Mick Martyn a total tool !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sandy McAvaney
to shame.
Read below
Herald Sun
Black injury lingers
By Darren Cartwright
Thursday, October 07, 1999
BRISBANE'S talented midfielder Simon Black still suffers blurred vision
from an off-the- ball collision with Kangaroos defender Mick Martyn and may
yet require surgery to correct the problem.
The 20-year-old visited a specialist yesterday for an update on the injury
which occurred in the opening minutes of the Lions' preliminary final clash
with the Roos almost three weeks ago at the MCG.
Black suffers double vision in his left eye when he attempts to look sharp
left, a problem whichforced him to miss the players' end-of-season trip to
England and Ireland.
'It's really a matter of waiting to see how it heals,' Black said.
'The specialist isn't really sure how long it will take before it's back to
normal.'
Surgery to correct the problem is an option, but not one Black wants to
pursue.
He's been told, because it is a delicate operation, there is an element of
risk involved with surgery and an outside chance he could suffer permanent
vision impairment.
'It may need surgery, but at this stage I'd prefer not because I could end
up with permanent double vision,' Black said.
'The left inside muscle on my eye is sending the wrong signal and not
focusing properly.'
Black was set to join his teammates on the end-of-season trip to Europe, but
was strongly advised to stay at home in case he received another knock to
the left eye.
He suffered a fractured left eye socket and temporary vision impairment in
the incident involving Martyn and while much of the damage has healed the
slight problem with his sight is still hindering him.
The news comes as Martyn negotiates for a better deal from the Kangaroos.
The premiership defender is an absolute fuckwit and the Roos have been at
loggerheads since the Grand Final, but his father, Bryan, is sure his rugged
son is unlikely to leave Arden Street.
Martyn, 31, who is on the players' trip to Mexico, wants a three-year deal
and more money. The Kangaroos are baulking, preferring a two-year term.
Bryan, who negotiated Mick's current contract, yesterday said his son would
be holding out for an extension to his existing deal (one year to go plus an
option).
The 12-year, 242-game defender is believed to be on about $200,000. He
qualifies to be included on the veteran's list which means only half of his
salary counts against the salary cap.
'That is one of the reasons he wants the contract,' said Martyn Sr, a former
Roo ruckman and best-and-fairest winner.
'He did it two years ago and in those two years the salaries have almost
doubled in some cases.
'I will push like anything for a three-year contract and they will come up
with some scheme to keep him happy. But I could never see him leaving.
'I wouldn't believe that North wouldn't look after him.'
Martyn Sr does not believe his son's age is relevant.
'Mick has turned 31 after the football season so you put three years on that
and he will only be 33,' he said.
'I would say without a doubt he is still the fastest full-back . . . the
only thing that would stop Mick would be injuries.'
Ranga
victim of Karma and get's dumped by everyone! (Now, now, that's nasty isn't
it)
Ranga
Sandy McAvaney <Hugh_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7tgs5a$335$1...@metro.ucc.usyd.edu.au...
Peter Ryan
> If I was black I'd take him to court. Hope the fuckin' bastard becomes a
> victim of Karma and get's dumped by everyone! (Now, now, that's nasty isn't
> it)
If the AFL investigators didn't reckon they could make a charge stick, there's
no way a court would do it. We might have our suspicions about what happened to
Black but, without firm evidence, Martyn like everyone else deserves the benefit
of the doubt.
Peter Ryan
Bill G
Peter Ryan wrote in message <37FC4354...@bom.gov.au>...
of you'd have to ask the question. It clearly shows Martin belting Black in
the side of the face. I wonder if seven withheld the footage because they
didn't want to be seen as stirring things up before the finals. It was worth
at least four weeks and I recon is enough to convict in a court....
Ranga
trust he AFL tribunal these days? Also, injuries like this don't happen by
themselves - and IMO the video evidence showed clearly that Martin hit him)
Ranga
Peter Ryan <Peter...@bom.gov.au> wrote in message
news:37FC4354...@bom.gov.au...
Paul Hooper
wrote:
>If the AFL investigators didn't reckon they could make a charge stick, there's
>no way a court would do it. We might have our suspicions about what happened to
>Black but, without firm evidence, Martyn like everyone else deserves the benefit
>of the doubt.
