Should Chris Judd have been suspended for eye gouging after video evidence clearly showed that he had done it?

Question

I am just letting you all know I'm not anti west coast i was just asking a question casue anyone that is not one eyed or biased to there own team could not honestly say he did not do it casue it was plain as day on the video evidence that he did infact do it.

Answer 1

He should have got 1 week. Firstly he did gouge him. Campbell Brown only said he didn't because there is an unwritten law with players to get someone off. Secondly the AFL needed to send a message to everyone to show that n one is invincible.

Answer 2

Yes I think  he should have been susspended he is not a dirty player but he is a dobber he said Brown covered his eyes to make it looked like he had made contact in the appeal don't like dobbers

Answer 3

Yes the afl was to easy on him. i am a full blooded eagles supporter but i think judd should of got a 1 match ban. it is unacceptable for him to do that tatmeans others woul do i and get off! s***w the brownlow for him he wont get it David Wirrapundaor Mathew Priddis will :)

Answer 4

No, as it didn't happen. I guess people love to jump on the anti-WC band wagon, since they're the reigning premiers. The only people carrying on are Kangaroos supporters cos their team sucks and they have to play the mighty Coast at Subiaco this week.

Campbell Brown said it didn't happen - I think he'd know. The Umpire at the time was a few metres away and it didn't even occur to him to report it as there was nothing in it to report (I also think he'd know), so it can't have been bad as it was - just a free kick, nothing else. Campbell Brown admitted he put on the act for the free and that it never actually happened. The entire Hawthorn football club said not to press on with it as there was nothing in it, to be fair.

Oh, and he got off of the charge a little while ago anyway, so this is now all irrelevant. Well done by the tribunal, made the right decision. Nuff said.

Answer 5

Should have been but that's life when you're a protected (and overrated) species.

Answer 6

If that had happened in league or union it would be an automatic 16 week suspension no questions asked... How can you not know that your fingers are digging into someones eyes, please... it was as clear as day that he was gouging at the eyes but because he's supposedly the golden boy of a troubled club the tribunal opted to go soft on him...

Answer 7

no

Answer 8

I think he should have been suspended, it was as clear as day on video that he did do it.  It shouldn't matter who the player is or who they play for, if they do wrong they should be punished.

Answer 9

Suspend him long enough for the results of a Drug Test

Answer 10

yes he should

Answer 11

If He is really Caught red Handed, Then He Must..

But... There is always another story behind the incedent. Just dont Judge yet.

or Maybe he is just playing smart..

Answer 12

ms jess are you on the tribunal panel or sumthing? You sound upset he didnt get suspended. he was found not guilty by the panel because they are not biased like you. worry about your own club and leave the eagles alone. at least they are winning games

have u seen the incident in normal speed. i bet youv only seen the slow mo replay they show on the news 20 thousand times. things always look worse in slow mo.

Answer 13

Well obviously he didn't do it because Cambell Brown who he was supposed to have eye gouged said his hand did not go anywhere his eyes and that he was playing for a free kick so his word is good enough.

Lets leave the judging to the tribunal and the video evidence which did not show anything instead of relying our own one eyed perspective.

Answer 14

Looking at the video evidence id say YES he definately put his fingers into browns eyes and should have been found guilty with a reprimand or one week,i do think there is the CHRIS JUDD factor which is wrong and i don't think it matters what brown says about the incident -all players toe the same line when it comes to dobbing other players in.

but in his favour is the fact the tribunal set a bit of a precedent a couple of weeks back when they let Ben Holland off the same charge after he eye gouged brad Johnston-which looked worse because he was bleeding near the eye and the white part was completely red also. BOTH SHOULD HAVE GOT A WEEK NO DOUBT. secondly like him or hate him chris judd has a good record with the tribunal and under the points system would have none against him which would help downgrade any charges he might face.

Answer 15

I don't think he should be charges because the video evidence showed that he had his hand on his face but there is no way you can tell if he was poking his eye. anyway why would he push into the guy's eye when he was trying to get him off him? And even another player said he won't get suspended because there wasn't anything in it.

Answer 16

Chris Judd is acknowledged by all as the premier player in the AFL competition. The only other player who can equal him is Ben Cousins, and as we all know, Ben is having a little "rest".right now.

In this incident Juddy has been tackled by two players. They are on top of him, and he is trying to get up. In the process his hand accidentally touches Brown's face - and if you look carefully you will see that Judd's fingers do not go into Brown's eyes. Brown even testified to that - volunteering that he was seeking to 'milk' a free kick from the incident.  Also, the umpire who was standing right on the spot agreed and did not report him. As a result of both the video and witnesses the AFL Tribunal HAD to return a 'not guilty' verdict. And to those clowns who try to compare it to the Holland report a few weeks back, you are pathologically insane.

So give Chris Judd a break. He is the flagship of the AFL and the best thing to come out of Melbourne in years. If you want to tear someone apart have a look at Andrew Demitriou. There are so many things wrong with the AFL and yet what to the AFL Commission do? They decide to upgrade their mate's salary to $1 million p.a.. Not bad for an under-performing executive, eh.