5 minutes ago, sue said:

That is a defeatist position.  What about some major reform of the MRP and tribunal.  Currently it is like a murder trial in which the jury is composed of hit-men.

like your first 2 sentences. not sure about your analogy in 3rd sentence though.

2 hours ago, Vogon Poetry said:

I think the MFC response, and Bugg's, has been absolutely correct and I admire them for it.

There is no sensible defence of Bugg's hit.  The provocation by football standards is non existent, the response totally inappropriate and disproportionate the the image of Mills being KO'd alarming. 

He was wrong and he represents us, the MFC.  To defend him would be wrong, to use weasle words to mitigate punishment distasteful.  This is the era of community education of the unacceptable nature of violence, domestic violence and one punch death.  To support Buggs actions in any way or try and mitigate or excuse them would be utterly wrong.

Jackson, Roos, Mahoney and Goodwin are building a culture and brand to take this football club to where we all want it to go.  Bugg's actions have significantly hurt that brand and the club's response has to be to minimise that damage.  They've done that.

Be angry all you like at the inconsistency of the tribunal.  Really does it matter if Bugg got 4 weeks or 6 weeks?  Not to me. The bigger issue is we have, as a Club, made a statement that what he did was totally unacceptable and we will take full responsibility for it and behave accordingly.

I think Bugg is gone.  Those in outrage are now making him out to be a much better footballer than he is.  He's ordinary and nowhere near my best 22 with a full and fit list.  He's an employee who has acted contrary to our interest and doesn't offer much in return.  I doubt he'll play for us again.  Like the AFL and Fahour we have a similar decision with Bugg.  And just to clarify, I'm not saying Bugg is anywhere near the ugliness of Fahour, but it's the same genre and it's a very ugly genre.

FFS no one is defending Bugg's hit. It's all about the 2nd highlighted point. The questions of degree are all about intention and 'deliberateness'. Bugg IMO did not intend to knock Mills out - he didn't in any case - he clearly lashed out in a push and shove situation. Wrong and dumb. But not intentional or deliberate.

The tribunal on the other hand is a desperate joke and has no consistency whatsoever. If it did Cotchin would have got 3 weeks for his 'jumper punch' (like that is some kind of fake punch or something)

Houli took a look at Lamb and then swung around with a fist and hit Lamb in the head knocking him out. The media hullabaloo about Bugg (the person) was insane compared to Houli - who appears to be some kind of a Saint. There was even an article in the HSun saying that because Bugg has been up at the tribunal as a DEFENDENT many times that he somehow deserved a bigger punishment. That is pure madness and shows how the world has ganged up on Bugg. He is a 24yo who did a dumb thing. I feel for Bugg.

No way condoning Buggs shocking actions but in light of his genuine remorse and contrition he pretty much got the same as Hall who didnt seem as sorry.

You be the judge

 

On 04/07/2017 at 11:00 AM, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Calm down there tiger... and, yes I did.  Here's a few more snippets for you: 

 

"I didn't find it funny at all, I initially thought that he's in a lot of strife," Jones told RSN radio on Tuesday.

"Obviously it's not something we stand for as a footy club, it's a really terrible look for the game."

"I know Tommy is really remorseful and he's probably burnt a fair bit of trust with the playing group and the coaching group, but in saying that we'll help him through and give him all the support he needs and educate him as much we can and he'll be looking at a fair stint on sidelines and he's got a lot of work to do in that regard."

"There is no defending what he did," Jones said.

 

Is there something I've misrepresented..?

 

I read the whole article and I thought Jones was more considered than the click bait editorial. Quoting the headline didn't do justice to everything the captain said. which was much more along the lines of 'love the sinner and not the sin'

1 hour 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.

Means a lot to be perceived as a 'good bloke'. Judd has a very questionable record - don't forget his elbow to the face of Pavlich - not even a report yet large gash on Pav's cheek.

