Tommy Bugg on report

[Diamond_Jim 11,816]

37 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Did anyone else think it odd that during the Bugg hearing the Tribunal Chairman David Jones QC "...took the unprecedented step of making a spirited defence of the tribunal. He called for balanced analysis and criticism and, in particular, expressed his frustration that the decision in the Essendon doping case had never been made public..." ... " The AFL's successful appeal in the Bachar Houli case last week and the criticism the tribunal copped as a result, prompted Jones to reflect on his 13 years in charge. He pointed out that there had only ever been three successful appeals." ...  "I do not think it is unreasonable that where there is criticism, it be informed and balanced and not personal," . http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/tomas-bugg-suspended-for-six-matches-for-punch-on-sydneys-callum-mills-20170704-gx4ijy.html

If he wants to defend his Tribunal and in particular its decisions in the Houli and Essendon doping case surely there are other and far better forums in which to do it.  I am quite perplexed that he chose last night to defend his 13 years in charge.

Perhaps he was sending a message:  Any players coming before me - you will get the full force of the law, in future.  That is a bit tongue in cheek on my part.  But very odd for a QC to publicly be so defensive.

Is that a typo

It was made public and they were held to be wrong by the subsequent appeal court

PS: No it wasn't a typo because he is quoted later int he article as saying the following:

"It's frustrating for me having been involved in the Essendon case. That decision has never been publicly released. I would welcome that ever happening for people to look at both the tribunal decision and the court of appeal and make their own mind up."

Edited July 5, 2017 by Diamond_Jim

[jnrmac 19,016]

2 hours ago, mauriesy said:

So if he was "incredibly stupid" he deserves 6 weeks, and that is what he got.

Oh, so being incredibly stupid is against AFL rules now. And punishable by a mandatory 6 week penalty according to Mauriesy.

You can start by giving yourself 6 weeks off the boards if that's the case

And Saint Houli wasn't "incredibly stupid" just unlucky? Whats the penalty for unlucky?

[jnrmac 19,016]

4 hours ago, The Chazz said:

If "lashing out" wasn't intentional or deliberate, then what was it?  I'm intrigued as to what else it could have been.

How about reactive or reflex. You are really not very good at this logic thing are you. 

[Lucifers Hero 37,099]

1 minute ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Is that a typo

It was made public and they were shown to be wrong by the subsequent appeal court

No typo.

Hmm, very odd for a QC to go all defensive like that.  He said it literally in the middle of last night's hearing.  It was after the lawyers had had their say about the Bugg incident and before the jury deliberated on the penalty.  Very strange.

[Diamond_Jim 11,816]

Just now, Lucifer's Hero said:

No typo.

Hmm, very odd for a QC to go all defensive like that.  He said it literally in the middle of last night's hearing.  It was after the lawyers had had their say about the Bugg incident and before the jury deliberated on the penalty.  Very strange.

But it was public.... the decision was on the internet since day 1

[Bring Back Barassi 532]

23 hours ago, PaulRB said:

Bugg made a costly error of judgement.

There's no room in professional sport for assaulting another player in this way. If he'd done that outside the stadium he'd be charged with assault. 

 

That line of reasoning is nonsense.

If you tackled a person in the street or jumped on their head to take a screamer you would be charged with assault as well.

[Dees2014 2,377]

5 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I don't think Slobbo has done much, apart from write very average blogs for too long. I do understand why he is the Chief Football Writer though. 

Slobbo will write whatever he is told

(Essendrug)

Errr, don't think so. Slobbo really believes the nonsense he wrote about Essendon, he needed no encouragement. 

Having said that I'm sure it did his career no harm since the global head of News Limited is an Essendon fanatic. 

[beelzebub 22,225]

1 minute ago, Dees2014 said:

Errr, don't think so. Slobbo really believes the nonsense he wrote about Essendon, he needed no encouragement. 

Having said that I'm sure it did his career no harm since the global head of News Limited is an Essendon fanatic. 

You're both right.

Slobbo believes...and Slobbo is led willingly , cleverly by agenda folk.

[Dees2014 2,377]

5 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Yep true. After watching footy for over 40 years that would be my view. But to disagree you are saying Bugg intentially set out to hit Mills? Really?

Cmon you know thats garbage, they were both moving towards the pack on the boundary because a kick-in was taking place when Mills instigated contact. Bugg lashed out. That's not doesn't show intention from Bugg and you would be disinegnous to suggest otherwise.

 

Bugg wouldn't be the first AFL footballer to go out to deliberately physically take someone out of the game (Neil Balme on Geoff Southby anyone?? In admittedly different era). Unfortunately I'm beginning to think Bugg is not very bright so nothing would surprise, but no-one really knows except him. 

