Blues are contesting tonight. If they lose, Judd is out for three weeks.

Apparently Fev has been ruled out as a character witness.

Blues are contesting tonight. If they lose, Judd is out for three weeks.

Apparently Fev has been ruled out as a character witness.

Why does that not surprise me.

My initial post is incorrect regarding Judd telling 'porkies' regarding his thumb searching for the pressure point behind opponents ear. I've since seen vision that proves this is indeed what his intention was. So he's told the truth, despite it being stupid and dumb. But I won't be apologising to Judd.

How the mighty have fallen !!!

Ought to be intereting to see the argument, I mean he has already admitted what he did

How the mighty have fallen !!!

We'll see......

I mean he has all but admitted to the unnecessary and unreasonable contact to the head or face.

But the reality is he is still seen as untouchable !!!

Previous Judd form....little known. While at Caulfield Grammar,playing v. St Kevins, Judd deliberately stomped on that Demon Irish rookie, Murphy's abdomen, and twisted his stops around.(so Murphy told me at a sponsors' night, before Judd was drafted.)

When I hear news reports of thugs kicking heads and ribs of victims already on the ground, I wonder about the mentality of the perpetrators. What sort of person does that?

But broken ribs and bumped heads get better in time. Eyes are incredibly delicate organs. The consequences of damage are permanent and debilitating.Is Judd too thick to know that? I don't think so. He just has that vicious streak that normal people can't understand.

2 weeks is ludicrously lenient for such a heinous crime.

Yes, I wanted him at Melbourne. I wish he played for us. I'd be deeply ashamed of him if he did that while playing for our Club.

Not Murphy. Probably Nicholas Walsh and in all likelihood Walsh had a lot to do with the vicious response (not that any reaction of the sort described was justified).

Not surprised that Carlton and Judd appealed. The cost is a mere drop in the ocean where they're concerned.

Not Murphy. Probably Nicholas Walsh and in all likelihood Walsh had a lot to do with the vicious response (not that any reaction of the sort described was justified).

Thanks, Jack. It was Nick Walsh (not all Irishmen are Murphys, are they, and he was pretty forgettable!).

Guilty. 3 weeks. What a shame :D

Guilty. 3 weeks. What a shame :D

It would be nice to play Hawks, Dons and Carlstink first three next year.

It is irrelevant who he chose, what is relevant is that he wasted our time and that of Essendon and Collingwood when in reality he had already made a deal with Carlton months before, for a deal that is hardly legal. What he did was as self absorbed and as arrogant as it gets. He made himself bigger than four other clubs, which he isn't. While he didn't want to screw over his old club, he was quite happy to screw around three other clubs, knowing full well that his future belonged to those who could give him the biggest pay packet. To then have the audacity to come out and say he chose Carlton because of a young exciting list and facilities, is an even bigger joke, when both Collingwood and Essendon were as well, if not better placed than Carlton. He has been caught lying before, and is now a two-time eye gouger as well.

In hindsight I'm glad we didn't get him. It means we would have missed out on Morton, and probably Watts and Scully as well, since we would have struggled to finish bottom with less than 4 wins with Judd in the team. Plus, the pleasure I'm going to get when we beat Carlton in finals now will be infinitely better.

As they say, karma is a [censored] and what goes around comes around. I firmly believe that those who put themselves ahead of all others, and those who chase money in pursuit of happiness suffer in the end. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

You just tore juddy an absolute new one. Most of what you are saying i agree with. But i think you are reading a lot into it. Ok sure, he gouged/pressure pointed/ Bruce Lee cross-kicked Rischitelli, but at the same time it is just a little face jab. I mean do you think that deserves the same punishment that Buddy got for not doing much?

The strange thing is that basically the way that it the tribunal is set up is that Barry Hall can king hit a guy, and knock him the F$%&* out, but Judd does (granted it's a repeated offense) a face grab, or whatever you like to call it and gets a quarter of what Hall got.

I don't know, im so confused after all this speculation about tribunal stuff that i can't make decision about weather they are right or wrong.

By the way, lying about that Campbell Brown thing is a weird one too. Because what would've happened if he did tell the truth?? Campbell Brown would've been hung out to dry over it, i can imagine people calling him a "dobber,". I think you (not you specifically) need to look at both sides before you keel-haul someone.

Guilty. 3 weeks. What a shame :D

It ain't over till it's over. They can still appeal the decision and if that doesn't work there's the Supreme Court, the Federal Court the High Court and even Judge Judy. This still has lots of legs and plenty of twists and turns before it's finished.

Guilty. 3 weeks. What a shame :D

On his Birthday too!!

Ah, good times..

As each day goes by, Judd only makes himself look more and more stupid.

Of recent note was his feeble attempt to explain what he did as an ambassador for Visy, and now this with a moronic response to the media about trying to hit a pressure point.

This guy is a fool, and moving to Melbourne is giving us the opportunity to see his true colours.

Deserves his 3 weeks!

As each day goes by, Judd only makes himself look more and more stupid.

Of recent note was his feeble attempt to explain what he did as an ambassador for Visy, and now this with a moronic response to the media about trying to hit a pressure point.

This guy is a fool, and moving to Melbourne is giving us the opportunity to see his true colours.

Deserves his 3 weeks!

Well said.

It ain't over till it's over. They can still appeal the decision and if that doesn't work there's the Supreme Court, the Federal Court the High Court and even Judge Judy. This still has lots of legs and plenty of twists and turns before it's finished.

Bingo.

Apparently, they're considering an appeal today.

It's difficult to comprehend what grounds they're going to appeal on after the Tribunal knocked back Judd's defence which was basically that he was only kidding reporters at the airport when he tried to run the pressure point porkie past them. His problem was that he only had half an hour's sleep the night before.

Quite. Not a bad effort from someone given the role of advocating in a publicity campaign against street violence.

One trusts that the next defence Judd comes up with has a little more credibility although I could tell an interesting story about the nocturnal activities of a certain teammate of Judd's on a previous trip to Brisbane that might explain why footballers get such little sleep on the night after a game at the Gabba.

Can someone explain to me how going for a pressure point is better than eye gouging anyway?

Guilty. 3 weeks. What a shame :D

Not yet.

It ain't over till it's over. They can still appeal the decision and if that doesn't work there's the Supreme Court, the Federal Court the High Court and even Judge Judy. This still has lots of legs and plenty of twists and turns before it's finished.

Correct: -

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl...2-19742,00.html

I'd like to see it on Judge Judy.......The Juddster v Judge Judy. And the case dismissed of course.....

There is just no way that Judd can get off.

Video evidence is damning and the idiot admitted that he touched his opponent's head. A big no no.

Can't believe the AFL haven't told Carlton to pipe down, take the punishment and [censored] off. Pathetic reactions all around.

There is just no way that Judd can get off.

Video evidence is damning and the idiot admitted that he touched his opponent's head. A big no no.

Can't believe the AFL haven't told Carlton to pipe down, take the punishment and [censored] off. Pathetic reactions all around.

And if he get's off.......Jaded?

What's the ambassador of VISY really done? Apart from being stupid in apparently admitting to pressing his thumb behind his opponents ear.

Brereton should of got 3 weeks for kissing Duckworth.

And if he get's off.......Jaded?

What's the ambassador of VISY really done? Apart from being stupid in apparently admitting to pressing his thumb behind his opponents ear.

Brereton should of got 3 weeks for kissing Duckworth.

What's he really done?

He tried to eye gouge an opponent, or apply some sort of pressure to the back of his head which would render his opponent unfit to play for at least a few minutes. It is a serious offense and the punishment he received is representative of that.

You cannot be serious to suggest that touching your opponent's eyes or applying dangerous pressure to the head is not a serious matter that should be severely punished!

If you don't believe he did it, then have a look for yourself:

If he gets off it would be an absolute disgrace given the amount of evidence against him, and given this is a repeat offense.

If he get's off then the AFL will have lost so much credibility it will not be funny, the gouger should cop his 3 and sit the [censored] down!

He is scum, done this twice, eye gouging is a dog act.

What's the ambassador of VISY really done?

Please.

Be a man and cop your 3 Judd.

It would be nice to play Hawks, Dons and Carlstink first three next year.

Sure would. So we'll probably get Freo (away), North Melbourne and Geelong.

It ain't over till it's over. They can still appeal the decision and if that doesn't work there's the Supreme Court, the Federal Court the High Court and even Judge Judy. This still has lots of legs and plenty of twists and turns before it's finished.

And he has launched an appeal: http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tab...57/default.aspx

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.

Hey Appeals Board: Look at Jaded's post above. That looks like evidence enough to me.

Everybody makes mistakes, does things they wish they hadn't done. But people with honour & integrity & character will admit to their mistakes, apologise, make restitution if necessary, cop the penalty, promise not to do it again (and don't do it again), and move on.

Judd has now done this low act twice. Each time he's twisted this way & that to avoid responsibility for a mistake he's made. First time he got a player from another club to lie for him, and then to take the hit for him when the lie was found out. Even now, Judd has never been brought to account for what he did.

This time he's tried to deny it, brush it aside, then say that well, it really wasn't that bad and I don't desrve to be punished. He's done everything except to act with honour and integrity, take responsibility for what he's done and take it like a man. This from the captain of an AFL team.

This has been a real test of character for Judd, and he's failed it miserably in just about every way possible. If any of my children ever behaved like this, I'd be extremely disappointed. And as I've posted before, I'd be disgusted if MFC were ever to behave like this in future.

On the other hand, Judd seems to think that having got off scot-free the first time, he's entitled to special favours every time, so that he should never have to face the consequences of any mistakes.

It would be a tragedy if he manages to get away with it a second time.

And he has launched an appeal: http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tab...57/default.aspx

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.

Hey Appeals Board: Look at Jaded's post above. That looks like evidence enough to me.

If he gets off, or even gets a reduced punishment then the AFL will have lost all credibility. Corrupt possible, credible - never.

And for those few posters around the net who think this is just part of the manly rough and tumble of footy, where do they draw the line? When someone sharpens his fingernails before gouging, or carries a knife on the field. A hard bump in play is fine, what Judd did (twice) is not.

I trust Judd will not be happy when the first small kid is blinded by some young(er) idiot emulating him and comes up with the same juvenile excuses Judd has come up with.

I am just amazed Carlton has the gall to keep pushing this - they should shut up and hope everyone forgets about this asap. They must be a bunch of arrogant twits.

What's he really done?

He tried to eye gouge an opponent, or apply some sort of pressure to the back of his head which would render his opponent unfit to play for at least a few minutes. It is a serious offense and the punishment he received is representative of that.

You cannot be serious to suggest that touching your opponent's eyes or applying dangerous pressure to the head is not a serious matter that should be severely punished!

If he gets off it would be an absolute disgrace given the amount of evidence against him, and given this is a repeat offense.

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).

From titan's post: -

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.

There is a case there I believe, even though it might stink to those who have 'big opinions' on Judd.