I too saw the Fox vision. From that limited vision, it appeared that it was Power who initiated the contact with King. I think most of the damage was done when Power hit his head on the ground. I see it as an 80kg man biting off more than he could chew when he initiated contact with a 110kg man. Kingy braced himself at the last minute, Power hit his head on the ground. (Almost) end of story.
The North Asst coach stated "We set out to rough em up a bit" when interviewed by Fox at 1/4 time. What did he mean by this?
Dean Laidley in his post-match press conference spoke of their injuries. During that presser he stated "When Sammy got whacked". Did he see what hapened? Should he, and his asst coach be forced to explain themselves?
Let's not read too much into the media hysteria either !!
Kingy incident
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
SteveStevens66
- Club Player
- Posts: 655
- Joined: Wed 10 Aug 2005 4:55pm
- Been thanked: 18 times
-
saint vince
- Club Player
- Posts: 538
- Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008 10:46pm
Kingy changed direction and made the contact I think he is in trouble and a quick look at the points on the afl site 4 weeks down to three with an early plea 2 if he has a good record.Eastern wrote:I too saw the Fox vision. From that limited vision, it appeared that it was Power who initiated the contact with King. I think most of the damage was done when Power hit his head on the ground. I see it as an 80kg man biting off more than he could chew when he initiated contact with a 110kg man. Kingy braced himself at the last minute, Power hit his head on the ground. (Almost) end of story.
-
VietNam_Saint
- Club Player
- Posts: 738
- Joined: Fri 09 Dec 2005 1:54am
- Location: Vung Tau Vietnam
-
saint vince
- Club Player
- Posts: 538
- Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008 10:46pm
-
ace
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10708
- Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 29 times
- Been thanked: 809 times
Doc Larkins reckons that the crossing of the arms in front is an instinctive reaction to a heavy concussion.
That means he was concussed before he hit the ground.
There are only two ways that can happen.
1 direct contact to the head.
2 the head coming forward due to the bump and contact then being made.
Sounds like he will get deliberate, head high, severe contact to one of Demetroiu's own.
Just hope that doesn't mean he misses the game against the Pussies.
That means he was concussed before he hit the ground.
There are only two ways that can happen.
1 direct contact to the head.
2 the head coming forward due to the bump and contact then being made.
Sounds like he will get deliberate, head high, severe contact to one of Demetroiu's own.
Just hope that doesn't mean he misses the game against the Pussies.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
Think you have got that slightly wrong ace.ace wrote:Doc Larkins reckons that the crossing of the arms in front is an instinctive reaction to a heavy concussion.
That means he was concussed before he hit the ground.
There are only two ways that can happen.
1 direct contact to the head.
2 the head coming forward due to the bump and contact then being made.
Sounds like he will get deliberate, head high, severe contact to one of Demetroiu's own.
Just hope that doesn't mean he misses the game against the Pussies.
yes Doc larkins did say that but his arms only crossed when he was on the ground. It could well be that he hit his head and that knocked him out.
The same thing happened to the Freo player who was knocked out.
Regardless of head contact - if the action caused the injury King is in strife. Mabye he may get away with no head contact - however it probably wont mitigate the action and subsequent injury.
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
-
perfectionist
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8991
- Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 3:06pm
- Has thanked: 59 times
- Been thanked: 343 times
The concern about the points is putting the cart before the horse. A player can only be reported if he has committed a reportable offence. For instance, if a player flies for a mark and knees an opponent in the head and knocks him out then that's bad luck. No reportable offence.
The vision that has been shown (so far) has Steven King moving to his right to bump Power, which he does with elbow tucked in and no evidence that his shoulder made contact with Power's head. So, it is not striking. But there is the somewhat catch all charge of "rough conduct". Is a fair bump rough conduct? No. Can there be a fair bump 30 metres off the ball? Well, according to the AFL, yes although I think this is wrong. This behind the game rule, whether a player "was actively involved in the play at the time" was removed two years ago.
The Guidelines regarding Rough Conduct were changed this year to further protect against high contact. Here is the relevant section:
AFL Tribunal Guidelines – Rough Conduct
It is a Reportable Offence to intentionally, recklessly or negligently engage in rough conduct against an opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable.