16 hours ago, xarronn said:

They get a defence when they claim to be innocent. Bugg didn't make any such claim. Any claims for mitigation would have made no difference to the result given the visible evidence and outcome of the punch

He and the club decided to take whatever was given and get on with the rest of the season. 

Everything I heard from player, captain, coach and club was spot on. What some posters on here wanted was not what Bugg or the club wanted.

I'm proud of all of them, and I'm proud of my club!

 

4 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Joining the club of people making things up here? Really? 

It is clear that Houli knocked Jed Lamb out. Did Bugg do that? No. Visible evidence and outcome 4 weeks. Bugg 6 weeks.

.

Visible evidence: Deliberate, high impact punch to the face; Mills falls prostrate to the ground

Outcome: Player is assisted off the field; diagnosed with concussion; takes no further part in the game

Three questions:

1. Given the maelstrom of criticism of Bugg and his action and then the issue of one punch assaults being added to by the even worse Farhour incident, do you really think he would have received any mercy?

2. Is Bugg and the club better served by a (very unlikely and unseemly attempt), at a week's reduction of penalty, (surely no rational person would really suggest it could have been reduced by 2), or by following the course he took?

3. The criticism of the QC (by some), seems naive. Do you really think that  he handled it differently to the way Bugg and the club wanted it handled?  The way they would have in fact  instructed him on how to deal with it?

Anyone seen the Swans Medical on this. The punch came from Bugg's hyper extended injured arm. Interested to know the force/damage engaged here.Six weeks goes quick if your head/ and your support is right. 

22 minutes ago, sue said:

That is a defeatist position.

I don't think it will be solved because many things are open to interpretation in any incident.  I think it's just a realistic position.  I'm not saying I support or understand many of the MRP's finding but the varying opinion of many people on the same incident just demonstrate the concept of consistency is very difficult to achieve.  What is consistent to one is inconsistent to others.

 

13 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

FFS no one is defending Bugg's hit. It's all about the 2nd highlighted point.

It is to you but not to me.  I was mainly responding to those who felt we didn't go in to bat for Bugg and should have done more.

You talk a lot of Bugg's intentions but you don't know, you're just guessing.  Only Bugg knows what his intentions were.

I'm unconcerned about the length of the penalty, I'm concerned that he did it and hurt the Club.  You and I are concerned about different things.  I'm concerned about the Club, you more about Bugg getting an extra two weeks.  That's garnish to the main issue 

The Club is much bigger than a player.  It's a worn out cliche but in this situation it's spot on for me.

2 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

Hope so too. Probably deserved 5 IMO .

I reckon he gives his all on the field. Did Slobbo ever play?

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)

17 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

It is to you but not to me.  I was mainly responding to those who felt we didn't go in to bat for Bugg and should have done more.

You talk a lot of Bugg's intentions but you don't know, you're just guessing.  Only Bugg knows what his intentions were.

I'm unconcerned about the length of the penalty, I'm concerned that he did it and hurt the Club.  You and I are concerned about different things.  I'm concerned about the Club, you more about Bugg getting an extra two weeks.  That's garnish to the main issue 

The Club is much bigger than a player.  It's a worn out cliche but in this situation it's spot on for me.

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.

 

46 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

FFS no one is defending Bugg's hit. It's all about the 2nd highlighted point. The questions of degree are all about intention and 'deliberateness'. Bugg IMO did not intend to knock Mills out - he didn't in any case - he clearly lashed out in a push and shove situation. Wrong and dumb. But not intentional or deliberate.

The tribunal on the other hand is a desperate joke and has no consistency whatsoever. If it did Cotchin would have got 3 weeks for his 'jumper punch' (like that is some kind of fake punch or something)

Houli took a look at Lamb and then swung around with a fist and hit Lamb in the head knocking him out. The media hullabaloo about Bugg (the person) was insane compared to Houli - who appears to be some kind of a Saint. There was even an article in the HSun saying that because Bugg has been up at the tribunal as a DEFENDENT many times that he somehow deserved a bigger punishment. That is pure madness and shows how the world has ganged up on Bugg. He is a 24yo who did a dumb thing. I feel for Bugg.

