Hudson Young suspended for eight weeks

[Botman]

We all agree there was dangerous contact to the face, right?

So all we're missing is whether there was contact with the eye in that...




I mean you guys can believe that this action had no contact with the eye that if you want, but i'm not in the business of buying Bull to exonerate a three time eye gouger. The judiciary isn't burdened by some requirement to find the man guilty "beyond reasonable doubt".

in fact as per the NRL judicary Code Of Procedures:
Onus and Standard of Proof

72. In every case, the Judiciary Counsel bears the onus of proof on the balance of probabilities.

--

The balance of probability is contact with the eye was made, and it was deliberate and dangerous.
1-2-3 stikes, you're out.

[Raiders_Pat]

in fact as per the NRL judicary Code Of Procedures:
Onus and Standard of Proof

72. In every case, the Judiciary Counsel bears the onus of proof on the balance of probabilities.

--

The balance of probability is contact with the eye was made, and it was deliberate and dangerous.
1-2-3 stikes, you're out.

I would argue that the balance of probability is that no contact of the eye was made based on the points raised in my previous posts in this thread which you have refused to address

[Botman]

You still haven't answered my question as to why Pompey chose to appear via video link... he wasn't obliged to in any sense... if he didn't want to snitch but he thought there was foul play he could have chosen not to testify.

No idea. It maybe that he genuinely felt the charge was wrong, or it maybe he's a "brotherhood among players" type of person, maybe it's a personal favour from Pompey to McFadden, or again, maybe he just genuinely didnt think Young deserved the charge. I don't know the guy and i can't speak for why he did what he did.

Certainly the NRL judiciary have seen a fair share of 'victims' support players where it was evidently clear there is no grounds for that support, so this is not new to them.

[Botman]

I would argue that the balance of probability is that no contact of the eye was made based on the points raised in my previous posts in this thread which you have refused to address

Im looking at the footage, and the still shots and im not seeing a lot of chances that no contact with the eye was made
And the vast majority of NRL fans seems to agree, the vast majority of media pundits seem to agree, and i think even the vast majority of Raiders fans agree... And finally the judiciary agreed

So i don't know what else you're wanting
Hudson Young made intentional, dangerous contact with the head or neck and in all probability based on the footage and images above, that included contact with the eye. That's pretty straight forward AFAIC

But this is as pointless now as every other case i've argued like it. If you want to defend Hudson Young for his actions, that's your choice. I am not doing it and im not going to waste another second debating what i can see is clear.

[Northern Raider]

We all agree there was dangerous contact to the face, right?

So all we're missing is whether there was contact with the eye in that...




I mean you guys can believe that this action had no contact with the eye that if you want, but i'm not in the business of buying Bull to exonerate a three time eye gouger. The judiciary isn't burdened by some requirement to find the man guilty "beyond reasonable doubt".

in fact as per the NRL judicary Code Of Procedures:
Onus and Standard of Proof

72. In every case, the Judiciary Counsel bears the onus of proof on the balance of probabilities.

--

The balance of probability is contact with the eye was made, and it was deliberate and dangerous.
1-2-3 stikes, you're out.

Those two photos are in reverse order. The first conatact I believe was incidental as on the rolling footage it did look like he was initially trying to get the ball and the hand came up over the face. Its the 2nd effort that was damning. You could clearly see the finger go into the eye socket. Game, set, match right there. The fact that it was not a forceful or extended action like the Burgess one is what meant he got a slightly shorter suspension.

Young, Burgess and McGuire all got off very light. Repeat offenders for an eye gouge should be getting 6 months minimum IMO.

[-PJ-]

The more I see the the still shots the more I'm disgusted..

You would have thought the 5 weeks he copped earlier might have shaken him from his funk..

But..oh no, our boy is a serial idiot !!

Maybe a call back to Greta and some words from Mamma Young will fix it.

Or a Dare iced coffee !

[The Nickman]

The more I see the the still shots the more I'm disgusted..

You would have thought the 5 weeks he copped earlier might have shaken him from his funk..

But..oh no, our boy is a serial idiot !!

