Ep 1: How do I decide what topic to focus on for my dissertation or thesis research?

Zack Budders found guilty of abusing an umpire in a hotly contested tribunal case that split the funny community Lockheen eels glittering career reaches game 300 as does the phenomenal story of cat Mark Blitzards And the toll catches up with steel side bottom. He's out of the clash with the blues while big Harry is here for players nights I see the vibes they can help me along 360 are you aware of that conversation? Yeah, I don't live under a rock the reality is now that the gloves are off balls fair and Love more. My job is pretty clear make course on when we're very good at hide and seek picture I can't have that eyes. What do you want to play worse when you caught my eye and must think? All right, it's that the crackest prize that's ever happened in New Sweden. No, so look at it. She said there's a dent in that cup I don't know if it's looking sure enough there is It's a highly litigious nights gas testimony from all angles careful what we say Jared But it has been very interesting 24 hours and it's come to a head and I'm glad we got Ray Chamberlain's house It'll be very interesting tonight a lot of he said he said he always is Everywhere he said he said he said he said he said Everywhere we are here for you insurance made for fans a Ray Chamberlain coming up Patrick Gangefield Harry McCoy and we'll hand over to midweek tackle with plenty going on in the free world right now So let's get to the top of the agenda the war of words that reached the tribunal this afternoon Umpire versus player in a bitterly contested case that has created its own furnace I think I pretty honest block out there and have a good relationship with most of us oh man I'm like the hills cuz yeah, I know what I said and I know it in something bad This is the what I'd like you we are pissed off if he looks at senior and tells us he didn't do it. He didn't do it Holding secure up on the jumper Secure to free kick me challenge Holding his jumper 50 meters And know what Zach is then say he's accusing you of cheating. I just can't have it I won't have it that Zach would do that I'd love to know the language that I said because I went up to him after game and I was just I don't know the chat like any any two humans do and we said he didn't want to speak to me and yeah I said his house and a pre-kick and he came 15 so I'm a poor so I had a few teammates there right next to me all the way and so Yeah, I'm curious to follow that one up cuz yeah, I'm never gonna say anything bad to the up high bottom line It seems overly sensitive because a lot of times an unpotate no notes that But those words have been said then the unbossed in time to be offended if he chooses to I think we're old enough and big enough now to have a Conversation then and there of what was said and potentially how he felt rather than saying You'll report it and running away two things can be true though the umpire can think that he heard that and Zach butters can know that he didn't say that this is loose loose No one wins out no one wins out How much are they paying you versus surely that's not a free kick the umpire 100% adamant the player 100% sure and the tribunal charge with the task of balancing the probabilities and coming to a verdict David Zeta has sat through the case tonight David welcome hi Jared. Hi Garrett. How did it unfold? Well, both sides as suspected both arguing that what their version of events was the correct version of events So Zach butters of course said that he was a hundred percent certain that he did not say what he is a ledster of said by Nick foot Nick foot himself gave evidence to start the tribunal hearing he said that he was 100% sure on his side of things that Zach butters said to him how much are they paying you now? He was asked did you think this was about a job you also have with sports bet he said no I thought this was purely implying that St. Kilda were paying me to make decisions That go in St. Kilda's favor and a game's port at a late so he says he could not be clearer that that is what was happening He had near peace in his right here, but Zach butters was to his left That's why he was sure in what he was saying Zach butters was in his words a meter from him when he used that term So Zach butters for his sake said he thought he said surely that's not a free kick Of course you heard there in that piece he gave an on-field interview where he said that what he said was how is that a free kick So the AFL tried to poke holes here and say he's not even sure as to what exactly he said how can you believe him But he says he's a hundred percent sure he did not say what he is a ledster have said Only once then get evidence categorically denying that what Nick foot said was accurate I've been rutting put out of a tent of football said that Zach butters came to the bench after it Having heard he'd been reported and he was quite distressed butters at the idea that he was reported for that in what he thought was quite an innocuous thing to say So another really different work here in this one. So Renee M. Bonnet Tribunal chair has another commitment work was as well So there weren't reasons provided tonight. There was a deadline I think all parties just wanted to get the decision done at least today and then reasons might have to wait until tomorrow morning So the decision was that butters was found guilty so $1500 fine has been issued to him for abusive and insulting language towards an umpire Zach butters himself commenting afterwards as well and the power now weighing up their options as to whether they appeal But as it stands they believe Nick foot's version of events over that of Zach butters The minor file and a $1500 but so much more at stake than that So I sat through this case as well There was no one to corroborate Nick foot's story But there was no one to