What is firm evidence - that of Hamill kneeing Wallis?
I still don't understand how the AFL investigator could look at the
footage of Martyn's incident and single-handedly decide that he had no
case to answer - I thought it at least deserved the tribunal's
attention. Many a case has gone before the tribunal on the basis that
(sometimes inconclusive) video evidence suggested there was
*something* there to investigate, and I don't see how this was any
different. Sure, they could then toss it out on the strength of
inconclusive evidence, but isn't that what the tribunal is there for?
Surely the investigator's role is to discern whether there was an
'incident' in the first place, and if so, refer it to the tribunal -
he should not be a one man judge and jury. In my opinion there was a
definite 'incident' in this case, and one that needed more
investigation.
If the umpires had missed it, would an AFL investigator have looked at
Hamill's alleged kneeing incident and simply considered it not worthy
of more attention? Not on your nellie, he would refer it directly to
the tribunal and rightly so, as contact was clearly made. Would he
then reconsider the footage and decide that perhaps the contact was
unavoidable and accidental? Hell no, as that is not his job, and he's
not an expert on such matters. How it became his job in the Martyn
case is beyond me. So he deemed that the video evidence was
inconclusive - in my eyes, it was no more inconclusive than that of
the Hamill case. That footage, and a subsequent hearing, gained
Hamill a two week suspension.
Mick Martyn, please feel free to consider yourself the very fortunate
beneficiary of a very flawed and inconsistent system.
Geoff Howse
> Mick Martyn, please feel free to consider yourself the very fortunate
> beneficiary of a very flawed and inconsistent system.
I agree. When a skilled player like Black gets savaged by a bonehead like
Martyn, you've got to wonder what is going on. Ian Collins, please explain.
GH
Bill G
the reports I've seen suggest is possible) what recourse does he have. Any
loss of vision in that eye will effect his depth perception ( not a great
situation in AFL) so your talking of a career threating injury. I've seen
this guy play a couple of games and he will be a star in the future. Loss of
earning over the next ten years $4m+.....could he sue Martin for damages if
the worst came to the worst?
Ranga wrote in message <37fc5412@grissom>...
>Fair statement. Just wishful thinking on my behalf! (mind you, who woulkd
>trust he AFL tribunal these days? Also, injuries like this don't happen by
>themselves - and IMO the video evidence showed clearly that Martin hit him)
>
>Ranga
>
>Peter Ryan <Peter...@bom.gov.au> wrote in message
>news:37FC4354...@bom.gov.au...
>> Ranga wrote:
>>
>> > If I was black I'd take him to court. Hope the fuckin' bastard becomes
>a
>> > victim of Karma and get's dumped by everyone! (Now, now, that's nasty
>isn't
>> > it)
>>
>>
>>
>> If the AFL investigators didn't reckon they could make a charge stick,
>there's
>> no way a court would do it. We might have our suspicions about what
>happened to
>> Black but, without firm evidence, Martyn like everyone else deserves the
>benefit
>> of the doubt.
>>
>>
>> Peter Ryan
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Mark Stevenson
Adam Ritson is suing the tackler that ruined his career and almost killed
him. Nothing happened to the tackler at the time (suspension etc) he wasn't
even cited.
Bill G <bi...@mail.mirs.com.au> wrote in message
news:37fe0...@news.arach.net.au...
> The next question is if Black is permanently disabled by this injury
tom
coaches, trainers etc.
Instead I think it should be mandatory that players insure themselves in
case of such injuries.
The AFL could perhaps set up some kind of insurance policy?
thats my opinion anyhow
tom
Mark Stevenson <cora...@ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:7tjemd$983$1...@toto.tig.com.au...
Mic Cullen
written:
[snips]
> It would be disappointing to see players sueing each other,
I generally agree, but you can see how people could think it was pretty
justified in this situation.
have a good one,
Mic. Yellow & Black!!!
neil
> >
> >> If I was black I'd take him to court. Hope the fuckin' bastard becomes a
> >> victim of Karma and get's dumped by everyone! (Now, now, that's nasty
> isn't
> >> it)
> >
> >
> >
> >If the AFL investigators didn't reckon they could make a charge stick,
> there's
> >no way a court would do it. We might have our suspicions about what
> happened to
> >Black but, without firm evidence, Martyn like everyone else deserves the
> benefit
> >of the doubt.