Without limiting the above, a player will be guilty of Rough Conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) he causes forceful contact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck and instead of bumping, the player had a realistic alternative to:
a) contest the ball; or
b) tackle the opponent
Even if the player did not have any of these alternatives realistically open to him he may still be guilty of Rough Conduct if his conduct was unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether any bump was unreasonable in the circumstances regard will be had to:
- whether the degree of force applied by the person bumping was excessive for the situation;
- whether the player being bumped was actively involved in the passage of play;
- the distance the player applying the bump has run to make contact;
- whether an elbow is part of the contact;
- whether the player bumping jumps or leaves the ground to bump
In the interests of player safety, the purpose of the Rule dealing with high bumps is to reduce, as far as practicable, the risk of head injuries to players and this purpose needs to be kept firmly in mind by all players and will guide the application of the Rule.
The King incident does not appear to fit this section either as there is no evidence that he contacted Power's head.
If the Review Panel is to be consistent then there can be no charge.
If they choose to target King then, there will be 3 points for intentional contact, three points for high impact and (bizarrely) one point for body contact. This gives seven activation points, a level 4 offence. For rough conduct, this gives 425 demerit points (in another bizarre twist, a level four striking offence only carries 325 points). He does not have a clean record having already accepted a reprimand this year. This means that he has neither a good nor bad record so it won't add 10% to his points but his reprimand points (70.31) will be added as it is within the same 12 months.
All of which adds up to one of two things, in my view anyway. Either he will got off completely or he will suspended for 4 games. If it is the later, not only should we go to the Tribunal but we should also appeal if the Tribunal produces no joy.
The AFL has made a rod for its own back on this one, all as a result of wanting to make sure that Barry Hall played in the 2005 GF. Everybody knows this. I don't like any sort of hit behind the game - it's wrong. But these days, there is no behind the game rule. The sooner we return it, the better.
The vision that has been shown (so far) has Steven King moving to his right to bump Power, which he does with elbow tucked in and no evidence that his shoulder made contact with Power's head. So, it is not striking. But there is the somewhat catch all charge of "rough conduct". Is a fair bump rough conduct? No. Can there be a fair bump 30 metres off the ball? Well, according to the AFL, yes although I think this is wrong. This behind the game rule, whether a player "was actively involved in the play at the time" was removed two years ago.
The Guidelines regarding Rough Conduct were changed this year to further protect against high contact. Here is the relevant section:
AFL Tribunal Guidelines – Rough Conduct
It is a Reportable Offence to intentionally, recklessly or negligently engage in rough conduct against an opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable.
Without limiting the above, a player will be guilty of Rough Conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) he causes forceful contact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck and instead of bumping, the player had a realistic alternative to:
a) contest the ball; or
b) tackle the opponent
Even if the player did not have any of these alternatives realistically open to him he may still be guilty of Rough Conduct if his conduct was unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether any bump was unreasonable in the circumstances regard will be had to:
- whether the degree of force applied by the person bumping was excessive for the situation;
- whether the player being bumped was actively involved in the passage of play;
- the distance the player applying the bump has run to make contact;
- whether an elbow is part of the contact;
- whether the player bumping jumps or leaves the ground to bump
In the interests of player safety, the purpose of the Rule dealing with high bumps is to reduce, as far as practicable, the risk of head injuries to players and this purpose needs to be kept firmly in mind by all players and will guide the application of the Rule.
The King incident does not appear to fit this section either as there is no evidence that he contacted Power's head.
If the Review Panel is to be consistent then there can be no charge.
If they choose to target King then, there will be 3 points for intentional contact, three points for high impact and (bizarrely) one point for body contact. This gives seven activation points, a level 4 offence. For rough conduct, this gives 425 demerit points (in another bizarre twist, a level four striking offence only carries 325 points). He does not have a clean record having already accepted a reprimand this year. This means that he has neither a good nor bad record so it won't add 10% to his points but his reprimand points (70.31) will be added as it is within the same 12 months.
All of which adds up to one of two things, in my view anyway. Either he will got off completely or he will suspended for 4 games. If it is the later, not only should we go to the Tribunal but we should also appeal if the Tribunal produces no joy.
The AFL has made a rod for its own back on this one, all as a result of wanting to make sure that Barry Hall played in the 2005 GF. Everybody knows this. I don't like any sort of hit behind the game - it's wrong. But these days, there is no behind the game rule. The sooner we return it, the better.