Maybe a call back to Greta and some words from Mamma Young will fix it.

Or a Dare iced coffee !

Agreed 100%, PJ. And what's worse is that there's fans defending those actions, and Hudson is showing no remorse either whatsoever.

Disgraceful stuff all round.

[greeneyed]

Brett Finch bites back at Canberra Raiders coach Ricky Stuart over Hudson Young incident

Former NRL star Brett Finch isn’t backing down from his comments on Hudson Young’s eye gouge despite a tongue lashing from Canberra coach Ricky Stuart.

“I stand by what I said, I thought the act was poor, and the fact of the matter is it’s not against the kid, it was what he did and I found it a low act,” Finch said.

Read more: https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-pr ... d0a5560de5

Audio: https://www.sportsradio.com.au/brett-fi ... z-5mn3Q3Ts

[RedRaider]

You've got a lot to answer for Hudson Young. Now you've got me agreeing with Finch.

[Billy Walker]

I see no other solution than a Ricky and Finch settling things in a cage fight. My money is on Ricky!

[-PJ-]

I think Bert Funch and Stick should fight for charity.

All proceeds go to The Fred Hollows foundation.

[Billy Walker]

I think Bert Funch and Stick should fight for charity.

All proceeds go to The Fred Hollows foundation.

I like it! Stick gives away a few years to Finch so it’s only fair he gets to take a golf club into the ring with him. Nothing too serious like a driver, just a 5 iron or putter he can flog Finch with for a while.

[Boomercm]

I agree with the notion that Young's actions were unnecessary but I think the outcome was a result of media hysteria and a poor judicial system. There is no denying that. This is just another example of why the system needs an overhaul.

There is actually plenty of denying that actually
The outcome was not impacted by any media hysteria. The outcome was impacted by the clear and obvious video evidence presented.

I think this is just another example of some Raiders fans bitching, because... that's kind of what some Raiders always do.

When applying decision making principles (guilty/not guilty), if you are doing it right - you begin by assuming do not know, and will never know, the true state of the world. You are assuming you know what happened - so you are doing it wrong. I'm not saying I know what actually happened. Maybe he did attempt to gouge....

But I do know that unless you assume his intent (mind reading), there is nothing clear and obvious about the video evidence. There was no tension in the game even to suggest he was angry. All available evidence points toward his completely plausible explanation for the visuals. As I said, in any real judicial system he would be found not guilty every time. Or it would be overturned on appeal.

[RedRaider]

Boomercm, look at those photos in this thread. What is Young doing wth his right hand?

[gerg]

I agree with the notion that Young's actions were unnecessary but I think the outcome was a result of media hysteria and a poor judicial system. There is no denying that. This is just another example of why the system needs an overhaul.

There is actually plenty of denying that actually
The outcome was not impacted by any media hysteria. The outcome was impacted by the clear and obvious video evidence presented.

I think this is just another example of some Raiders fans bitching, because... that's kind of what some Raiders always do.

When applying decision making principles (guilty/not guilty), if you are doing it right - you begin by assuming do not know, and will never know, the true state of the world. You are assuming you know what happened - so you are doing it wrong. I'm not saying I know what actually happened. Maybe he did attempt to gouge....

But I do know that unless you assume his intent (mind reading), there is nothing clear and obvious about the video evidence. There was no tension in the game even to suggest he was angry. All available evidence points toward his completely plausible explanation for the visuals. As I said, in any real judicial system he would be found not guilty every time. Or it would be overturned on appeal.

Wasn't his explanation he was trying to hold the ball up?

He had his fingers in the players face. Unless HY's own vision is so poor he has mistaken a players face for a football.... but then, despite Pompey clearly having already grounding the ball - HY re-positions himself and looks directly into Pompey's face and scrapes his fingers across his face a second time - clearly again mistaking Pompey's face for a football.

It is absurd that this discussion continues, with people defending his actions.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

[Northern Raider]

How bout that Paul Gallen

[BJ]

Finch takes cheap shots. How about he man up for once and go at McGuire.

