Chris Judd is a superb footballer, a fitting ambassador for this great game, and a great role model for young up-and-comers.
Whether or not he deserves this praise in the shadow of his most recent, albeit rare, on-field indiscretion will be debated for a little while yet.
In my opinion, Juddy will remain all three, but he is rapidly running out of chances. He has faced the music for his latest ‘brain fade’, and rightly so.
After a marathon hearing, the AFL tribunal last night found Judd guilty of intentional misconduct, handing down 450 penalty points, equaling a four-week ban.
The Carlton skipper must now watch on from the sidelines, as his side takes on the Western Bulldogs, Richmond, Sydney and Brisbane without him. Considering Carlton’s ladder position, these next games will be do-or-die clashes for the Blues. If there was ever a time that this club needed their skipper, it’s now.
But, instead of the number five jumper, Judd is dressed in a suit and tie, and all because of a negligent, unnecessary and malicious act.
I think the word everyone is looking for is stupidity.
Does the penalty fit the crime? Of course it does, and here’s why.
First, I’d like to highlight Judd’s defence.
Grabbing hold of Leigh Adams’ arm in the manner that he did – the infamous act now dubbed the ‘chicken wing’ tackle – Judd was aiming to restrict Adams’ ability to dispose of the ball correctly.
That’s all well and good, but what he failed to realise at the time was that Leigh Adams was already pinned on top of the ball by a tackle made by another Carlton player.
Judd’s inability to focus solely on the ball, and use a cheapish, ‘third-man-in’ tactic in an effort to buy a free-kick was downright reckless. Adams was left unable to defend himself, while Judd stood over him and forcefully dislocated his shoulder.
Judd denies intent, and was remorseful, but that doesn’t shy away from the fact that the ‘chicken wing tackle’ falls well outside the spirit of AFL football.
So much so, there have been calls for Judd to be charged for “besmirching” the image of the game.
While these calls have largely been coming from North Melbourne president James Brayshaw, who may have been speaking with his Roos cap on, he does have a point.
And this isn’t Judd’s first time before the AFL tribunal for an act deemed bizarre: Who can forget the eye-gouging incident in 2007, or the infamous ‘pressure-point’ case in 2009?
Ask any Carlton fan and they will more than likely recall the recent case involving Collingwood’s Sharrod Wellingham and one of their own, Kade Simpson.
“A broken jaw gets three, while a twisted arm cops four,” was the tweet from an aggrieved fan.
These were two totally separate incidents. One you see frequently and is generally deemed in the nature of the contest.
The other was cowardly and has no place in this game.
brendan
Guest
Judd will be remembered for his football ability similar to Greg William and his umpire shove, stupid behaviour but it didn't overshadow his legacy.It must be getting on his nerves captaining a side that cant get up into the top four and have a decent crack at it so he has the occasional brain fade.Whilst the '' chicken wing "" tackle was totally unacceptable i think everyone is going over the top with there condemnation of him. The tribunal got it about right four weeks seems sufficient ,Judd pleaded guilty and seemed contrite and look at the upside he is developing his arm twisting technique for his future business career.
Nathan of Perth
Guest
Out of character hell - Judd has always had these kind of moments of madness. Touched by the gods, I guess. Even when he was with the Eagles he did the odd mad thing; his clothesline on Barry Hall comes to mind.
Macca
Guest
Steve - This "sneaky chicken wing tackel" was all done in 0.3 of a second according to yesterdays Herald Sun and the opponent wasn't prone when it was initiated, hardly evidence fo a pre planned attack.
Steve
Guest
That's a good point: there's a big difference between crashing into someone at full pelt, and going for a sneaky chicken wing/ 'pressure point' attack on a prone opponent, even if the first one does more damage. The level of actual pre-planned intent is the real issue. Additionally, highly pumped up athletes crashing into each other is an expected, if not entirely accepted, part of the game. Judd's antics are entirely outside the game. When footballers get hurt in collisions, there are all sorts of variables regarding intent, where the ball was etc, and questions of 'how hard is too hard' etc. Judd's jiu-jitsu antics are actually much easier to come down on, because there is no realistic defence about 'going for the ball'/ reckless rather than intentional etc: that's why “A broken jaw gets three, while a twisted arm cops four,”
Macca
Guest
I would point out that when Judd grabbed the arm Adams was still on his way down to the ground so the ball wasn't "pinned under" as the author suggests. This means that the issue comes down to intent, ie was it intentional or reckless. Given just last week a player who ran 20m and jumped to clean up an opponent and break his jaw and later said in an interview "I didn't mean to hurt him THAT MUCH" was deemed to have acted without intent but simply in a reckless manner. I would also like to reflect on the different attitude of the media in the 2 incidents, last week all we heard was how "out of character" it was and that it was a "split second decision" (like any decision on during a football game a made after minutes of contemplation) this week we had Mark Robinson saying Judd will "be remembered as a thug of the game", Neil Mitchell calling for 6 weeks plus and generally a whole lot of hysteria. It will be interesting to see the next few weeks unfold and see whether any other tackles on an opponents arm come under scrutiny. After all surely it is the act not the result that appals people here.
micka
Guest
The Judd decision was right. Wellingham didnt get nearly enough. He was rookie listed the first of the 5 years so the clean record argument is dross.
andyincanberra
Guest
They say in a divorce, when both sides walk away unhappy, the judge has probably got the balance right. From the feedback I've seen so far on other sites, it looks as though the Carlton supporters are upset at the severity of the sanction, and non-Carlton supporters believe he got away lightly. Looks like the judiciary got things just about right. Can I also say that to all the Carlton supporters still calling for Wellingham to be hung, drawn and quartered, turn a page. Just remember that Wellingham's penalty was more severe than Judd's, but was reduced because of a clean record. This is a luxury, through Judd's own doing, which was unavailable to the him.