Last edited by perfectionist on Sun 07 Jun 2009 1:36pm, edited 1 time in total.
laidleys an idiot, he got asked in that presser on whether he saw it and he admitted he didn't....Eastern wrote:I too saw the Fox vision. From that limited vision, it appeared that it was Power who initiated the contact with King. I think most of the damage was done when Power hit his head on the ground. I see it as an 80kg man biting off more than he could chew when he initiated contact with a 110kg man. Kingy braced himself at the last minute, Power hit his head on the ground. (Almost) end of story.
The North Asst coach stated "We set out to rough em up a bit" when interviewed by Fox at 1/4 time. What did he mean by this?
Dean Laidley in his post-match press conference spoke of their injuries. During that presser he stated "When Sammy got whacked". Did he see what hapened? Should he, and his asst coach be forced to explain themselves?
Let's not read too much into the media hysteria either !!
FQF
loyal in the good times and bad
In richo I trust
2013 trade/draft best ever?
Billings - future brownlow medallist Longer - future best ruck
Dunstan - future captain Eli - future cult hero
Acres - future norm smith
loyal in the good times and bad
In richo I trust
2013 trade/draft best ever?
Billings - future brownlow medallist Longer - future best ruck
Dunstan - future captain Eli - future cult hero
Acres - future norm smith
-
ace
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10708
- Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 29 times
- Been thanked: 809 times
He needs 5 years clean for a good record (reduction in penalty), 3 years clean for a neutral record, conviction in last 3 years for a bad record (bonus penalty).saint vince wrote:Kingy changed direction and made the contact I think he is in trouble and a quick look at the points on the afl site 4 weeks down to three with an early plea 2 if he has a good record.Eastern wrote:I too saw the Fox vision. From that limited vision, it appeared that it was Power who initiated the contact with King. I think most of the damage was done when Power hit his head on the ground. I see it as an 80kg man biting off more than he could chew when he initiated contact with a 110kg man. Kingy braced himself at the last minute, Power hit his head on the ground. (Almost) end of story.
He had a clean record in for first half of 2009, 2008, 2007, dont know 2006, don't know 2005, only suspended for 1 game after 1st qualifying final in 2004.
Unfortunatly that one week means he does NOT have a good record.
He may well have a neutral record depending on the last half of 2006.
Correction a reprimand this year but no suspension.
Last edited by ace on Sun 07 Jun 2009 2:01pm, edited 1 time in total.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
-
ace
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10708
- Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 29 times
- Been thanked: 809 times
It could well be deemed to unreasonable because the opponent would not be expecting to be hit so hard in that situation.perfectionist wrote: Even if the player did not have any of these alternatives realistically open to him he may still be guilty of Rough Conduct if his conduct was unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether any bump was unreasonable in the circumstances regard will be had to:
- whether the degree of force applied by the person bumping was excessive for the situation;
- whether the player being bumped was actively involved in the passage of play;
- the distance the player applying the bump has run to make contact;
- whether an elbow is part of the contact;
- whether the player bumping jumps or leaves the ground to bump
In the interests of player safety, the purpose of the Rule dealing with high bumps is to reduce, as far as practicable, the risk of head injuries to players and this purpose needs to be kept firmly in mind by all players and will guide the application of the Rule.[/i]
The King incident does not appear to fit this section either as there is no evidence that he contacted Power's head.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
-
TassieJones
- Club Player
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 9:17pm
- Location: The NCR
did you read my post? I said I'd give him 1 week, not 4. It was a legitimate bump but it wasn't in play. You can't just go around shirtfronting people who are out of play and therefore should be able to run around without expecting to be lined up.saint75 wrote:You have got to be kidding? 4 weeks for a legit bump? If he gets 4 for that then the AFL really do have it in for us and it is not just a paranoid delusion by St Kilda Supporters!TassieJones wrote:only problem with it was it was off the ball, not high at all from what I can see.
I'd give him 1 week, but I reckon he'll cop 3
The contact did not cause him the concussion, his head hitting the ground did. Mind you, it must be a problem with Petrie's peripheral vision. Wasn't that the reason that Giansiracusa got away with what he did to Kosi that had Kosi out of the game for WEEKS!!!