> >
> >
> >Peter Ryan
> >
> >
> >
> of you'd have to ask the question. It clearly shows Martin belting Black in
> the side of the face. I wonder if seven withheld the footage because they
> didn't want to be seen as stirring things up before the finals. It was worth
> at least four weeks and I recon is enough to convict in a court....
The camera shot facing Black as he went down clearly showed Martyn throw
a punch at him..... whether the injury to Black was caused because of
this or Stevens' accidental flick previous is irrelevant in determining
guilt. Or is striking someone and not causing injury okay ?
The issue in the media was who caused the injury, well and good but
Martyn still connected whether it caused injury or not..... very lucky
boy!
Wozza
--
Kind Regards,
Wozza
"Tell me, from whence do you owe this strange intelligence?"
tom <VBisgo...@beer.com> wrote in article
<7tjqg6$t6r$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>...
> It would be disappointing to see players sueing each other, or there
> coaches, trainers etc.
Nowhere near as disappointing as seeing mick martyn butchering someone's
face and getting off, no questions asked.
Tim O'Connor
> And how the hell did Micky Martyn get off, it puts both Hamill and Mcartney
> to shame.
than a guttless thug.
I really hope that some court action is taken, just to humiliate him.
Dave B.
<3801...@mercury.its.rmit.edu.au>, Tim O'Connor
<rn...@minyos.its.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>In rec.sport.football.australian Sandy McAvaney <Hugh_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> And how the hell did Micky Martyn get off, it puts both Hamill and Mcartney
>> to shame.
>Im still pissed off about it. Martyn has become in my mind nothing more
>than a guttless thug.
What he did was pretty ordinary, but he's no more a gutless thug than
any other league footballer who's ever clocked someone....
>I really hope that some court action is taken, just to humiliate him.
I doubt he'd be that concerned or humiliated
--
cheers,
Dave
Go Dons!!
pk
Tim O'Connor <rn...@minyos.its.rmit.edu.au> wrote in message
news:3801...@mercury.its.rmit.edu.au...
> In rec.sport.football.australian Sandy McAvaney <Hugh_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > And how the hell did Micky Martyn get off, it puts both Hamill and
Mcartney
> > to shame.
> Im still pissed off about it. Martyn has become in my mind nothing more
> than a guttless thug.
>
What the fuck are all you guys on. At the worst he smacked somebody. Nobodys
ever done that before have they? So its the injury is it? Does that mean
then, that the Hawthorn player a few years back(cant remember his name) who
tripped a Footscray player, breaking his leg, should have been outed for 12
weeks? At worst Mick's intention was to whack him, something countless
others have done. If Black's cheek bone hadnt broken would anybody have
thought twice about it?
--
pk
Go the Roos, team of the 00's!!
Jeremy Grey
It would be an interesting exercise only in that it would be interesting to
see what the court would do to the tribunal who let Martyn off.
Could be some very sticky moments for the AFL ther, IMO.
But would a challenge be that likely? Half the people here (objective people
and North Melbourne fans) say that there was nothing conclusive in the video
and the other half (objecutive people and people other than North Melbourne
fans) seem to disagree. So how could a court decide?
pk <pk...@student.monash.edu.au> wrote in message
news:7ts3cb$49h$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au...
Rob
pk...@student.monash.edu.au says...
>What the fuck are all you guys on. At the worst he smacked somebody. Nobodys
>ever done that before have they? So its the injury is it? Does that mean
>then, that the Hawthorn player a few years back(cant remember his name) who
>tripped a Footscray player, breaking his leg, should have been outed for 12
>weeks? At worst Mick's intention was to whack him, something countless
>others have done. If Black's cheek bone hadnt broken would anybody have
>thought twice about it?
Obviously not, as it's the extent of the damage which is the talking point.
It's possible that Black may have blurred vision for the rest of his life,
meaning his footy career could be effectively be over. Not likely, but still
possible. All because of some fuckhead who wanted to take him out. The loss of
earnings for Black is potentially millions of dollars, not because of an
incident which is considered to be a part of the game (such as a knee injury)
but because of a piece of thuggery which one could reasonably not expect on a
football field.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dockers for Premiers 2000.
