What a frikken Joke!

No I’m not saying hes a bad guy. I’m not even saying he intentionally gouged the eye of Brown.

However he did eye gouge Brown – clearly and evidently for all to see. Certainly the players reacted, certainly brown squinted and held his eye.

(I’d like to point out at this time, that even though I know the language filter is not working I haven’t sworn once. I expect a credit on my banning quote for this)

This is exactly the type of issues that makes the current tribunal system a joke. This is almost worse than the headland “daughter tattoo” debacle.

How can it go to appeal, and then be cleared. The AFL and the tribunal system is a joke, and has been for years.

Mike Sheehan is one of the biggest knobs on the face of the earth and even he conceeded that no-one has any idea what a tribunal decision is going to be – let alone weather things go to the tribunal from one week to he next.

Add this to the whole “interpretation” of the rules arse up, and the administration of the game is clearly displaying that they are incompetant and biased. Yes Biased – Judd got of becuase he is from West Coast and they want to continue to promote the “national game” because that is where they get their $’s from.

We have the best football code in the world, and morons are stuffing it up. You mark my words, the kids of the next generation aren’t going to follow a code that is a joke. Soccer, League and Union must be laughing themselves stupid at the moment – they have their own weaknesses, but at least they are true to themselves.

AFL is becoming a joke.

A disgrace for the game. Two totally different events surrounding the Weagles now threaten to derail any authority the AFL once had.

It helps if your name is Judd. If it was Chris Bloggs he would have got at least 4…

agree with the decision, but also agree that if it were Brown doing it to Judd, he’d have got 4 weeks.

Protected on the field and protected at the tribunal.

What a load of crap. The umpire who as you can see from the vision was about 2m away from the incident and in plain view did not think it even warranted a free kick let alone a report.

The umpire only reported the incident because he was compelled to after Sam Mitchell complained directly to him. Brown didn’t have any issue.

Case closed

I also read those comments by the umpire Bergsey – but it’s not really the point. Once it goes to the tribunal, the umpire is largely irrelevant, and only gives evidence like anyone else.

This thing that peeves me about the whole thing- is that he was found guilty by virtue of the points system, however the appeal gets him off.

Either they have a system or they don’t. There is no way you can tell me that from the footage Judd didn’t have his fingers in the eyes of Brown. (I was going to say Brown Eyes, but decided it made my argument a little weaker ;-)

Now I really don’t care from a competitive perspective as the Pies don’t play the Wet Toast next week. However he is the captain of my Herald Sun team – so I want him on the park.

The lack of clarity and inequality of the whole system is getting beyond a joke.

What a load of crap. The umpire who as you can see from the vision was about 2m away from the incident and in plain view did not think it even warranted a free kick let alone a report.

The umpire only reported the incident because he was compelled to after Sam Mitchell complained directly to him. Brown didn’t have any issue.

Case closed

I think you’ll find (was it Fevola?) that other players who have gone ANYWHERE near the face of an opponent with their fingers have copped suspensions. This case lacks consistency…. but wait…. it’s Judd.

Wasn’t there a big hoohaa at the start of the season that the head would be protected and that players had a ‘duty of care’?

The ‘it wasn’t intentional’ line seems to get everyone off.

We have come a long way since Winmar got 11 weeks for gouging Brereton following being prevoked, something that also seems to get players off. (Brereton told the tribunal there was no eye contact)

Exactly – they clearly discussed that intent, whilst being important was not a deciding factor. This is where they brought the duty of care component into this.

I can only ever recall one incident where a player gave evidence at the tribunal that might actually help the ‘prosecution’.

Even his teammates didn’t speak to him for a few weeks….

To suggest Browns evidence was anything other than a waste of breath is patently niaive.

He clutched his eyes as though someone had squirted vinegar in there, whether deliberate or not, there is no doubt that Judds finger was in his eye – and in the past that has resulted in a minimum 3 week holiday.

Players earn the reputation Judd has, but it still shouldn’t save him.

Interesting hearing so many players from other clubs defending him. Gee whiz…you wouldn’t want to upset a bloke that your club may want to recruit.

Maybe I’m just being cynical!

Not cynical – just accurate

Crawford was actually laughing when they asked him if he thought Judd was a dirty player. He simply responded with “No – we’d love Judd here at Hawthorn”

Then Campbell Brown comes out and says there was no contact with his eye. Then they show the footage of all of the hawks players pointing at his eye, and Brown getting up squinting the putting his hand over it

What a load of crap. The umpire who as you can see from the vision was about 2m away from the incident and in plain view did not think it even warranted a free kick let alone a report.

The umpire only reported the incident because he was compelled to after Sam Mitchell complained directly to him. Brown didn’t have any issue.

Case closed

I think you’ll find (was it Fevola?) that other players who have gone ANYWHERE near the face of an opponent with their fingers have copped suspensions. This case lacks consistency…. but wait…. it’s Judd.

Ben Holland tangling with Brad Johnson got 1 week!!!

the only really bad thing about this, is that if he’d accepted a guily plea he would’ve gotten one week. what a joke \!!!!!! since when is a gouge an offence that only carries a one week penalty ?? surely if he actually was guilty of an eye gouge that should automatically be 3-4 weeks ????

The implications if (when!) he gets the Brownlow will be huge. It totally undermines the reward. Chris Grant would be one of the most disappointed from this.

What a crock.

The action didnt deserve a report.

Just because people have been reported & suspended for actions which also didnt deserve it, doesnt mean take out your frustration on someone who gets the right result.

What a crock.

The action didnt deserve a report.

No you’re right, Judd deserves extra brownlow votes for managing to get his fingers into Browns eye from such an awkward position.

Makes a mockery of the whole system. Big Fraser Gerhig getting rubbed out for those ‘love tap’ jumper punches ans Judd getting off for an eye gouge. Crazy world we live in.

What is a mockery is you trying to compare different instances.

Sure, Gehrig got a raw deal, but if you have a complaint it is with his decision.

His decision has no connection with the decision given to Judd.

There have been a number of instances the last few weeks which I believe were far more severe, yet people have not even been reported, let alone suspended.

1. Matner kicking Blackwell on the weekend 2. Bassett elbowing your boy Krakour to the head while front on attempting to spoil, yet never looking at the ball and always having his eyes on the opponent.

so there was no eye gouge? It didnt look good on the TV. I did compare apples and oranges but it does open up the ‘protected players’ debate when things like this happen