Player jailed after on-field assault

[boozehound]

blokes like this moron ruin our game.
as much as i think jail time is to far something has to happen about this.
the bloke oviously likes belting people so take up boxing.
i got nothing against a couple of blokes having a dust up on the field throwing a couple at each other, but when it is from behind its a load of sh!t.
and lets see how he likes it from behind for a couple of weeks.

probably shouldnt get jail time but i think for a 3rd inccident should have his registration terminated

Firstly i have just flicked through the article at the start of this thread and it doesn't mention it being a king hit from behind like some are saying....which in my opinion throws a completely different slant on things....

Kind hit from behind on unsuspecting victim, no worries do what you will to him.

However two blokes behind the play having a go at eachother and one cops a punch in the mouth and is damaged then thats a different story which should be dealt with at tribunal alone.

Which is the case here....????clearly the offender is a bit of a clown who likes assaulting people however people get on her all the time crying and whingeing about a bit of a scrap on the field.......if I could find a smiley face thing with tears i would insert it here......

[piccachu]

sorry chicky but i had no association with the club then and wouldnt have a clue what the F*ck your talking about.

but i have stated my opinion and stick with it

this incident you are talking about, at the time this occured i was 15 years old playing under 15s for portland so i would prefer not to be accused of thinking its ok for this behaviour to occur.

[Footy Chick]

sorry chicky but i had no association with the club then and wouldnt have a clue what the F*ck your talking about.

but i have stated my opinion and stick with it

this incident you are talking about, at the time this occured i was 15 years old playing under 15s for portland so i would prefer not to be accused of thinking its ok for this behaviour to occur.

duly noted.

[Sponge Bob]

are you sure his name wasnt aaron burridge from north haven

May still be something like this in the wings for a certain Div 1 player yet.

What incident are you refering to captain?

A Gaza player got 6 games for an "off the ball" incident on Anzac day. Jaw broken in 2 places, screws and plates inserted. Big hospital bills, loss of income etc was fairly expensive. Could be more to follow with this

[The Big Shrek]

The civil system is about restoring people to where they would have been if an act hadn't happened. This means an assault victim would get their bills etc. paid for plus some money for pain and suffering. Everyone knows it's not perfect, you can't turn back time or make as though something didn't happen but it's the best we can do. The person who pays for the damage needs to have some level of fault (usually negligence) but does not need to have done something "morally" wrong. In football the act which causes the injury needs to be outside the rules otherwise the injured person will be deemed to have consented to it.

The criminal system is about society denouncing unacceptable behaviour. With "true" crimes such as assault, it usually involves a moral wrong. Again in football an act needs to be outside the rules before it will constitute a criminal assault.

There is obviously a point where everyone would agree that an act on the football field is so wrong that it is criminal. If someone stabbed another player this should obviously be dealt with under the criminal system. It is in determining this point on the spectrum of possible behaviours that we disagree. From my point of view the police got it right. No one should have to enter the football field accepting that someone may delibarately break the rules to assault them. If anything the law should be tougher to stop the prevalence of people hiding behind a fantasy such as "what happens on the field stays on the field". Civil cases are a pain in the arse and not effective enough as a deterrent to stop this behaviour.

[Dogsbreath]

one thing for sure, he'll definately think before he does this kind of sh!t again. Just maybe a lot of others may just think about it as well!!!

[Footy Chick]

The civil system is about restoring people to where they would have been if an act hadn't happened. This means an assault victim would get their bills etc. paid for plus some money for pain and suffering. Everyone knows it's not perfect, you can't turn back time or make as though something didn't happen but it's the best we can do. The person who pays for the damage needs to have some level of fault (usually negligence) but does not need to have done something "morally" wrong. In football the act which causes the injury needs to be outside the rules otherwise the injured person will be deemed to have consented to it.

The criminal system is about society denouncing unacceptable behaviour. With "true" crimes such as assault, it usually involves a moral wrong. Again in football an act needs to be outside the rules before it will constitute a criminal assault.

There is obviously a point where everyone would agree that an act on the football field is so wrong that it is criminal. If someone stabbed another player this should obviously be dealt with under the criminal system. It is in determining this point on the spectrum of possible behaviours that we disagree. From my point of view the police got it right. No one should have to enter the football field accepting that someone may delibarately break the rules to assault them. If anything the law should be tougher to stop the prevalence of people hiding behind a fantasy such as "what happens on the field stays on the field". Civil cases are a pain in the arse and not effective enough as a deterrent to stop this behaviour.

Cant really argue with that.. well said..

perhaps the term "what happens on the footy field stays on the footy field" is more aligned to the day when thuggery was not prelevant in football, and whilst there could be a "melee" at half time, everyone would still shake hands at the end of the game and that would be the end of it

[barry_watson]

[quote="The Big Shrek"]The civil system is about restoring people to where they would have been if an act hadn't happened. This means an assault victim would get their bills etc. paid for plus some money for pain and suffering. Everyone knows it's not perfect, you can't turn back time or make as though something didn't happen but it's the best we can do. The person who pays for the damage needs to have some level of fault (usually negligence) but does not need to have done something "morally" wrong. In football the act which causes the injury needs to be outside the rules otherwise the injured person will be deemed to have consented to it.

The criminal system is about society denouncing unacceptable behaviour. With "true" crimes such as assault, it usually involves a moral wrong. Again in football an act needs to be outside the rules before it will constitute a criminal assault.