'The Gold Coast Magpies, the club transferred from the
suburbs of Melbourne to a shiny new future in the
Queensland sun'
Kevin Sheedy.
ICQ #39678890
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy McAvaney
simple tap and accidental or not, he has to be responsible for the
consequences.
If the trip was no accident, yes the guy should have got 12 weeks or fined
very heavily
pk wrote in message <7ts3cb$49h$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>...
>
>Tim O'Connor <rn...@minyos.its.rmit.edu.au> wrote in message
>news:3801...@mercury.its.rmit.edu.au...
>> In rec.sport.football.australian Sandy McAvaney <Hugh_...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>> > And how the hell did Micky Martyn get off, it puts both Hamill and
>Mcartney
>> > to shame.
>> Im still pissed off about it. Martyn has become in my mind nothing more
>> than a guttless thug.
>>
>> I really hope that some court action is taken, just to humiliate him.
>
>What the fuck are all you guys on. At the worst he smacked somebody.
Nobodys
>ever done that before have they? So its the injury is it? Does that mean
>then, that the Hawthorn player a few years back(cant remember his name) who
>tripped a Footscray player, breaking his leg, should have been outed for 12
>weeks? At worst Mick's intention was to whack him, something countless
>others have done. If Black's cheek bone hadnt broken would anybody have
>thought twice about it?
>
Sandy McAvaney
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: ...!cheeseball.ebtech.net!intermedia!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!newspump.sol.net!news.execpc.com!newspeer.sol.net!newstank.sol.net!sol.net!demerzel.mil.wi.us!usenet.mil.wi.us!cleanupbot
From: Milwaukee CleanupBot <cle...@usenet.mil.wi.us>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.australian
Subject: cmsg cancel <7ttllf$7c6$1...@metro.ucc.usyd.edu.au>
Control: cancel <7ttllf$7c6$1...@metro.ucc.usyd.edu.au>
Date: 12 Oct 1999 20:52:59 GMT
Organization: Milwaukee Usenet Streetcleaners Association
Lines: 1
Sender: "Sandy McAvaney" <Hugh_...@hotmail.com>
Approved: cle...@usenet.mil.wi.us
Message-ID: <cancel.7ttllf$7c6$1...@metro.ucc.usyd.edu.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.144.48.95
X-No-Archive: Yes
X-Cancelled-By: Milwaukee CleanupBot <cle...@usenet.mil.wi.us>
X-Abuse-Reports-To: cle...@usenet.mil.wi.us
Reason: Personal UDP - posting prohibited for "Sandy McAvaney" <Hugh_...@hotmail.com>.
Tim O'Connor
> What the fuck are all you guys on. At the worst he smacked somebody. Nobodys
> ever done that before have they? So its the injury is it? Does that mean
> then, that the Hawthorn player a few years back(cant remember his name) who
> tripped a Footscray player, breaking his leg, should have been outed for 12
> weeks? At worst Mick's intention was to whack him, something countless
> others have done. If Black's cheek bone hadnt broken would anybody have
> thought twice about it?
another to wressle someone to the ground, roll on top of them and THEN
smack them. It has no place in any sort of activity, let alone what is
the best sport in the world, AFL!
> --
> pk
> Go the Roos, team of the 00's!!
I hope not.
pk
> Its one thing to 'smack' someone in the heat of the contest, but quite
> another to wressle someone to the ground, roll on top of them and THEN
> smack them. It has no place in any sort of activity, let alone what is
> the best sport in the world, AFL!
Surely intent has something to do with it. Or do you believe that Martyn
meant(assuming he did hit him, which is very debatable) to fracture his
cheekbone and cause the complications Blacks had with his vision?
Im sure others have whacked players on purpose, if so then do they deserve
the supposed humiliation being talked about also?
Peter Ryan
> Surely intent has something to do with it.
No, it doesn't. Even accidental hits are reportable if the offender has been
careless.
Peter Ryan
Sandy McAvaney
him up a bit but not hurt him too much OR Martyn goes out to take him out of
the game----both are the same actions (what we saw on video)---intent means
little, the fact the he did it anyway is bad enough and he has to face the
consequences whatever his intent is----It should be dealt the same.
