OFFICIAL: King Offered 4 matches with early plea

[The Fireman]

the sentence is excessive the club must oppose it, full stop.

[Shaggy]

Unless there is another angle the contact looked almost side on - shoulder to shoulder. Good solid and fair bump and in play.

We should stand up - for once - and appeal.

The bump may or may not have been fair but that has nothing to do with it. If you choose to bump you suffer the consequenses. The guy was knocked out and King has a prior. That are the 2 problems. No point in appealing as he may get one week off or 2 added. Would you punt on those choices.

Yes because the punishment doesn't suit the crime.

[AP Erebus]

Bit stiff but I'm not really suprised.

I'd like to see another angle but it doesn't surprise me.

[sendmehomehappy]

This King charge is too much!


St Kilda has been shafted by the AFL so many times in

1)this matter,

2)in other tribunal matters: McGuire/Hall, Kosi/Gira..., Baker, Clarke/West....

3)in other non-report but umpire related matters...'Whispers in the Sky'

4)and in other matters: "Siren-gate, Etihad Stadium Deal"

and others I am sure, please add to the list:

...without putting up a fight and taking a stand for the pride of the club, players and supporters... that this treatment is now just routine. The AFL wishes to put us back where we belong.

Proud clubs and the people behind them would not stand for this treatment. Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton and even Hawthorn would not cop this serial AFL instigated abuse.

TIME for the ST.KILDA FC to make a stand. Go all the way on this one. Players will know they have the full backing of the club for a fair deal.

Perhaps the members may even come back if they do and perceive a club worthy of a bit of hip-pocket pain.

This is more than just the need to be pragmatic...it is a real issue to take a stand on

[To the top]

To earlier questions, I have a mate who once upon a time worked for the Murdoch press for a couple of years.

He said that during those times that there was never any instruction from Murdoch or from the Editorial Staff in regards the political slant put on stories.

But he said the culture was well and truly known so you never crossed the line.

This culture was spoken about in general conversation by staff, including socially, but was never spoken about by Editors or by Murdoch.

Mind you, some who crossed the invisible line found they did not have jobs any longer - and that was the proof.

The same thing happens at the AFL.

Nothing is ever said, but the agenda is well and truly known and certain clubs and certain players are in the firing line - for a raft of reasons and automatically.

Look at Hall, for whom I have no great regard but why were the Hawthorn players allowed to run at him as they did, provoking retaliation?

Where were the umpires in reversing the decision when a player is run into whilst the ball is "dead"? And when they were chiding Hall did the umpires tell them to get out of it or I will reverse the decision?

No, because it was Hall and Hall has a reputation.

Umpires have egos as well.

And they will be bragging about their part in the Hall incident.


I would like to hear what Roos is saying in private.

And I would like to hear what Lyon is saying in private.

[starsign]

Ace wrote:

When you are charged with any offence you are always in the hands of the integrity of the those who make the final decision.

In many third world countries the word lawyer simply means negotiator.
You get off the charge if the negotiations go your way and the money in the oppossite direction, otherwise you are convicted.

In Malaysia the highest appeal court found a case of sodomy took place in a particular hotel despite the fact that the hotel had not been built at the time of the offence.
The judges knew the powers that be wanted the defendant convicted.

good one Ace !
Yep the judicial system sure can be weird at times...

Reminds me of a private investigator mate of mine , who had a charge of sodomy against him downgraded by the magistrate to read that he was merely ....

"following someone too closely"!!

[plugger66]

To earlier questions, I have a mate who once upon a time worked for the Murdoch press for a couple of years.

He said that during those times that there was never any instruction from Murdoch or from the Editorial Staff in regards the political slant put on stories.

But he said the culture was well and truly known so you never crossed the line.

This culture was spoken about in general conversation by staff, including socially, but was never spoken about by Editors or by Murdoch.

Mind you, some who crossed the invisible line found they did not have jobs any longer - and that was the proof.

The same thing happens at the AFL.

Nothing is ever said, but the agenda is well and truly known and certain clubs and certain players are in the firing line - for a raft of reasons and automatically.

Look at Hall, for whom I have no great regard but why were the Hawthorn players allowed to run at him as they did, provoking retaliation?

Where were the umpires in reversing the decision when a player is run into whilst the ball is "dead"? And when they were chiding Hall did the umpires tell them to get out of it or I will reverse the decision?

No, because it was Hall and Hall has a reputation.

Umpires have egos as well.

And they will be bragging about their part in the Hall incident.


I would like to hear what Roos is saying in private.

And I would like to hear what Lyon is saying in private.

I'II have a guess what RL is saying in private. Kingy why did you do such a stupid thing. It may cost us games and you may lose your finals spot if Big Ben does well.

[SaintWodonga]

Very Harsh penelty... But stupid action

[barks4eva]

Great news, gives McEvoy a real opportunity, anyone else celebrating?

[AP Erebus]

Thinking about it some more and hearing a few opinions from people I respect I think he deserves the penalty.