[gerg]

How bout that Paul Gallen

When and what was the last grubby thing he did?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

[greeneyed]

How bout that Paul Gallen

When and what was the last grubby thing he did?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Five second Google search turned this up:

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/sharks ... dqmr3.html

https://www.theroar.com.au/2017/08/07/h ... tency-nrl/

https://www.sharks.com.au/news/2018/06/ ... ilty-plea/

Might well be others.

[Northern Raider]

That was just a little too easy.

[Northern Raider]

At least we know why G. Burgess only got 9 weeks. Back for week 1 of finals.

[greeneyed]

'Yeah' sinks two ships in one go

"Yeah." It seems that one word sunk Hudson Young's ship. And his maiden NRL season in the process. But it also sunk young New Zealand Warriors back Adam Pompey's integrity in the process. Yeah it did.

Well according to the NRL judiciary it did. Because when delivering their "guilty" verdict they essentially called Pompey a liar in the process.

Read more: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... /?cs=14239

[greeneyed]

BTW... Very good point in there about how the Storm V Raiders should have been played at 7:30pm... but it isn't. And guess why?

[Botman]

Because Melbourne V Canberra isnt a ratings slam dunk in the key tv markets for this code?
Im not sure i give a **** about when we're scheduled for finals games.

[gerg]

How bout that Paul Gallen

When and what was the last grubby thing he did?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Five second Google search turned this up:

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/sharks ... dqmr3.html

https://www.theroar.com.au/2017/08/07/h ... tency-nrl/

https://www.sharks.com.au/news/2018/06/ ... ilty-plea/

Might well be others.

I wouldn't class those as grubby. He has been guilty of some really grubby incidents but nothing you would classify as grubby for the best part of a decade.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

[greeneyed]

How bout that Paul Gallen

When and what was the last grubby thing he did?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Five second Google search turned this up:

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/sharks ... dqmr3.html

https://www.theroar.com.au/2017/08/07/h ... tency-nrl/

https://www.sharks.com.au/news/2018/06/ ... ilty-plea/

Might well be others.

I wouldn't class those as grubby. He has been guilty of some really grubby incidents but nothing you would classify as grubby for the best part of a decade.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

And then there's pleading guilty to being a drug cheat in 2014!

[gerg]

How bout that Paul Gallen

When and what was the last grubby thing he did?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Five second Google search turned this up:

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/sharks ... dqmr3.html

https://www.theroar.com.au/2017/08/07/h ... tency-nrl/

https://www.sharks.com.au/news/2018/06/ ... ilty-plea/

Might well be others.

I wouldn't class those as grubby. He has been guilty of some really grubby incidents but nothing you would classify as grubby for the best part of a decade.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

And then there's pleading guilty to being a drug cheat in 2014!

A high tackle is grubby?

But here we are in this very thread scrambling to defend and justify a player guilty of 3 eye gouges in the past 2 seasons.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

[Northern Raider]

Will you 2 get a room

[greeneyed]

I wasn't the one bringing up Paul Gallen...

[Boomercm]

I agree with the notion that Young's actions were unnecessary but I think the outcome was a result of media hysteria and a poor judicial system. There is no denying that. This is just another example of why the system needs an overhaul.

There is actually plenty of denying that actually
The outcome was not impacted by any media hysteria. The outcome was impacted by the clear and obvious video evidence presented.

I think this is just another example of some Raiders fans bitching, because... that's kind of what some Raiders always do.

When applying decision making principles (guilty/not guilty), if you are doing it right - you begin by assuming do not know, and will never know, the true state of the world. You are assuming you know what happened - so you are doing it wrong. I'm not saying I know what actually happened. Maybe he did attempt to gouge....

But I do know that unless you assume his intent (mind reading), there is nothing clear and obvious about the video evidence. There was no tension in the game even to suggest he was angry. All available evidence points toward his completely plausible explanation for the visuals. As I said, in any real judicial system he would be found not guilty every time. Or it would be overturned on appeal.

Wasn't his explanation he was trying to hold the ball up?