contradict that either and this is the problem that I've seen routinely with players There ended up being gentle inconsistencies between butters and wines versions of events How much did butters say as he was sort of led through the cross examination he settled on He said only one thing and it couldn't have been any other moment and when the 50 meter penalty was paid Wines thought butters had said a few things along the way butters spoke much more Wines spoke much more than butters did throughout Butters said that he didn't really hear everything that Wines said, Wines said he heard everything that butters said And the mics picked up none of it The mics picked up none of it so it was described as the gaping hole in the evidence which is quite right But it didn't pick up anything that Wines said as well as nothing that butters It's important differential because there are conspiracy theorists out there which is fair enough And particularly those that sit outside the footy realm so it's a standard behaviour to turn mics up and down So there are faders that go up and down without going too far down the rabbit hole It can be explained I don't think anybody is helped by the fact that the audio is missing If it was there it would have sold us a hell of a- And it would have been a written case There would have been an email sent back refuted and it wouldn't have gone through all of this If you had to judge, if you had to come to a verdict singularly on the testimony that was offered And the quality of evidence you would have come down on the side of the umpire Now how that serves the overall and whether that's a satisfactory outcome That's in the mind of- Well everyone will have their own view on that but if you sat through it The unequivocal testimony of the umpire versus the gentle inconsistency between the players That was the only way to come to a verdict So he said that there was no one to contradict what Nick Fudd had to say Is Oli Wines not fit into that category? No, he wasn't there No, he wasn't strong enough It is entirely possible that if butters muttered something at the end Wines wouldn't have heard it Because the two of them had to be true They were far enough apart, there was differences on who heard with such great clarity It's very unsatisfactory to be honest having sat through it But if you had to land one way or the other it was going to land with the more compelling witness Well then the Fines light If the AFL have come to a conclusion and whether you agree or disagree with it Then they are saying that it is right that Jack Bulters has accused Zack Furt of being paid to pay free kicks deliberately Therefore, 1500 bucks is light I should have hidden with what he days he told us yet He got seven and a half He used- well he used an exploitive and cheat Yeah, well that's OK The exploiters are used all day long, isn't it just a smart alecromanque? Of course it is, you're a step over it Of course it is, but when you get. It's a emotional case and it might experience this today on radio And Kenny Hinkley comes at the affinity of any support of Zack, which is fantastic There would be people coming at the affinity of any support of Nick if you wanted to go and looking for them I'm sure there is So then you got two bucks who are 100% adamant that they said something So trying to come out with a. I don't know how you. Well maybe it's on the back of the contradiction, I don't know But if you are saying no, no, you said that he's getting paid to give free kicks away If that under his light, but he's like, that's semantics Maybe they realised that it was hard to come to agreement So given the 1500 and you don't want that Excuse me, my advice is you out there believe what you want to believe Do I think that this is sullied the reputation of Zack butters? Personally I don't because I will choose. What I know of Zack as a person personally and what he said I suspect there might be some misunderstanding out there I'm not saying that Nick foot's making stuff up But I will choose what I choose to believe and it's not going to affect why I think about Zack And I doubt very much whether anyone else is Because yeah, maybe it does fall on the side of smart Alec like Benazzo. I said, tried to explain last night, maybe I didn't do a great job about it. That's not how Nick foot took it. No, which is why when Ray Chamberlain gets in here, he'll give you some clarity. Nick, use the phrase, when your integrity is quick, you don't forget those words that are said to you. So it did land heavily with him. This was Zack but as a short time ago at the conclusion of the case. OK, is that going to make a short statement? I'm currently disappointed with the result tonight. I stand by knowing what I said and what I didn't say, especially what I didn't say. So I thank the club for the support. Yep, thank you. So why it's so difficult for Zack and anyone who's a supporter of Ack, which we are, I am anyway. He's now being told you're a liar. So that's the most unsatisfactory part of having to reach a verdict in these circumstances, is that you lean one way or the other and you have to judge Zack as untruthful to come to that conclusion. And that didn't sit terribly comfortably either. No. But you have to choose one or the other in the way that the tribunal is set up on the balance of probabilities. Yeah. So there was no chance for an insufficient-- So I would have been inclined-- and so they wouldn't have done this. I would have been inclined to deliver an open verdict. Right. There's no way of coming to a satisfactory crime. Why couldn't I have that? I just don't think that's the way the tribunal is set up. And the $1,500-- this is the most minor offense that there is. I know there's gravity around it in the way that it's been presented. But on the table of offenses, this is as minor as it gets. So the tribunal is asked to use its best