The Changing Nature of Violence in Rugby League and AFL

[King-Eliagh]

Dragging someone off their victim and then clocking them in the noggin (not king hitting) for purposefully dislocating a teamates shoulder? I got no problems whatsoever with that and all the kumbiah me lord singing helen lovejoys in the world wont change my mind on it. And further pookus, you make the point that punishment shouldnt be dished out by those unqualified to give it. A very interesting point. As I argued earlier, why cant 'sportsman' have some say in dealing out punishment of un'sportsman' like behaviour? I'd say they're qualified in that and the NRL knows it. The AFL doesnt. :D

TLPG you're making little sense in here. Can you please leave?

[pookus]

KE your reply to me means you support his actions (yes, Pookus, he'd be happy to see his own son king hit). You have proven yourself to be unworthy of making a cogent point - especially when you claimed that violence is inherent in all of us!! Talking of stupid remarks! It sure as heck isn't inherent in me and plenty of people I know!

I'm sorry mate but it is without it we would have been extinct a long time ago.But the point is even though you are attracted to violent sport doesn't mean you condone senseless violence. We are human and able to control our emotions most of the time. Our role models should encourage us to do so always.

I was making the point to K E I suppose.Didn't mean to drag you in. Was just saying that even if I agree with him on this point doesn't mean we should condone violence. It is what put us on top of the food chain. The ability to think.

[TLPG]

Dragging someone off their victim and then clocking them in the noggin (not king hitting) for purposefully dislocating a teamates shoulder? I got no problems whatsoever with that and all the kumbiah me lord singing helen lovejoys in the world wont change my mind on it.

My point is proven. If someone dislocates a team mate's shoulder on purpose, the correct procedure is to send it to the tribunal where the moron is suspended. That's the correct retaliation. Not what you're advocating! Oh - and the guy who's shoulder was dislocated could also press criminal charges.

Never ever retaliate yourself. As the old saying goes in sport before trial by video - it's the retaliater that always gets caught. And deserves what they get as much as the original moron does.

You don't get that, KE, so it's you who should leave the conversation and not me.

Thanks for the clarification, Pookus.

[pookus]

Dragging someone off their victim and then clocking them in the noggin (not king hitting) for purposefully dislocating a teamates shoulder? I got no problems whatsoever with that and all the kumbiah me lord singing helen lovejoys in the world wont change my mind on it. And further pookus, you make the point that punishment shouldnt be dished out by those unqualified to give it. A very interesting point. As I argued earlier, why cant 'sportsman' have some say in dealing out punishment of un'sportsman' like behaviour? I'd say they're qualified in that and the NRL knows it. The AFL doesnt. :D

TLPG you're making little sense in here. Can you please leave?

I would say unqualified is a bloke in the middle of an emotional gladiatorial sport.Surely unbiased observers aka a jury might be best qualified but maybe all the greatest legal minds are wrong all anyone has ever needed is a good punch to the face. It is obvious that you truly don't understand the ramifications of village justice. I'm not a lovejoy type I just see the ramifications of violence more than most. We as a society must condemn its use. You know in my experience K E blokes who think like you have never been whacked hard.I reckon if t rex give you a rap on the noggin you'd definitely lose some child good memories and the ability to chew for a month.

[King-Eliagh]

I've been kinghit before pookus, and this bloke/ex con wasn't much smaller than t-rex. And believe me, the effects of the hit were serious and lasted months, but thank god you wouldnt be able to tell anymore and im still as pretty as can be .

I'd never condone such an act as kinghitting, its wrong and weakass. An all in brawl after judds act though is A ok. And you're right the jury should be the one's who give the final adjudication on such matters. Judd should have got 8 weeks and any bloke who ripped him off and then gave him one for good measure should get nothing. If, however, someone was to come from behind Judd and kick or clobber him in the head, then they too deserve 8 weeks, cause that's what I'd term/ categorise as senseless dangeous violence. You get my drift? It's all about the context and should be adjudicated as such. The NRL does it, the AFL don't. In the AFL a player who conducts an act as Judd did does not have to be concerned about just swift punishment. In the NRL a player knows if they do that they'll get what's coming...as they bloody well should. It was an absolute atrocity what Judd did. I've had a dislocated shoulder before also, very very nasty injury. 4 weeks pfffft! Now that's condoning violence imo.

[pookus]

I've been kinghit before pookus, and this bloke/ex con wasn't much smaller than t-rex. And believe me, the effects of the hit were serious and lasted months, but thank god you wouldnt be able to tell anymore and im still as pretty as can be .

I'd never condone such an act as kinghitting, its wrong and weakass. An all in brawl after judds act though is A ok. And you're right the jury should be the one's who give the final adjudication on such matters. Judd should have got 8 weeks and any bloke who ripped him off and then gave him one for good measure should get nothing. If, however, someone was to come from behind Judd and kick or clobber him in the head, then they too deserve 8 weeks, cause that's what I'd term/ categorise as senseless dangeous violence. You get my drift? It's all about the context and should be adjudicated as such. The NRL does it, the AFL don't. In the AFL a player who conducts an act as Judd did does not have to be concerned about just swift punishment. In the NRL a player knows if they do that they'll get what's coming...as they bloody well should. It was an absolute atrocity what Judd did. I've had a dislocated shoulder before also, very very nasty injury. 4 weeks pfffft! Now that's condoning violence imo.