There is NO defence for dropping an opposition player, no matter the result to that player, when the ball was nowhere in the vacinity. A disgraceful and cowardly act.

And then I read a thread here titled: "Adam Simpson the dirty sniper" where the OP was talking about something in a pack, near the ball, where as King's was 30m+ from the ball and I seriously wonder how we can justify this.

He's an idiot and if he wants to drop players off the ball for no good reason then I don't want him playing in our team.

[spert]

Dumb play from King..no need for the head-high contact. A good chance to get some games into McEvoy. King will have rest and be back for the money end of the season.

[samoht]

I reckon King is unlucky ..I can't help thinking if that was Luke Hodge (or most AFL footballers) and not Sam Power, Luke would have just brushed it off and jumped straight back on his feet.
We'd hear nothing more about it.

King and St Kilda should definitely appeal it.

St Kilda seems to set precedents that never work in our favour.
Xavier was just standing still away from a contest when he was crunched into by a vicious bump from behind - which was effectively glossed over/excused.

Sam Power was moving and crossing paths so his own momentum would have added and contributed to the impact - he played his role in the bump too, it didn't come out of the blue with his back turned.
So King's bump didn't have to be as forceful - and probably wasn't as forceful as the one that cleaned up a stationary xavier clarke from behind.
Xavier didn't get a chance to brace himself or see what's coming.

Xavier's bump was much worse in every aspect.

Anyway good experience for McEvoy - but appeal it.
after all is this on the same scale as Barry Hall deliberately king hitting someone ?

Come on.

[plugger66]

I reckon King is unlucky ..I can't help thinking if that was Luke Hodge (or most AFL footballers) and not Sam Power, Luke would have just brushed it off and jumped straight back on his feet.
We'd hear nothing more about it.

King and St Kilda should definitely appeal it.

St Kilda seems to set precedents that never work in our favour.
Xavier was just standing still away from a contest when he was crunched into by a vicious bump from behind - which was effectively glossed over/excused.

Sam Power was moving and crossing paths so his own momentum would have added and contributed to the impact - he played his role in the bump too, it didn't come out of the blue with his back turned.
So King's bump didn't have to be as forceful - and probably wasn't as forceful as the one that cleaned up a stationary xavier clarke from behind.

Anyway good experience for McEvoy - but appeal it.
after all is this on the same scale as Barry Hall deliberately king hitting someone ?

Come on.

Power played no role at all. He was looking up ground and King was looking at him. As for if he hit Luke Hodge nothing would have happened well how would you know that. Are you calling Goose soft because he went down when Hally hit him or Kosi when he was hit by Gia or Kosi even when he ran into the umpire. None of those players are even slightly soft just got hit in an area that caused damage. Power was knocked out because it hit him on a spot in his head that caused him to be knocked out. Nothing to do with how tough you are.

[Go Sainters Go]

SEN have just announced King is accepting 4 match penalty!!!

[BAM! (shhhh)]

So we are screwed....it is high contact as Power copped it in the head - be from the ground or King's head - is irrelevant in AFL land......it's a bit like manslaughter charges - you don't have to have the intent to kill someone, but if they get a heart attack and die as a result of your actions at a later stage, you'll cop the manslaughter charge!

Yes but in the real world manslaughter carries a lesser charge than murder. King has been found guilty of intentional high contact with high impact (first degree murder). It is either intentional body contact with low impact (assault) or it is reckless / negligent high contact with high impact (manslaughter).

You don't have to be a legal genius to see that this would not stand up to a challenge.

Dunno, after reviewing the replay, looked like King made special effort to go after Power with an illegal hit (waaaay off the play). Power looked taken unawares, and full responsibility looks to lie with King.

While initially under the impression it was over the top, at this stage I think he should just wear the 4 games.

[markp]

It's a fair cop.

[Marcus1232]

I dont think the saints should appeal it.
Gives Kingy a chance to have a rest now and get his body right and gives Big Mac a chance to string a few games togethor or if he struggles maybe even get stanley in for a couple

[saint75]

I dont think the saints should appeal it.
Gives Kingy a chance to have a rest now and get his body right and gives Big Mac a chance to string a few games togethor or if he struggles maybe even get stanley in for a couple

Good decision by the club not to appeal this. The penalty was excessive, but you have to pick your fights with the AFL and this is not one of them. Had he had this reduced/thrown out, we would have paid for it later on when/if another of our players faced the tribunal (look at the Maxwell case earlier this year). They were determined to make an point about this issue and unfortunately King was the one they were using an example.

We also don't need the distraction of the appeal prior to the game coming up this week. Lets just move on and focus on Carlton this week.

[samoht]

Power played no role at all. He was looking up ground and King was looking at him. As for if he hit Luke Hodge nothing would have happened well how would you know that. Are you calling Goose soft because he went down when Hally hit him or Kosi when he was hit by Gia or Kosi even when he ran into the umpire. None of those players are even slightly soft just got hit in an area that caused damage. Power was knocked out because it hit him on a spot in his head that caused him to be knocked out. Nothing to do with how tough you are.

firstly King didn't aim for any spot on Sam Powers head... King bumped him on the shoulder.