Peter Ryan <Peter...@bom.gov.au> wrote in message
news:38051B8B...@bom.gov.au...
pk
weeks, fair enough. But what some people are talking about(court action), is
absolute garbage.
--
pk
Go the Roos, team of the 00's!!
Sandy McAvaney <Hugh_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7u3dvj$ivs$1...@metro.ucc.usyd.edu.au...
Dave B.
<38051B8B...@bom.gov.au>, Peter Ryan <Peter...@bom.gov.au>
wrote:
>pk wrote:
>
>> Surely intent has something to do with it.
>
>
>
>No, it doesn't. Even accidental hits are reportable if the offender has been
>careless.
that's correct, but intent does determine how gutless or "thugish" an
incident is, which is what I belive was being discussed.
-BEN
>you have to be accountable of all your actions. OK, Martyn decides to
>rough him up a bit but not hurt him too much OR Martyn goes out to take
>him out of the game----both are the same actions (what we saw on
>video)---intent means little, the fact the he did it anyway is bad
>enough and he has to face the consequences whatever his intent is----It
>should be dealt the same.
Exactly right. It's like in law; 'murder' is when a person kills
someone, while only attempting to hurt them. Mick Martyn mightn't have
deliberately tried to completely screw up his eye sockets, he might have
only meant to give him one hell of a Black eye (heh heh..), but he is
still *just* as guilty.
-BEN
Sandy McAvaney
would have anything to answer but civil cases are completely differnent....
i think he could prove grief, loss of income etc and sue. In fact the onus
is on Martyn to prove the opposite in those cases.
pk <pk...@student.monash.edu.au> wrote in message
news:7u3n4g$n9v$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au...
> OK about being responsible for your actions. If we are talking copping a
few
> weeks, fair enough. But what some people are talking about(court action),
is
> absolute garbage.
>
> --
> pk
>
> Go the Roos, team of the 00's!!
> Sandy McAvaney <Hugh_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7u3dvj$ivs$1...@metro.ucc.usyd.edu.au...
> > you have to be accountable of all your actions. OK, Martyn decides to
> rough
> > him up a bit but not hurt him too much OR Martyn goes out to take him
out
> of
> > the game----both are the same actions (what we saw on video)---intent
> means
> > little, the fact the he did it anyway is bad enough and he has to face
the
> > consequences whatever his intent is----It should be dealt the same.
> >
> >
> > Peter Ryan <Peter...@bom.gov.au> wrote in message
> > news:38051B8B...@bom.gov.au...
> > > pk wrote:
> > >
> > > > Surely intent has something to do with it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No, it doesn't. Even accidental hits are reportable if the offender
has
> > been
> > > careless.
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter Ryan
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Tim O'Connor
> Surely intent has something to do with it. Or do you believe that Martyn
> meant(assuming he did hit him, which is very debatable) to fracture his
> cheekbone and cause the complications Blacks had with his vision?
the intention is to do injury. Why else do it?
> Im sure others have whacked players on purpose, if so then do they deserve
> the supposed humiliation being talked about also?
Of course. Personally I feel sick in the stomach seeing the off the ball
sheppards, (including Chris Scott's shocker) and all in brawls.
Dave B.
<380570...@hotmail.com>, -BEN <lav...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Sandy McAvaney wrote:
>>you have to be accountable of all your actions. OK, Martyn decides to
>>rough him up a bit but not hurt him too much OR Martyn goes out to take
>>him out of the game----both are the same actions (what we saw on
>>video)---intent means little, the fact the he did it anyway is bad
>>enough and he has to face the consequences whatever his intent is----It
>>should be dealt the same.
>
>Exactly right. It's like in law; 'murder' is when a person kills
>someone, while only attempting to hurt them.
However cold blooded murder (ie premeditated) is treated a hell of a
lot differently to accidental death (and the example you've given I'm
not entirely convinced it wouldn't be treated as manslaughter).
Getting a tad off topic here aren't we?
>Mick Martyn mightn't have
>deliberately tried to completely screw up his eye sockets, he might have
>only meant to give him one hell of a Black eye (heh heh..), but he is
>still *just* as guilty.
However any penalty should reflect the INTENT as well as the result,
IMO