He had his fingers in the players face. Unless HY's own vision is so poor he has mistaken a players face for a football.... but then, despite Pompey clearly having already grounding the ball - HY re-positions himself and looks directly into Pompey's face and scrapes his fingers across his face a second time - clearly again mistaking Pompey's face for a football.

It is absurd that this discussion continues, with people defending his actions.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

His explanation was that he was trying to hold the man up (not the ball) Just grabbed onto whatever he could in desperation. I fear that the judiciary listened to the testimony as closely as you.

[gerg]

I agree with the notion that Young's actions were unnecessary but I think the outcome was a result of media hysteria and a poor judicial system. There is no denying that. This is just another example of why the system needs an overhaul.

There is actually plenty of denying that actually
The outcome was not impacted by any media hysteria. The outcome was impacted by the clear and obvious video evidence presented.

I think this is just another example of some Raiders fans bitching, because... that's kind of what some Raiders always do.

When applying decision making principles (guilty/not guilty), if you are doing it right - you begin by assuming do not know, and will never know, the true state of the world. You are assuming you know what happened - so you are doing it wrong. I'm not saying I know what actually happened. Maybe he did attempt to gouge....

But I do know that unless you assume his intent (mind reading), there is nothing clear and obvious about the video evidence. There was no tension in the game even to suggest he was angry. All available evidence points toward his completely plausible explanation for the visuals. As I said, in any real judicial system he would be found not guilty every time. Or it would be overturned on appeal.

Wasn't his explanation he was trying to hold the ball up?

He had his fingers in the players face. Unless HY's own vision is so poor he has mistaken a players face for a football.... but then, despite Pompey clearly having already grounding the ball - HY re-positions himself and looks directly into Pompey's face and scrapes his fingers across his face a second time - clearly again mistaking Pompey's face for a football.

It is absurd that this discussion continues, with people defending his actions.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

His explanation was that he was trying to hold the man up (not the ball) Just grabbed onto whatever he could in desperation. I fear that the judiciary listened to the testimony as closely as you.

Haha... no i suspect they looked at the footage and stills and saw his fingers tickling Pompey's eyeballs.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

[Boomercm]

Boomercm, look at those photos in this thread. What is Young doing wth his right hand?

look at the Cameron Smith photo's from last round. Was he pulling ears?

Again, classic visual bias. And all everyone got at first was the vision and commentators going off in a frenzy. So everyone formed their opinion and said their piece before any other evidence was collected.

Again. I'm not saying I know the truth. Just saying the judiciary did not act anything like a a judiciary should. They all acted like average punters. They obviously get no training or legal grounding.

(fyi - to give some background here... I'm a Dr Clinincal Psychology who has a grounding in the memory research and the fallibility of eye witness testimony. So I'm not that upset as a Raiders fan, but I am upset as a league fan who cares about the principles of judicial decision making. The guilty verdict was embarrassing from a this perspective)

[Billy Walker]

Boomercm, look at those photos in this thread. What is Young doing wth his right hand?

look at the Cameron Smith photo's from last round. Was he pulling ears?

Again, classic visual bias. And all everyone got at first was the vision and commentators going off in a frenzy. So everyone formed their opinion and said their piece before any other evidence was collected.

Again. I'm not saying I know the truth. Just saying the judiciary did not act anything like a a judiciary should. They all acted like average punters. They obviously get no training or legal grounding.

(fyi - to give some background here... I'm a Dr Clinincal Psychology who has a grounding in the memory research and the fallibility of eye witness testimony. So I'm not that upset as a Raiders fan, but I am upset as a league fan who cares about the principles of judicial decision making. The guilty verdict was embarrassing from a this perspective)

I agree with you Boomercm, but I feel the bigger question here is as a Dr Clinical Psychology do you visit the GH to satisfy your interest in the Raiders or to study some of the posters here? I bet there wouldn’t be enough time in the day to start making sense of some on here....

[greeneyed]

We should have a thread... Boomercm's weekly analysis of a poster. In the Lime Lounge of course! I volunteer to go first! This could go horribly wrong!

[The Nickman]

Good grief, he’s talking to himself again, isn’t he?