4 weeks for Judd....

[saintsRrising]

Got off on the lower end.

4 weeks from AFL live feed.

[plugger66]

As i said on another thread sounds about right to me but it does show the tribunal will have made the wrong decision by about 80% of people. Those who thought it was a beat up and those who thought the rest of the year.

[dragit]

There's already a 10 page thread about this.

[james rose]

About right IMO

[8856brother]

There's already a 10 page thread about this.

So

[Griggsy]

Considering the report said the shoulder was dislocated in the incident he got off very light. Baker would have got 12 lol

[whiskers3614]

yeah but 4 weeks of Judd equals a full season of Baker's output.
One of ours and a B&f winner but not sure the Bakers of the world add much to the game.

[bergsone]

Considering the report said the shoulder was dislocated in the incident he got off very light. Baker would have got 12 lol

Joking aint you............Bakes would have got seasons not weeks lol

[dragit]

There's already a 10 page thread about this.

So

So do we need another thread about an opposition player?
Those rolling eyes really suit you, cute.

[stinger]

about right...although i thought that was a plea of not guilty to the charge ...as laid.....

[bobmurray]

There's already a 10 page thread about this.

I'd rather read this one then...less drivel....

[Johnny Member]

What an appalling system this is.

[plugger66]

What an appalling system this is.

How would you do it? 3 people decide which is good and both the AFL and Judds team were given a chance to put their cases. Seems fair to me.

[Johnny Member]

So you reckon it's consistent and fair that Hunt copped a $1300 fine a couple of weeks ago for stomping on Betts' hand, yet Judd cops 4 weeks?

And Ziebel gets 4 weeks yet Wellingham breaks a blokes jaw going the same thing intentionally and puts him out for a month - and only cops 3!!

f*** me.

[plugger66]

So you reckon it's consistent and fair that Hunt copped a $1300 fine a couple of weeks ago for stomping on Betts' hand, yet Judd cops 4 weeks?

And Ziebel gets 4 weeks yet Wellingham breaks a blokes jaw going the same thing intentionally and puts him out for a month - and only cops 3!!

f*** me.

Sorry as the thread was about Judd i thought you were having a go at his penalty. i think the system is inconsistant with certain cases but i reckon we have short memories. The other system was just as bad and even worse we didnt get an explantion why people got what they got.

[Johnny Member]

I can tell you why I just did a turd on the bathroom floor. It doesn't make it any more right.

[Johnny Member]

And I was referring to Judd. What exactly did he get 4 weeks for?

They've literally declared him a liar and don't believe that he didn't intend to hurt Adams - which means they believe that he intended to cause injury and pain to a helpless and vulnerable platter. And he has a bad record, and he actually dislocated the bloke's shoulder! So he gets 4 weeks?? Based on what?

On the same night, they acknowledge that Ziebel didn't try to hurt Joseph, had his eyes on the ball, but he gets 4 weeks as well!!

[Johnny Member]

So either Ziebel has been murdered by the tribunal, or Judd has just got off very, very lightly.

[plugger66]

And I was referring to Judd. What exactly did he get 4 weeks for?

They've literally declared him a liar and don't believe that he didn't intend to hurt Adams - which means they believe that he intended to cause injury and pain to a helpless and vulnerable platter. And he has a bad record, and he actually dislocated the bloke's shoulder! So he gets 4 weeks?? Based on what?

On the same night, they acknowledge that Ziebel didn't try to hurt Joseph, had his eyes on the ball, but he gets 4 weeks as well!!

Are you arguing both ways for the Judd decision because thats how it is written. Wow calling a player a liar at the tribunal. Never heard such stuff. Not sure that you would be wanting the old system back if you dont think players lie.

[Johnny Member]

So if he's a liar, why did they only give him 4? What is that possibly based on?

He intentionally caused high impact to a player, and caused significant injury through an act of misconduct. And he had a prior record. And there was no reduction for an early plea!

So where does the 4 come from??

[Dr Spaceman]

Maybe Ziebell called the Panel Chairman fat?

[plugger66]

So if he's a liar, why did they only give him 4? What is that possibly based on?

He intentionally caused high impact to a player, and caused significant injury through an act of misconduct. And he had a prior record. And there was no reduction for an early plea!

So where does the 4 come from??

The tribunal like the old system except 3 decided not one. You still want the old system?

[Johnny Member]

That's like saying because you don't rate Ross Lyon that you obviously love GT and want him back.

Why must it be either the old system, or this one? Why not one that actually makes sense instead?


And yeah, I'd far prefer the old system to this one.

What benefit has there been, aside from less players fronting the tribunal? And why is that even a benefit?

[saintspremiers]

Johnny - re Zeibel vs Judd - Zeibel was given 4 weeks down to 3 with an early plea - he lost at the tribunal with no downgrades in the criteria so quite rightly got 4 weeks.

Judd was bloody lucky not to have been charged by the MRP. The MRP HAVE to use his 30% loading, so it is not unreasonable to assume he could've got 5 weeks reduced to 4 with an early plea. Then had Judd taken it to the tribunal, and like Zeibel lost and not had any downgrades, he would've copped 5 weeks.

What annoys me is that a case that is sent directly to the tribunal can ignore the loadings and just make up a number of weeks suspension. Now THAT is seriously wrong and inconsistent with the MRP, which are the ones that sent the case to the tribunal in the first place!!

Wake up to yourself Anderson, and please fix this anomoly!

[plugger66]

Johnny - re Zeibel vs Judd - Zeibel was given 4 weeks down to 3 with an early plea - he lost at the tribunal with no downgrades in the criteria so quite rightly got 4 weeks.

Judd was bloody lucky not to have been charged by the MRP. The MRP HAVE to use his 30% loading, so it is not unreasonable to assume he could've got 5 weeks reduced to 4 with an early plea. Then had Judd taken it to the tribunal, and like Zeibel lost and not had any downgrades, he would've copped 5 weeks.

What annoys me is that a case that is sent directly to the tribunal can ignore the loadings and just make up a number of weeks suspension. Now THAT is seriously wrong and inconsistent.

And that is basically a return to the old system.