There is obviously a point where everyone would agree that an act on the football field is so wrong that it is criminal. If someone stabbed another player this should obviously be dealt with under the criminal system. It is in determining this point on the spectrum of possible behaviours that we disagree. From my point of view the police got it right. No one should have to enter the football field accepting that someone may delibarately break the rules to assault them. If anything the law should be tougher to stop the prevalence of people hiding behind a fantasy such as "what happens on the field stays on the field". Civil cases are a pain in the arse and not effective enough as a deterrent to stop this behaviour.[/quote]


Still though it hasnt been said what happend to cause the punch. the other guy could of provoked it. Not saying that retaliating the way he did is right but the other guy could of done anything from throwing the first punch to spitting on him.
He may have been king hit which if thats the case then so be the penalties.

[zedman]

if you can be bothered googling you will find hutton ran past the assaulter and gave him a minor bump..the assaulter then caught up to him and hit him with a left punch to the chin and said "if your going to do it..do it right.."..you will also find out what else this assaulter has been up to in his spare time..not exactly a model citizen and likes to throw punches..plus some bad blood between the 2 teams over the assaulter leaving one club for the other

[piccachu]

if you can be bothered googling you will find hutton ran past the assaulter and gave him a minor bump..the assaulter then caught up to him and hit him with a left punch to the chin and said "if your going to do it..do it right.."..you will also find out what else this assaulter has been up to in his spare time..not exactly a model citizen and likes to throw punches..plus some bad blood between the 2 teams over the assaulter leaving one club for the other

well if this is the case there must be a line drawn in the sand and i say throw the book at him

[barry_watson]

Its still a hard one to judge as his side of the story is bit different if you listen to the conversation on the radio.
According to him He admitted that he retaliated when he shouldnt of after recieving abuse from former team mates and being hit after kicking the ball.
His prior records of assault would be a big part of him being sent to jail.

[The Big Shrek]

Still though it hasnt been said what happend to cause the punch. the other guy could of provoked it. Not saying that retaliating the way he did is right but the other guy could of done anything from throwing the first punch to spitting on him.
He may have been king hit which if thats the case then so be the penalties.

This is the same as any other "real life" assault. I'm sure many of those are provoked too. This has no effect on whether the person is guilty or not, however it would usually be taken into account at sentencing.

[zedman]

shrek is our resident judge judy

just joking mate..your input has been very good on this topic

[barry_watson]

would the penalties of assault be worst if unprovoked or not acting in self defense? I dont know.
obviously he is guilty of striking but how many people have there been suspended in the past without going to jail for letting there emotions get the best of them on the footy field. king hitting someone for no reason to me is worst than hitting someone in retaliation. still guilty i think the punishments would be different accordingly.

[The Big Shrek]

would the penalties of assault be worst if unprovoked or not acting in self defense? I dont know.
obviously he is guilty of striking but how many people have there been suspended in the past without going to jail for letting there emotions get the best of them on the footy field. king hitting someone for no reason to me is worst than hitting someone in retaliation. still guilty i think the punishments would be different accordingly.

You're right Barry, except that self defence gets you off entirely.

[barry_watson]

I dont think it was self defense in this case though.
but if a player was retaliating from copping a hit after kicking the ball and recieving abuse all day from his ex teammates he wouldnt be sentaced to jail.
That would be if he was without a criminal record, having assault twice to your name, three times your out.

[LMA]

The opposition wasn't Pulteney by any chance

[heater31]

The opposition wasn't Pulteney by any chance

sort of justifies the actions of the club wouldn't you say..........

[Bubbula]

Heres a case for you all to be judge and jury on.. In year 10 as a 15 year old I was excluded from schoool for 16 weeks for assaulting another student.. Sounds bad now heres the story..

With seconds to go in the game a standover(who I will name SI) who just happened to be my team mate had threatened to hit another bloke if he didnt let him kick the ball out after a behind. I told the bloke now to give him the ball but he sh*t himself and gave him it. SI then decided to look cool and load up with a torp which went horribly wrong resulting in an opposition player taking a mark 30 out having a shot to win them the game. In the heat of the moment I blasted the bloke that gave him the ball and screamed SI was a sh*t kick.. SI took exception and ran up behind me(who at this stage was standing on the mark) and booted with all he had in the lower leg.. I fell flat on my face.. He then started yelling and screaming that he was going smash my head in. I at first thought of running cos I was shitting myself but I knew he'd catch me anyway so I stood my ground.. When he come forward to hit me I ducked, jumped up and gave him a jab in the mouth which pushed his braces and teeth through his bottom lip. It was like the world stood still. Everybody was telling me to run but I was staying put. SI(stunned at this stage) felt his lip and seen the blood then shouted 'your f*cked'. He came forward once more. I again ducked his haymaker gave him another left jab and right hooked him into the following year. With my leg bleeding and busted face(from my head hitting the ground) I was promptly told to go to the focus room which is where the bad kids go..

The conclusion. SI(16) suffered a broken jaw, 4 smashed teeth and badly mangled braces.. I was excluded from school for 16 weeks for what was deemed excessive force and was charged as an adult for causing actual bodily harm.

Lets take in the facts.. I never instigated any physical confrontation.. I simply stood my ground. He was 6'4 and about 90 kilo. I was 172cm and 68 kilos. I had to jump to hit him.. His report of the incident was totally different to 3 other witness's..

I went to court for over a year and was eventually placed on a good behaviour bond for 18 months now have this on my record for the rest of my life.

So can the jury tell me if this was self defence or brutality??

[Boo25]

Sounds like the mug deserved every bit of what he got life is strange like that mate.. A person can break into your house intending on robbing you for everything you got you catch him give him a hiding yet your put up for assult what a fu#@ked up world we live in