Now you are truly confused. What constitutes a just punch to the head and at what level of force should it be administered. In the ensuing all in brawl should one of the teams lay down because it is there right whack.And is the offending player allowed to strike back now that he has been offended. And what if my ability to fight outweighs yours doesn't that deny you justice.You argument is so flawed but at least your a trier.

[King-Eliagh]

I've been kinghit before pookus, and this bloke/ex con wasn't much smaller than t-rex. And believe me, the effects of the hit were serious and lasted months, but thank god you wouldnt be able to tell anymore and im still as pretty as can be .

I'd never condone such an act as kinghitting, its wrong and weakass. An all in brawl after judds act though is A ok. And you're right the jury should be the one's who give the final adjudication on such matters. Judd should have got 8 weeks and any bloke who ripped him off and then gave him one for good measure should get nothing. If, however, someone was to come from behind Judd and kick or clobber him in the head, then they too deserve 8 weeks, cause that's what I'd term/ categorise as senseless dangeous violence. You get my drift? It's all about the context and should be adjudicated as such. The NRL does it, the AFL don't. In the AFL a player who conducts an act as Judd did does not have to be concerned about just swift punishment. In the NRL a player knows if they do that they'll get what's coming...as they bloody well should. It was an absolute atrocity what Judd did. I've had a dislocated shoulder before also, very very nasty injury. 4 weeks pfffft! Now that's condoning violence imo.

Now you are truly confused. What constitutes a just punch to the head and at what level of force should it be administered. In the ensuing all in brawl should one of the teams lay down because it is there right whack.And is the offending player allowed to strike back now that he has been offended. And what if my ability to fight outweighs yours doesn't that deny you justice.You argument is so flawed but at least your a trier.

No sir, I'm not confused, you are finally beginning to understand that analysing the context of a violent act is important. Violence is complex and must be analysed as such. The NRL do this. The AFL simply say "don't do it" and "whaaaat about the children!" and then give 4 weeks to Judd who more than likely has caused the player he injured 8 weeks out of the game or atleast 8 weeks, potentially forever, of impaired play. Its complex pookus, there's no simple answers, you and the AFL need to realise this, then things will be better, even for the children

[pookus]

I've been kinghit before pookus, and this bloke/ex con wasn't much smaller than t-rex. And believe me, the effects of the hit were serious and lasted months, but thank god you wouldnt be able to tell anymore and im still as pretty as can be .

I'd never condone such an act as kinghitting, its wrong and weakass. An all in brawl after judds act though is A ok. And you're right the jury should be the one's who give the final adjudication on such matters. Judd should have got 8 weeks and any bloke who ripped him off and then gave him one for good measure should get nothing. If, however, someone was to come from behind Judd and kick or clobber him in the head, then they too deserve 8 weeks, cause that's what I'd term/ categorise as senseless dangeous violence. You get my drift? It's all about the context and should be adjudicated as such. The NRL does it, the AFL don't. In the AFL a player who conducts an act as Judd did does not have to be concerned about just swift punishment. In the NRL a player knows if they do that they'll get what's coming...as they bloody well should. It was an absolute atrocity what Judd did. I've had a dislocated shoulder before also, very very nasty injury. 4 weeks pfffft! Now that's condoning violence imo.

Now you are truly confused. What constitutes a just punch to the head and at what level of force should it be administered. In the ensuing all in brawl should one of the teams lay down because it is there right whack.And is the offending player allowed to strike back now that he has been offended. And what if my ability to fight outweighs yours doesn't that deny you justice.You argument is so flawed but at least your a trier.

No sir, I'm not confused, you are finally beginning to understand that analysing the context of a violent act is important. Violence is complex and must be analysed as such. The NRL do this. The AFL simply say "don't do it" and "whaaaat about the children!" and then give 4 weeks to Judd who more than likely has caused the player he injured 8 weeks out of the game or atleast 8 weeks, potentially forever, of impaired play. Its complex pookus, there's no simple answers, you and the AFL need to realise this, then things will be better, even for the children

Your anti AFL stance is stunting your thought.Id give judd 8 myself it was a disgrace .But a useless judiciary doesn'g mean you turn to anarchy. Violence is not complex it is plain wrong. After you admit it is wrong we can debate reason and intention for such act but it is still wrong. It is never right and has not been a part of our justice system for a long time for good reason.

[TLPG]

Once the umpire or the video boys have the matter reported - that's the end of it as far as the players are concerned. To go with it, when there are systems in place to deal with it is not right. KE said;

"Judd should have got 8 weeks and any bloke who ripped him off and then gave him one for good measure should get nothing."

BS. The idiot who got involved and did anything to him that was outside the rules should cop a suspension as well. That's how a civilised society deals with it. The NRL tack is to condone retaliatory violence, and that's wrong. The AFL tack is to not condone it and penalise it. That's why fines are meted out for melees. The NRL don't do a thing about them, and that's also wrong.