I'm with VP on this. The more important thing is how this hurts the culture Roos and Jackson have tried so carefully to construct. We seem to be our own worst enemies - stupid acts seem to be de rigeur for too many in this team, and it has very seriously cost us on the football field, and may well cost us a place in the top 4, or even worse, the top 8. That is what concerns me, and I am surprised so many  on here seek to blame others rather than concentrating on us straightening that out. 

Edited July 5, 2017 by Dees2014

[The Chazz 4,077]

21 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

How about reactive or reflex. You are really not very good at this logic thing are you. 

I look forward to your next post when you will claim he suffers from tourettes, or a Neeld-like twitch.

How about the fact that he was charged, by the MRP, with intentional striking. The fact that Bugg had a lawyer representing him, who would've used his professional judgement when supporting Bugg''s guilty plea.

These lawyers are good. If they can see any remote possibility of a sentence reduction and/or the case being thrown out due to an incorrect charge, they feast off it with brilliance. The fact they didn't in this case clearly shows that the charge, and wording of it, was 100% accurate.

To dumb it down, which is clearly what needs to happen here, Bugg pleaded guilty of intentionally striking the kid. That means your view that it wasn't intentional or deliberate is totally wrong. But keep believing that the MRP is corrupt, or that Bugg is following a company line, or whatever other fantasy yout dream up.

[beelzebub 22,225]

43 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

No typo.

Hmm, very odd for a QC to go all defensive like that.  He said it literally in the middle of last night's hearing.  It was after the lawyers had had their say about the Bugg incident and before the jury deliberated on the penalty.  Very strange.

Its fair to say i think that many eyebrows were raised back when certain QCs played their cards.

It all goes to the idea that often the 'fix is in' 

Still a closed shop among many 

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

Bugg should've been rubbed for a long time. And he has been.

But, despite some of the views expressed on this thread and in the media, it seems unlikely that he intended to knock Mills out, or indeed punch him in the head at all.

That said, he delivered the perfect KO punch. I suspect had he wanted to deliver that punch, he would'nt have been able to. Luck went against Mills. And Bugg.

And, for this, Bugg's been rubbed out for a long time. Rightly so too.

His actions since he delivered that freak punch however have been commendable and have demonstrated true integrity IMO.

I like the guy. He's become the face of cowardly thuggery in sport, and, quite frankly, he's not that guy. Not even remotely.

 

[DemonOX 8,540]

7 hours ago, bluey said:

Got to love the  Juddy red card article, the convicted eye gouger, and pressure point tactition trying to exagerate himself into history as an all round good bloke.

And didn't Jude mastermind the chicken wing tackle too??

Top bloke. 

[Sir Why You Little 34,554]

1 hour ago, Dees2014 said:

Errr, don't think so. Slobbo really believes the nonsense he wrote about Essendon, he needed no encouragement. 

Having said that I'm sure it did his career no harm since the global head of News Limited is an Essendon fanatic. 

Yes i know. But the Hun was always going  to be an Essendrug outlet

Slobbo was in the take quite happily

his article on Jab keeping his Brownlow  medal should have got him the sack

[Dees2014 2,377]

6 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Yes i know. But the Hun was always going  to be an Essendrug outlet

Slobbo was in the take quite happily

his article on Jab keeping his Brownlow  medal should have got him the sack

I'm not disagreeing with you. I think he is the Trump of the football world. In other words a complete and dangerous fool, but like Trump he has his bogan fans, which makes it convenient for Foxtel and the HS. 

He will continue to pedal his nonsense and will continue to get great ratings....

Mike Sheahan must be squirming behind his Mike!

[Sir Why You Little 34,554]

1 minute ago, Dees2014 said:

I'm not disagreeing with you. I think he is the Trump of the football world. In other words a complete and dangerous fool, but like Trump he has his bogan fans, which makes it convenient for Foxtel and the HS. 

He will continue to pedal his nonsense and will continue to get great ratings....

Mike Sheahan must be squirming behind his Mike!

Agreed. He is a perfect foil for the Chief writer for the AFL. The Age will be offline soon, so Caro will be diluted soon. 

[mauriesy 6,811]

4 hours ago, daisycutter said:

was the houli penalty perfectly just, maurie?

Probably not enough.

[Dante 2,562]

Houli hit a player with an elbow and knocked him out, in fact he was out before he hit the ground. 

Bugg hit a player and knocked him to the ground, the player got up and left the ground under his own steam.  

Houli got 4, Bugg got 6, why is that?

Houli's hit was worse but he gets two weeks less, that's not justice that's just the AFL trying to send a message, trouble is it was a little late, they should have done that with Houli. 