Also Sam Power had momentum, he was moving, so whether he was looking at the ground or not he still contributed to the force of the bump... which started off as a bump to the shoulder.

So what I'm contending is that the bump didn't have to be as forceful as the one that cleaned up a stationary Xavier.

Nor was it aimed at the head as Gamble to xaviers apparently was.

One thing is for certain King's bump wasn't as vicious in that it didn't come from behind - xavier didn't have a chance to see what's coming and he was never given a chance to brace himself.

Re: getting hit in the head - first of all Sam Power was a moving target, so King had more chance to get it wrong than Gamble had when he crunched a stationary Xavier clarke - but I don't think King got it wrong anyway, the initial impact was the shoulder.
whereas Gamble generated all the momentum and the force of that vicious bump.

Also Sam Power's tall skinny, lanky, body is likely to buckle more when bumped on the shoulder , which would in turn result in his head being thrown sideways more rapidly and extremely, exposing it more than a Luke Hodge type body which would firstly absorb the impact - there's a bit more muscle mass and padding there.

Sam Power is just skin and bone.

what's more I think it was reported that King ended up with bruising on the side of his face too as Sam Power's head whipped across following the shoulder bump.

Anyway i still reckon most players would have ridden/absorbed that shoulder bump better and had their head less exposed and moving slower sideways and would have escaped concussion.

... King accepted the 4 weeks apparently - so there you go.
A chance for McEvoy to get some experience.

[plugger66]

Power played no role at all. He was looking up ground and King was looking at him. As for if he hit Luke Hodge nothing would have happened well how would you know that. Are you calling Goose soft because he went down when Hally hit him or Kosi when he was hit by Gia or Kosi even when he ran into the umpire. None of those players are even slightly soft just got hit in an area that caused damage. Power was knocked out because it hit him on a spot in his head that caused him to be knocked out. Nothing to do with how tough you are.

firstly King didn't aim for any spot on Sam Powers head... King bumped him on the shoulder.

Also Sam Power had momentum, he was moving, so whether he was looking at the ground or not he still contributed to the force of the bump... which started off as a bump to the shoulder.

So what I'm contending is that the bump didn't have to be as forceful as the one that cleaned up a stationary Xavier.

Nor was it aimed at the head as Gamble to xaviers apparently was.

One thing is for certain King's bump wasn't as vicious in that it didn't come from behind - xavier didn't have a chance to see what's coming and who was never given a chance to brace himself.

Re: getting hit in the head - first of all Sam Power was a moving target, so King had more chance to get it wrong than Gamble had when he crunched a stationary Xavier clarke - but I don't think King got it wrong anyway, the initial impact was the shoulder.
whereas Gamble generated all the momentum and the force of that vicious bump.

Also Sam Power's tall skinny, lanky, body is likely to buckle more when bumped on the shoulder , which would in turn result in his head being thrown sideways more rapidly and extremely, exposing it more than a Luke Hodge type body which would firstly absorb the impact - there's a bit more muscle mass and padding there.

Sam Power is just skin and bone.

what's more I think it was reported that King ended up with bruising on the side of his face too as Sam Power's head whipped across following the shoulder bump.

Anyway i still reckon most players would have ridden/absorbed that shoulder bump better and had their head less exposed and moving slower sideways and would have escaped concussion.

He didnt see the bump to absorb it. And it was West.

[samoht]

Sorry to Gamble ... it was West the pest .

[Teflon]

SEN have just announced King is accepting 4 match penalty!!!

well SEN would know they were the first to hang him.

That aside....I do wonder when St Kilda will stand up.

Sure silly mistake from King but the intent to concuss the bloke has to be a mitigating factor no matter how far off the ball IF it could be argued the head high contact was a clash of heads.

Yes I know if King hadnt run at him it would never happen - but shepherds off the ball happen weekly in AFL.

Ironically the penalty or "AFL sanctioned risk" of an appeal was a hiding to nothing - they were daring us to appeal....not really after a true hearing....which Im not sure is the fairest judicial process you can have...

Once again the St Kilda test case is in action.

[maverick]

Does the rule still exist that you can take the guilty plea discount but contest the charge grading of say intentional?

If so, I can't understand why we wouldn't query this?

[sendmehomehappy]

I too believe in picking one's fights carefully...

Perhaps Kingy's wasn't the one after all.

However, St. Kilda lets most of them go...

and I hope that sooner rather than later they choose to fight one of these.

King deserved a penalty by all accounts...yet this is extreme by all accounts

Still opportunity beckons for McEvoy and the team...a chance to turn this into a positive and win the biggest fight of all..

Now, that will really hurt all those bastards!

[philip]

it might be rough justice but:

a) it was not necessary; and
b) if it had been our player on the receiving end we would have been damanding the same sort of sentence.

Live with it, learn from it and move on.

philip