To be honest, I would be more uncomfortable and concerned if I was Raph (which I believe is OK, but will depend on the mood of the tribunal) than I would be if I was Kingy!
-
Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12720
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 736 times
- Been thanked: 404 times
One of the early rounds - Fremantle?, same game as when Kosi was assessed as not sufficient force to constitute a 'strike'plugger66 wrote:It has nothing to do with what people think he should or shouldnt get. Its about points and if as someone has said he already has a reprimand this year then he could be in some trouble. By the way when was that as it completely slipped my mind.
Yes I remember now. Well thats makes it very bad for him if found guilty. Probably looking at 3 now if found guilty. Doesnt deserve that many but thats the system. MG deserved more last week but again thats the system.Mr Magic wrote:One of the early rounds - Fremantle?, same game as when Kosi was assessed as not sufficient force to constitute a 'strike'plugger66 wrote:It has nothing to do with what people think he should or shouldnt get. Its about points and if as someone has said he already has a reprimand this year then he could be in some trouble. By the way when was that as it completely slipped my mind.
-
To the top
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3266
- Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2007 4:05pm
- Been thanked: 390 times
This was a game where the Brayshaw/Laidley rabble set out to rough St Kilda up.
We saw off the ball clashes of bodies particularly in the first half.
The Bradshaw/Laidley rabble were out to hit and scrag whenever they could, including well off the ball.
So it was on for most of the day.
And the Bradshaw/Laidley rabble came off second best.
And now he wants a job (because who else would employ him in any capacity) Laidley comes out with what he comes out with whilst (no doubt) the Club President earned his required income by calling the game in the media and influencing what his mates in the media say.
There was nothing in the King incident except the Brayshaw/Laidley rabble player came off second best.
The Brayshaw/Liadley rabble were initiating such contact throughout and, if an Assistant Coach to Laidley has said "we were out to rough them up" then that is certainly what it looked like.
If you were not at the game and did not see what was going on accross the ground you are not in a position to comment.
I would doubt that King has a case to answer because if he does he will have plenty of "mates" joining him - and the Bradshaw/Liadley rabble will be struggling to field a side next week.
And if you think King changed course to charge the player down and initiate contact, well who is the more mobile and quicker player?
Because both players were moving at the time, unlike Xavier Clarke against Geelong.
So the Bradshaw/Laidley rabble player could have accelerated away from King - he did not.
He chose to make contact, as was the team instruction, and paid the price of colliding with a far bigger and stronger body.
When the concussion occurred I do not know, but it was a legitimate hip and shoulder contact by King.
And it was going on all over the ground, regardless of where the ball was at any given time.
We saw off the ball clashes of bodies particularly in the first half.
The Bradshaw/Laidley rabble were out to hit and scrag whenever they could, including well off the ball.
So it was on for most of the day.
And the Bradshaw/Laidley rabble came off second best.
And now he wants a job (because who else would employ him in any capacity) Laidley comes out with what he comes out with whilst (no doubt) the Club President earned his required income by calling the game in the media and influencing what his mates in the media say.
There was nothing in the King incident except the Brayshaw/Laidley rabble player came off second best.
The Brayshaw/Liadley rabble were initiating such contact throughout and, if an Assistant Coach to Laidley has said "we were out to rough them up" then that is certainly what it looked like.
If you were not at the game and did not see what was going on accross the ground you are not in a position to comment.
I would doubt that King has a case to answer because if he does he will have plenty of "mates" joining him - and the Bradshaw/Liadley rabble will be struggling to field a side next week.
And if you think King changed course to charge the player down and initiate contact, well who is the more mobile and quicker player?
Because both players were moving at the time, unlike Xavier Clarke against Geelong.
So the Bradshaw/Laidley rabble player could have accelerated away from King - he did not.
He chose to make contact, as was the team instruction, and paid the price of colliding with a far bigger and stronger body.
When the concussion occurred I do not know, but it was a legitimate hip and shoulder contact by King.
And it was going on all over the ground, regardless of where the ball was at any given time.
-
samoht
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: Sun 14 Mar 2004 10:45am
- Location: https://www.amazon.com.au/Fugitive-Sold ... B00EO1GCNK
- Has thanked: 586 times
- Been thanked: 436 times
- Contact: