction imposed was manifestly excessive.

Edited September 9, 200915 yr by High Tower

All I am saying, is it conclusive? Eye gouging is scraping or digging into the eyes. Is the vision proof of this Jaded? You'd want to be right when accusing someone of doing this.

Yes, his fingers are near the face (eyes) when his thumb is behind his ear. But is he gouging Rischitelli's eye(s). I don't believe he is. I'm staggered you could definitely say Judd is gouging with intent, which you say, "The intent was clearly there (to gouge)."

The intent to HARM is clearly there. Just like attempted murder is cause for punishment.

The intent to do damage to the head/eye is clearly there. You don't accidentally push your fingers into someone's eye. This isn't a tackle where someone accidentally copped a poke to the eye. Judd is standing on top of his opponent and his fingers are pushed into his opponent's eye socket. Gouging or no gouging, he is in a no-go zone. We protect the head of players for a reason.

Given his prior, I think we can go about safely accusing him of doing something that is wrong, because even just that one second snippet of vision shows him doing something that is outside the rules of the game (even if he wasn't gouging the eye). A dangerous and low act.

He copped 2 weeks which is a light penalty when you consider that he admitted trying to find his opponent's pressure point in an effort to harm him and cause injury. That he and his club are arrogant enough to appeal the decision because he is Chris Judd, is a joke and serves them right for having to cop an extra week.

His chances of getting off this charge are zero to none. Wish he could cop an extra week on top of the 3 just for wasting everyone's time and being a [censored] about it.

Admit what you've done, apologise and move on. You are doing absolutely nothing to help your cause.

Put it this way, if Davey or Jurrah did the same thing, wouldn't we be happy for Melbourne to explore the options of reversing a 3 match ban for the start of 2010, based on the same evidence? (Try and block out the hatred for Judd in this regard)

If a Melbourne player did what Judd did I would be happy for the AFL to throw the book at him. I would be appalled if the club kept perusing the issue in their own arrogant way and even more so if the player in question came out and said he was trying to harm his opponent by applying pressure to their head.

All I am saying, is it conclusive? Eye gouging is scraping or digging into the eyes. Is the vision proof of this Jaded? You'd want to be right when accusing someone of doing this.

Yes, his fingers are near the face (eyes) when his thumb is behind his ear. But is he gouging Rischitelli's eye(s). I don't believe he is. I'm staggered you could definitely say Judd is gouging with intent, which you say, "The intent was clearly there (to gouge)."

HT I can think of 6 acts off the top of my head that are deemed low acts in football and they are:

1. Deliberate kicking of another player.

2. King hitting.

3. Spitting on another player.

4. Biting another player.

5. Racially abusing another player.

6. Eye gouging another player.

On the last one poking someone in the eye deliberately is akin to gouging. It can have the same effect. Yes the Lion player was not injured but that is not the point. Judd walked over to an incident that didn't involve him and could have grabbed a player by the jumper to drag him away. Instead, he bent down and put his hand on the face of an opponent and as the photo clearly shows his finger went into or on the eye of the Lion player. It is clear. It may not be a gouge but it is a poke and that will do. It is either intentional or grossly reckless conduct to the head of an opponent who is on the ground and defenceless. It could have been far worse if an injury was sustained to the eye and that is what the AFL wants to stop.

If I was advising Judd and his team I would have advised them to cop the 2 weeks and get on with life. This has kept his name in the spotlight for far longer than needed and brought damage to him and his reputation.

I get the feeling that it is the club running this not Judd.

I will be staggered if the appeal is successful.

Edited September 9, 200915 yr by Redleg

Good post Redleg.

HT I can think of 6 acts off the top of my head that are deemed low acts in football and they are:

1. Deliberate kicking of another player.

2. King hitting.

3. Spitting on another player.

4. Biting another player.

5. Racially abusing another player.

6. Eye gouging another player.

On the last one poking someone in the eye deliberately is akin to gouging. It can have the same effect. Yes the Lion player was not injured but that is not the point. Judd walked over to an incident that didn't involve him and could have grabbed a player by the jumper to drag him away. Instead, he bent down and put his hand on the face of an opponent and as the photo clearly shows his finger went into or on the eye of the Lion player. It is clear. It may not be a gouge but it is a poke and that will do. It is either intentional or grossly reckless conduct to the head of an opponent who is on the ground and defenceless. It could have been far worse if an injury was sustained to the eye and that is what the AFL wants to stop.

I am a lawyer of some 32 years experience and if I was acting for Judd and his team I would have advised them to cop the 2 weeks and get on with life. This has kept his name in the spotlight for far longer than needed and brought damage to him and his reputation. I get the feeling that it is the club running this not Judd. I will be staggered if the appeal is successful.

Good post Redleg. Although if indeed he did deliberately poke or gouge the eye of young Rischitelli, that is indeed both unnecessary and unreasonable contact. I'm big on 'no gouging.' From what I have seen - and I'm not entirely an expert in gouging - 'gouging' is just not conclusive IMO. Yes, one of the fingers went close to the Lion's players eye. I'm not sure it is that clear though. Was that intentional? I thought it was the thumb behind the ear. Reckless, probably for the finger near the eye.

I agree that poking someone or gouging someone in the eye could have the same effect.

I suppose the more I go over this, I think what the heck, just take the weeks and move on.

I agree with what I've highlighted in your post.

Can "The Recidivist Gouger" use up any of his 3 weeks in the NAB Cup? If so , it's ridiculous. It's insufficient penalty anyway for potentially blinding a victim. This hypocritical Crusader for the Green cause deserves everything he gets.

Why are people so accepting of his vicious behaviour?

This is its basis:

The Blues have appealed on the basis that the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it, the classification of the offence was manifestly excessive and the sanction imposed was manifestly excessive.

Sure.

The Blues have appealed on the basis that the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it, the classification of the offence was manifestly excessive and the sanction imposed was manifestly excessive.

All I am saying, does the penalty fit the crime?

High Tower, did you read my post on page one, it pretty much sums up this case exactly. The way the afl has set up the tribunal with its activation points etc this is the only penalty that can be handed out with manipulating the description.

the crime is misconduct in that the player either eye gouged or made unnessecary and unreasonable contact to the opponents face.

i cannot see how anyone could argue this didnt happen.

was it intentional, reckless or negligent?

he admitted it, so it is intentional, not reckless or negligent.

if this is downgraded it is purely to get him off, not because its true. a stray elbow may be reckless but he said he put his hand on his face to use a pressure point, this is intentionally committing the offence. <if the offence was just "eye gouging" it could be argued it was reckless eye gouging while attempting to contact the head or face, but the offence is "eye gouging or unresaonable contact to the head or face".

as it was contact to the head it automatically gets the high contact level.

how can the tribunal possibly, fairly, and according to the rules, give any different punishment?

the crime might not fit the punishment, in a number of cases at the tribunal, but the afl decided they wuld make a standardised system to ensure "fairness and equitable sentences" but then made a stupid points szstem that makes no sense. as a result there is no leway, in fact the only leway the tribunal ever has is the intentional, reckless or negligent thing, which can make a massive difference, which is why some striking is "intentional" and some is "reckless" even though the point is always to hit the other player...

fix the afl, fix the tribunal, but in this case the tribunal have simply followed the rules the afl set out for them...

All I am saying, is it conclusive? Eye gouging is scraping or digging into the eyes. Is the vision proof of this Jaded? You'd want to be right when accusing someone of doing this.

i think you have missed the point that the charge is not simply "eye gouging". it is "misconduct- eye gouging or unreasonable and unessecary contact to the head or face of an opponent."

you dont need to prove he eyegouged. just mushing someones face for a few seconds could qualify for this charge and penalty. and that is in the afls own rules...

Here's a tip - tape your ankles before a match.

Here's another - keep your fingers off people's faces.

Really thought Carlton knew this stuff...

I get the feeling that it is the club running this not Judd.

I will be staggered if the appeal is successful.

You're a man of the law Redleg. Why be staggered at any possible outcome in this sort of case? And why would any other than the Carlton Football Club be running the show? Judd is their property. They own him lock, stock and barrel. In conjunction with Visy which has shelled out $38 million in fines for illegal activities not connected with footy, they pay him $1.75 m annually to play football, waffle on about a sustainable environment, smile at television cameras and tell porkies about how he can disable opponents with a single pressure point movement while leaping tall buildings in a single bound. OK, I exaggerate a little with the last one but you get my drift.

At $1.75 m per annum, that comes out to $68,000.00 per game. The cost of a three game suspension comes out to $204,000.00. It could possibly be even more costly if the Blues lose those three games and struggle thereafter during a 2010 season when there's nothing to tank for if the team happens to be travelling poorly. But let's assume that Judd's three game suspension costs Carlton/Visy/The Australian Taxpayer 204 large. The appeal costs just $15k and $0 if you're successful so at those rates it has to be a worthwhile objective - more so if the exercise helps a few lawyers like us to pay their children's private school fees.

That's the price of justice in this country so take the time today to look at the statue of Justice up there on the Supreme Court building and you won't have to wonder why she's wearing a blindfold.

I say it's an even money bet that he get's a reduction in his sentence.

High Tower, did you read my post on page one, it pretty much sums up this case exactly. The way the afl has set up the tribunal with its activation points etc this is the only penalty that can be handed out with manipulating the description.

