The Serve

One week for a gouge? Why bother with any suspension then

This columnist is confused. We have an eye gouging charge, the most heinous of offences. We have a suspension of one week to go with that gouge.

This columnist is confused.

One week is for an overzealous tackle, or a hip and shoulder gone wrong. Not for deliberately entering fingers into the most delicate, important crevice of the body.

A merky issue, but a simple scenario. Either the review panel believes Chris Judd gouged Campbell Brown or they don’t.

A precedent was set early in the season, with Jeff Farmer’s four week punishment for a similar offence (Six weeks with priors). Even that could be argued as lenient, but four weeks became a benchmark. Farmer put his fingers in an opponents eyes and clawed. Gouging. If the panel thought Judd did the same, it would stand to reason - even given the people we’re talking about - that a comparable suspension would suffice.

Clearly this means review committee doesn’t believe the act was deliberate. So what has Judd done wrong? If his fingers just happened to be near the eyes of an opponent in the mad scramble of bodies, then it’s an accident. Set him free and don’t deny him a shot at the Brownlow and more importantly, leave his reputation unbesmirched.

To believe the events at Aurora were accidental though would appear to be taking a naïve view. Brown says he wasn’t gouged. His reaction on Saturday would suggest otherwise. We also have video footage that doesn’t help Judd. How the panel could ascertain from that vision that Judd basically did little wrong, is difficult to comprehend.

There comes a point where evidence must supersede reputation.