At no stage did Bugg try to deny or underplay the seriousness of his action, Houli did, there is a serious unfairness here. 

[mauriesy 6,811]

2 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Oh, so being incredibly stupid is against AFL rules now. And punishable by a mandatory 6 week penalty according to Mauriesy.

You can start by giving yourself 6 weeks off the boards if that's the case

And Saint Houli wasn't "incredibly stupid" just unlucky? Whats the penalty for unlucky?

Nice.

Bugg punched someone off the ball, giving him severe concussion. That's what's "incredibly stupid" and what deserved six weeks.

Yes there are inconsistencies with previous decisions, but if anything the other penalties weren't sufficient. Get over it and stop playing the "poor-us Melbourne FC victim" card. It's pathetic.

Bugg's reputation and character will be better off in the long run by showing contrition, which he did.

 

 

[Lord Ivanhoe 311]

Let he who has committed no sins cast the first stone.

So many perfect people on this site! You are a supporter or a criticiser.

The latter is more a reflection of the comment within oneself.

[Dante 2,562]

4 hours ago, mauriesy said:

So if he was "incredibly stupid" he deserves 6 weeks, and that is what he got.

"Reality distortion" applies to anyone who thought it should be less, or who thinks some sort of fighting of the case is better for the player's reputation and well-being long-term than contrition, apology and expressing regret.

I don't care if people drag up Barry Hall, Leigh Matthews, Rod Grinter or any other thug from years ago. It's an illogical "he did it too" defence, common among schoolkids.

In 2017, the penalty is perfeclty just.

Two things.

if the Houli incident happened this week, after the Bugg incident, would he have been given 6 weeks?

if someone else commits an offence of a similar nature this week, should they get 8 weeks, are we going up in units of 2 per offence?

 

[dee-eee 231]

My Essendon supporting sister has done a 360 on Tom after taking her grandson to a kids football clinic at Caulfield Grammar today (his old school) . He was one of the instructors and she thought he showed guts to appear in public so soon after such massive negative publicity . She sought him out and told him such as she shook his hand .

 

[Willmoy1947 3,790]

3 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Did anyone else think it odd that during the Bugg hearing the Tribunal Chairman David Jones QC "...took the unprecedented step of making a spirited defence of the tribunal. He called for balanced analysis and criticism and, in particular, expressed his frustration that the decision in the Essendon doping case had never been made public..." ... " The AFL's successful appeal in the Bachar Houli case last week and the criticism the tribunal copped as a result, prompted Jones to reflect on his 13 years in charge. He pointed out that there had only ever been three successful appeals." ...  "I do not think it is unreasonable that where there is criticism, it be informed and balanced and not personal," . http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/tomas-bugg-suspended-for-six-matches-for-punch-on-sydneys-callum-mills-20170704-gx4ijy.html

If he wants to defend his Tribunal and in particular its decisions in the Houli and Essendon doping case surely there are other and far better forums in which to do it.  I am quite perplexed that he chose last night to defend his 13 years in charge.

Perhaps he was sending a message:  Any players coming before me - you will get the full force of the law, in future.  That is a bit tongue in cheek on my part.  But very odd for a QC to publicly be so defensive.

Wonder where his next job app might be and maybe not....

[Willmoy1947 3,790]

2 hours ago, The Chazz said:

I look forward to your next post when you will claim he suffers from tourettes, or a Neeld-like twitch.

How about the fact that he was charged, by the MRP, with intentional striking. The fact that Bugg had a lawyer representing him, who would've used his professional judgement when supporting Bugg''s guilty plea.

These lawyers are good. If they can see any remote possibility of a sentence reduction and/or the case being thrown out due to an incorrect charge, they feast off it with brilliance. The fact they didn't in this case clearly shows that the charge, and wording of it, was 100% accurate.

To dumb it down, which is clearly what needs to happen here, Bugg pleaded guilty of intentionally striking the kid. That means your view that it wasn't intentional or deliberate is totally wrong. But keep believing that the MRP is corrupt, or that Bugg is following a company line, or whatever other fantasy yout dream up.

You know and i know there was no choice of anything in that "court room", and the MRP is a fob off of the hot seat.

[The Chazz 4,077]

10 hours ago, willmoy said:

You know and i know there was no choice of anything in that "court room", and the MRP is a fob off of the hot seat.

Rubbish.  Houli and his cronies, in the first instance, attacked his case a lot differently and bloody near got away with it.

As I said, if there's an opportunity to get the sentenced reduced, or in some cases thrown out, the legal eagles know how to do it.  They didn't have a leg to stand on with Bugg.

I can't help you if you don't understand or acknowledge that.