judgment and go one way or the other. So they couldn't-- they couldn't in all conscience. We are not satisfied that that was not countenance in any way. But from the outside, I would have been leaning towards that. I have just-- I've got a footnote here. I don't mean that to be a pun. Nick Foot should remove himself from the sports betting agency that he's associated with. He shouldn't be paid by that agency from here going forth, because he's an important figure in the game. He's already a ground final umpire. He had to answer questions today under cross-examination of whether he's integrity and whether that employment was clouding the view around his umpire, and he conceded that conversation is happening at the moment. That is both unfair on him. And something that he's in control of. Step away from that until you're finished as an AFL umpire, because his status in the game is vital as a ground final umpire. There will be people watching though that don't understand where he sits in the sports betlandscape. So he has clearly got nothing to do with football gambling. Clearly nothing along those. It is absolutely-- you use it to 100% in the horse racing industry. So I just want to clarify. You can't take that check. Well, it was the integrity that has played out through this. And he's the unfortunate victim on that. But he's in control of that himself. Just step away from it. Just remove it as a possibility. Yeah. There's a lot of checks being taken from betting agencies across the world of football. There is. But I just don't think an umpire on his own self-reflection now should go. I'll do that later on. Yeah. Even if it's at the racing base. And even if it feels desperately unfair, just remove that cloud from yourself. He's in total control of that. All right. Is anyone's reputation lost in that? I don't. That will be judged in the court of public opinion, right? I don't think so. I don't think so. Ray Chamberlain can come in and give us some real context around this. Because as I said, no, I'm barracks for the employees. I try to give some sort of a balanced perspective today. And no one's in support of employees. Ray will be here to tell us what it's like. There was a case of greater gravity running in parallel, which was the conclusion of the Lance Collard case with a penalty hearing being conducted. And the suspension handed down. David, how did this finish? Yeah. Well, and thank you upstairs to Will Forkner and Max Lawton who helped us cover two cases concurrently. This is not something that usually happens. And this case ended with Lance Collard being handed a nine week ban. Two of those weeks have been suspended for this season and next season. So effectively a seven week ban there. There was a nine minute deliberation. They came back with 11 reasons as to why it was very detailed. It's as detailed as anything you're going to hear from the tribunal when it comes to reasons. And that is because, as you said, the stakes were incredibly high. So to put it into context, St. Kielder arguing that, you know, given Lance Collard, he's had a difficult upbringing. He's got himself on the right path. And in their words, Michael Borski's words, who was representing the St. St. St. St. Spourdman, he said that this is one of those sliding door moments that could have set Lance Collard back on the wrong track and ruined his life. We respectfully ask the tribunal to show some mercy and wisdom in helping the AFL course correct. So they said this was more something like a Jaden Stevenson gambling ban that he received was a 10 game suspension. They thought this was when you look at abusive language, this is more probably in the realm, not exactly a fine. That didn't specify what, but closer to the lower end of that 10 game scale, certainly than what the AFL was arguing for, which was the 10 game ban. So they came back, nine games, two of those suspended. And now that is all done and St. Kielder way up their rights as to whether they appeal that as well. That's the most challenging case I've seen in my whole time in 40 and go before a tribunal. Trying to follow that. And I didn't envy anybody. They're involvement in it. So that's what we just saw with others on a whole different level. On a grand scale. But on the basis of two very, very adamant parties, saying one thing was said whilst another disputed it. So yeah, that's why I haven't followed it like you from a AFL point of view, but that's a hobo outcome for everyone. Essendon. Essendon doubled down on its long term strategy today. They conducted briefings with both of Melbourne's newspapers, which were presented at length to absorb today. There were essentially three aspects to it. The president and the chief executive remain committed to the long term strategy that had been put in place by the previous administration. They are committed to the painful long term rebuild that still has two years of draft picks to acquire. And Brad Scott will be given the term to be the next Premiership coach. It finished, Jay Clark's piece finished with the quote from Andrew Welsh, the president. We are united for everyone who thinks they can cause disruption for the path we are on, which ended the idea that the Essendon warlords were going to be able to shake things up. Perhaps top of the coach and regain control of the club. Is this as comprehensive as you can get, you only do this if you're utterly unequivocal on your path. You can sit tight and see how things go or you can go all in and Essendon have gone all in. Agree or disagree. I admire the way that they have backed their man up here. Because this is a club that's been riddled with factional voices in the background supporting one person or another. And if they think he's the man, now you might disagree, I might disagree. If they think that Brad Scott is the man that they've been through a hell of a lot of pain, but the list is in a place where they can write this out. And he did say the next Premiership coach is the most jarring of it all. You're taking a big punt there. But he put some riders on it, if we continue to develop, if the rate of development of the talent, all that sort of stuff. Then I admire it. I don't have an issue with it in the end. I think they committed to this before the weekend, both those interviews, which is important to put out. It's not as if they had their first win. It's been quite a while. Come and see us now. We'll give you some quotes. So I think that's really important. Then I think the reaffirmation is. It's what they haven't had in recent times. So agree or disagree. I liked it. What do you think? Yes, as if you are going to. You have to be sure you're all sticking to the long-term plan, which was the question right at the start of the season. Is everyone still in this together? With the change in the two key positions? And they are. So we now absolutely know that. And it's. Having got to where they've got to, it's the only play they have is the long-term acquisition of high-end talent, which is why there's two years. There's not going to be sharp rises here. No. By design, they have to. They have to scoop from the drafts in the next two to be able to spike there whilst developing what they've already got on their list. That's the right way to go. You like it? I think it's the only play they have. I think it's the only and right is to continue to build your best-shung talent, take your draft picks, because you know what's coming. Now's the time to do it. There's been a lot of pain attached to it, but go again. And whatever that throws up and wherever they end, because we all are guilty of knee-jirking every now and then, but when you go back and do an analysis of it, I think the talent's there. I think the talent at the draft, they missed. Now, I think it was interesting that Nick Cox was the emergency on the weekend. They can get Nick Cox back into that side and playing at a level, maybe Archie Perkins, Penny Drops, now to realise, "Hey, this is no longer guaranteed." It is undeniable, Joe. There's a dozen of them. And they'll go back to the draft again and back to the draft again, and then they said, "They'll tack free agency if that presents itself." And Brad, is it the end of '27? If you contract it to the end of '27? They put the extra year on, yes, yes. So I think that's right. He gets this year. Brad Scott gets this year having dealt with what he dealt with last year, and next year to make sure that he will be the next finals coach. Yes, I'm just going to get that one point of the. What it does, I thought, reading between the lines, well, she's saying, "The factions that essence are noisy, but they have no power." Yeah. So listen to them all, you'll all. That's significant. But they are not shaking the foundations of this club. That's significant, too. As you know, and I know that there are strong emotional voices that carry weight around that footy club that haven't always been in alignment with the footy club. And if you've got someone now that says, "Never be opinion of it." And they're holding any weight with us. Grand milestones coming this weekend. The cats have got one. The lines have got two. Josh Duncley reaches 200. All eyes to Locky Niel as he. reaches three. I didn't realise I think there's probably only 115 roughly that have done it. So, yeah, I'll soak up this week with my family. It means a lot, I'd be a little bit emotional this week, but to share it with Dunks, like he said, it's a special honour. And I said it before, he's my favourite team out of every play with, so to run out with him in a joint milestone will be really special day, and hopefully we can get him in for it. You don't understand how much he goes to work on his game until you see it upfront, so to be able to, you know, obviously understand that he's here and I'm like a joining him was a massive honour. And for me personally, he's told me a lot, I hope I've been out of share some stuff with him too, it's been nice to be able to build that relationship and be in our big close mates and having a milestone together. 300 is the measure of excellence and longevity, and what about the CV that locky has put together, so this is obviously all of fame. Stuffed two flags, it's captain two brown, six best and ferris with two clubs, four all Australians and now the 300 games. You could have four brown. Yes. So you won in 2020 and 2023, you were second in 2022 by a vote, and third in 2019, it's best and ferris, I think best and ferris, where you go back to look at clubs. So you're back to 2016 at Freemantle, first, second, first, first, miss games, first, first, first, miss games, first, second, first, miss games. Yeah. So is either one or finish runner-up when he's played, yeah, the vast majority. He is a modern day great, locky Neil. I remember doing this last year or the start of last year, I say, I think we slept on this guy in terms of his record and then he franked it again with his performance in the grand final off the back of no playing out and no playing time. So now he's a modern day great and the bike next to him, that guy there, playing in five grand. Yes. Look, there's so many stories coming out of Brisbane where we just, we just brush over it and you go, we'll wash it off too, too, no, Smith, Big Deal. Josh, Josh don't really big deal. Five grand finals he's played in, Jared. He's fine 200 game on the weekend. He's one of the great, great recruits for the Brisbane Lions. All right, the other great story is Mark Blitz-Arves and we're reveling that with Patrick Dangerfield. Next, our players are about to join us before Ray Chamberland comes and sits with us on an important night. Patrick Dangerfield and Harry McCoy, the cats and the blueies representatives, they look towards the events. Thursday and Friday nights.