I have. I've described the points system in post 89. Similar. I also understand that the charge is for unnecessary and unreasonable contact to the face. I'm not arguing this, I've been arguing the assumption of in particular 'eye gouging' with Jaded really.

the crime is misconduct in that the player either eye gouged or made unnessecary and unreasonable contact to the opponents face.

i cannot see how anyone could argue this didnt happen.

See above.

was it intentional, reckless or negligent?

he admitted it, so it is intentional, not reckless or negligent.

if this is downgraded it is purely to get him off, not because its true. a stray elbow may be reckless but he said he put his hand on his face to use a pressure point, this is intentionally committing the offence. <if the offence was just "eye gouging" it could be argued it was reckless eye gouging while attempting to contact the head or face, but the offence is "eye gouging or unresaonable contact to the head or face".

as it was contact to the head it automatically gets the high contact level.

how can the tribunal possibly, fairly, and according to the rules, give any different punishment?

It was intentional, since he admitted to it.

the crime might not fit the punishment, in a number of cases at the tribunal, but the afl decided they wuld make a standardised system to ensure "fairness and equitable sentences" but then made a stupid points szstem that makes no sense. as a result there is no leway, in fact the only leway the tribunal ever has is the intentional, reckless or negligent thing, which can make a massive difference, which is why some striking is "intentional" and some is "reckless" even though the point is always to hit the other player...

fix the afl, fix the tribunal, but in this case the tribunal have simply followed the rules the afl set out for them...

Agree withe the crime not fitting the punishment. In particular with regards to "impact".

i think you have missed the point that the charge is not simply "eye gouging". it is "misconduct- eye gouging or unreasonable and unessecary contact to the head or face of an opponent."

you dont need to prove he eyegouged. just mushing someones face for a few seconds could qualify for this charge and penalty. and that is in the afls own rules...

Fair enough. Like I said I've been big on with respect to Judd not "eye gouging" with regard to my posts with jaded. I uderstand what he did do falls under misconduct - unneccessary and unreasonable contact with opponents head.

You're a man of the law Redleg. Why be staggered at any possible outcome in this sort of case? And why would any other than the Carlton Football Club be running the show? Judd is their property. They own him lock, stock and barrel. In conjunction with Visy which has shelled out $38 million in fines for illegal activities not connected with footy, they pay him $1.75 m annually to play football, waffle on about a sustainable environment, smile at television cameras and tell porkies about how he can disable opponents with a single pressure point movement while leaping tall buildings in a single bound. OK, I exaggerate a little with the last one but you get my drift.

At $1.75 m per annum, that comes out to $68,000.00 per game. The cost of a three game suspension comes out to $204,000.00. It could possibly be even more costly if the Blues lose those three games and struggle thereafter during a 2010 season when there's nothing to tank for if the team happens to be travelling poorly. But let's assume that Judd's three game suspension costs Carlton/Visy/The Australian Taxpayer 204 large. The appeal costs just $15k and $0 if you're successful so at those rates it has to be a worthwhile objective - more so if the exercise helps a few lawyers pay their children's private school fees.

That's the price of justice in this country so when you look at the statue of Justice up there on the Supreme Court building, it's no wonder she's wearing a blindfold.

I say it's an even money bet that he get's a reduction in his sentence.

Agree. Good post. Why wouldn't his club get behind their best player, their most marketable commodity and try and get him off in a case like this.

You're a man of the law Redleg. Why be staggered at any possible outcome in this sort of case? And why would any other than the Carlton Football Club be running the show? Judd is their property. They own him lock, stock and barrel. In conjunction with Visy which has shelled out $38 million in fines for illegal activities not connected with footy, they pay him $1.75 m annually to play football, waffle on about a sustainable environment, smile at television cameras and tell porkies about how he can disable opponents with a single pressure point movement while leaping tall buildings in a single bound. OK, I exaggerate a little with the last one but you get my drift.

At $1.75 m per annum, that comes out to $68,000.00 per game. The cost of a three game suspension comes out to $204,000.00. It could possibly be even more costly if the Blues lose those three games and struggle thereafter during a 2010 season when there's nothing to tank for if the team happens to be travelling poorly. But let's assume that Judd's three game suspension costs Carlton/Visy/The Australian Taxpayer 204 large. The appeal costs just $15k and $0 if you're successful so at those rates it has to be a worthwhile objective - more so if the exercise helps a few lawyers like us to pay their children's private school fees.

That's the price of justice in this country so take the time today to look at the statue of Justice up there on the Supreme Court building and you won't have to wonder why she's wearing a blindfold.

I say it's an even money bet that he get's a reduction in his sentence.

Very, very good post WJ.