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

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

Means a lot to be perceived as a 'good bloke'. Judd has a very questionable record - don't forget his elbow to the face of Pavlich - not even a report yet large gash on Pav's cheek.

 

So ........  eye gouge, pressure point, elbow to Pav, chicken wing.

Sounds like a Ripper of a bloke (as in Jack the...)

 

1 minute ago, monoccular said:

 

So ........  eye gouge, pressure point, elbow to Pav, chicken wing.

Sounds like a Ripper of a bloke (as in Jack the...)

 

Yep. Judd was a superb player, but he was no Saint, even though the media never touched him. 

Always wondered why. 

59 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

I don't think it will be solved because many things are open to interpretation in any incident.  I think it's just a realistic position.  I'm not saying I support or understand many of the MRP's finding but the varying opinion of many people on the same incident just demonstrate the concept of consistency is very difficult to achieve.  What is consistent to one is inconsistent to others.

 

Of course no proceedings will ever be completely free of inconsistencies.  But the current situation is extremely bad.  Surely you don't think it can't be improved.

30 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

But to disagree you are saying Bugg intentially set out to hit Mills? Really?

 

Of course he set out to hit him, he had a clenched fist. He threw it. 

Did he mean to hit him in the head?  Who knows but he did and he caused Mills to be concussed.

4 minutes ago, sue said:

Of course no proceedings will ever be completely free of inconsistencies.  But the current situation is extremely bad.  Surely you don't think it can't be improved.

Frankly it not one that causes me any concern and I'll leave others to ponder how it could be improved.

 

I have conflicting issues about this entire event. On one hand my gut says that Bugg didnt mean to knock the guy out. It seems to have connected at the right (or wrong) moment on a young small player. He sure meant to hit him but like many he was frustrated. It was still a dog act but I dont think it warrants 6 weeks and calls for execution. He is genuinely sorry.

On the other hand I think of Brayshaw and how upset I would be if he was on the other end of such a blow. 

It is important to look at past form of players. I just wish the punishments were more consistent and there wasn't so much trial by media.

7 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Are you in a reality distortion field?

Who is painting Bugg as a hero? Nearly everyone says he was incredibly stupid for what he did.

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.

3 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

 

 

 

In 2017, the penalty is perfeclty just.

was the houli penalty perfectly just, maurie?

Bugg is an easy target because of some of his antics and the media haven't held back. That and the fact Mills has a glass jaw hasn't helped him. Feel a little sorry for him to be honest.

2 minutes ago, Demons1858 said:

Bugg is an easy target because of some of his antics and the media haven't held back. That and the fact Mills has a glass jaw hasn't helped him. Feel a little sorry for him to be honest.

as do I...Bit of a nuff nuff  obviously.. but he's been hung out to dry..AFL holding one hand  the MFC the other !!

just out of curiosity..

who the more " henious* "           *

Schofield ...or Bugg ??

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.

22 hours ago, chookrat said:

It was more of a tap than a king hit and both players were tussling. I watched the footage again and Bugg appeared genuinely surprised when Mills went down. It was silly and but he has demonstrated genuine remorse, accepted responsibility making no excuses and will miss the next 6 weeks.

Bachir Houli by comparison pleaded not guilty and used his social standing to plead for a reduced sentence and apologised by text message.

In my view Bugg has shown more character than Houli who is meant to be a leader in his community.

Mills got severe concussion as a direct result of Bugg's assault. That is not a tap. To say otherwise is ridiculous. This time the Tribunal got it right.

Rather than blaming them, we should be looking inwards, and see what is wrong with our culture which allows this, Lewis, and Hogan to do this stuff which not only hurts our internal culture, but more importantly seriously wounds us in a football sense. Without these instances, we would be ten or eleven wins now, and firmly in the the top 4. To put it mildly, it is just really stupid.