King Hits are par for the course in thugby. I mentioned Jim O'Dea earlier. He got 11 weeks. In the NRL the maximum would be three or four weeks I'll bet - if that.

[King-Eliagh]

The AFL tack seems to be to give someone 4 weeks for intentionally causing grevious boldily harm. 4 Weeks! Pffffft!

The AFL tack seems to be to let off players who attack injured players as they leave the field ala the nick reiwoldt incidents of some years back! pfffft!

There's a time and place where player retaliation must be condoned. These sportsmen are human beings and I've asked before on this site and I'll ask again.

What would you do if your mate was getting his arm dislocated by some bum off the street?

Me? I'd get the ***** off my mate by whatever means necessary. And then clock him one to make sure nothing else could happen.

Seems like pookus and TLPG would be happy for the dislocation to be completed and await the appropriate actions to be taken out in front of the court of law. Too bad if their buddy suffers physical impairment for the rest of his life...we must all act appropriately and violence must not be condoned, at all costs!

You high and mighty preechin puppets need to get real. The law allows for the context of violence on the street to be taken into account i.e. self defence + acting in defence of another. The AFL doesnt allow the same rights to players on the field where violent acts are much more likely to occur. tsk tsk tsk

Bring back the biff!

[AFL Warrior]

I say just smash King Klan Klutz KKK Coward as this nrl lefty uni feral is an oxygen thief

[TLPG]

The AFL tack seems to be to give someone 4 weeks for intentionally causing grevious boldily harm. 4 Weeks! Pffffft!

The AFL tack seems to be to let off players who attack injured players as they leave the field ala the nick reiwoldt incidents of some years back! pfffft!

There's a time and place where player retaliation must be condoned. These sportsmen are human beings and I've asked before on this site and I'll ask again.

What would you do if your mate was getting his arm dislocated by some bum off the street?

Me? I'd get the ***** off my mate by whatever means necessary. And then clock him one to make sure nothing else could happen.

1. Judd's act was reckless, not intentional.
2. Reiwoldt should have left the field when he was first injured, and he refused. Dumb move on his part.
3. Player retaliation is NEVER condoned.
4. In answer to the question, I would call the cops.
5. And if I saw you do that I'd also call the cops and you'd be charged with assault.

Idiot.

Needed to be said.

[King-Eliagh]

The AFL tack seems to be to give someone 4 weeks for intentionally causing grevious boldily harm. 4 Weeks! Pffffft!

The AFL tack seems to be to let off players who attack injured players as they leave the field ala the nick reiwoldt incidents of some years back! pfffft!

There's a time and place where player retaliation must be condoned. These sportsmen are human beings and I've asked before on this site and I'll ask again.

What would you do if your mate was getting his arm dislocated by some bum off the street?

Me? I'd get the ***** off my mate by whatever means necessary. And then clock him one to make sure nothing else could happen.

1. Judd's act was reckless, not intentional.
2. Reiwoldt should have left the field when he was first injured, and he refused. Dumb move on his part.
3. Player retaliation is NEVER condoned.
4. In answer to the question, I would call the cops.
5. And if I saw you do that I'd also call the cops and you'd be charged with assault.

Idiot.

Needed to be said.

1. Judds act reckless not intentional? Yeah right
2. So the injured guy is at fault? Yeah right
3.Player retaliation is never condoned? No shiit sherlock that's what i've been saying is a flaw in the AFL system all along. By AFL standards your wife could be getting murdered in front of your eyes but you'd be severely punished if you tried to retaliate.
4. You would watch on and call the cops? Thank god im not your mate!
5. You'd call the cops and try to have someone charged for sticking up for their mates? You really are loony, I think you'll find that the law looks kindly on those who act in defence of others. The common word for these folk are 'heros' No TLPG you're not one them.

Helen Lovejoy would look down upon your unethical manner TLPG

Needed to be said.

[TLPG]

No, the word is not "hero". It's "vigilante". The moron you refer to should be in jail, right? By doing what you do, you give him a chance to get off with a warning! By calling in the cops, you make sure they are punished.

It's not a flaw. Besides, if it was one's wife being attacked - that's grounds for provocation which is entirely different.

If Judd's act was found to be intentional, he would have got far more than four weeks. He got four because it was reckless, not intentional. And yes, Riewoldt was at fault. He should have gone off the ground before all that happened.

Not only don't you understand that what you are saying is wrong, your reflection on legals is out of whack!

ANd who the heck is Helen Lovejoy anyway?

[King-Eliagh]

She's reverend lovejoys wife off the simpsons. She'd look down on your ways.

Grounds for provocation is the key point there. The NRL understands it. The AFL doesnt. :D

And someone who takes out bad guys is a hero not a vigilante. Think of batman, superman, spiderman, birdman, aquaman, rojer ramjet, go go gadget, austin powers, terminator and so on and so forth etc etc. All these manly men took the law into their own hands and rightly so. Heros are also the guy who sticks up for his mates in the schoolyard or the everyday citizens who put themselves in harms way and belt the bad guy for the greater good. The law understands there are times and places where one must use violence. So does the nrl. The AFL doesnt.