OFFICIAL: King Offered 4 matches with early plea

[Eastern]

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

This has the potential to become another Rix style of obsession !!

[benengel14]

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?

You would only get the 25% discount, if St Kilda were successful in lowering the level of the offence (i.e. one of the following: reducing from intentional to reckless, high contact to body, high impact to medium impact).
If we contested and were unsuccessful, then King would be stuck with 6 weeks.
(It's all outlined in 3rd post page 1).

Are there any other levels of football King could play in the meantime while suspended?

[roxanne]

No, he's suspended. Can't play anywhere.
I've been really interested in what everyone's had to say about this.
I don't think King meant to knock Power out like that but it was one of the biggest blokes on the ground going for one of the youngest and lightest and I think that's what's got everyone's goat. I know what sort of penalty I would have wanted if it was Brogan on Geary.
He's got a four (actually five if you count the bye) holiday.
Hope he trains the place down....also hope Michael Gardiner stays fit and out of trouble in the meantime.

[saint75]

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.

Not true. We have fought, the Baker case is a prime example. We had to let this go. Short term pain for long term gain.

The AFL rules with an iron fist. It might make our supporters feel vindicated and better about the situation if they had fought it, but it would not have been worth the publicity or the long term pain to fight the decision. Be realistic, to come up against the AFL would have proved of NO BENEFIT and caused us greater pain in the long term. To think otherwise is sheer stupidity IMO.

[maverick]

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.

Not true. We have fought, the Baker case is a prime example. We had to let this go. Short term pain for long term gain.

The AFL rules with an iron fist. It might make our supporters feel vindicated and better about the situation if they had fought it, but it would not have been worth the publicity or the long term pain to fight the decision. Be realistic, to come up against the AFL would have proved of NO BENEFIT and caused us greater pain in the long term. To think otherwise is sheer stupidity IMO.

Disagree, you get more respect for standing up (constructively) than you do for rolling over. You can appeal a decision diplomatically you know.

The Baker case was poorly handled all the way through, the decision to appeal was the only correct one made through the whole process.

[starsign]

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

Not I !
and I bet the midfielders will miss him too It's certainly not "great news" for them you poor excuse for a supporter!
( and nothing against the lad Big Ben , and I'm certain he'll do his best , but I would have thought he's actually had a "real" opportunity already , but maybe it was an optical illusion!) and it won't be any less real as he partners Gards I wouldn't have thought ... maybe we are missing something your room temperature IQ isn't quite communicating to us!


Anyway back to "celebrating" the loss of Kingy.....I lost count of how many times Kingy dragged Roo scraggers off the top of our blokes when watching the replay, and got in and showed the flag when they were being roughed up
Don't believe me ...have a look yourself !
Maybe you have gotta played the game before you can really appreciate some of that stuff , but for mine Kingy is top value in this area , and i would go so far as to say a bit ahead of Gards
I recon he's a bloody good clubman and it's little wonder he was a former captain in the cattery!
Just rest up Big Fella and come back firing , we need you!

[PJ]

King is an absolute must for St.Kilda to have a crack at the flag. If you need any proof of his capabilities watch Geelong's GF win in 07. It will be good for Big Mac to get a crack but not ideal for the team to maintain their consistency. You can't just take a bloke out for 4 weeks and expect him to slide back in at the same level. He'll be missed - the only one that flies the flag when the rough stuff starts.

[SaintDippa]

Another week - more ammunition at the farce that is Anderson's Tribunal 'system'.

Need an explanation as to why King contact was deemed intentional = 3pts and Ryder was negligent = 1 pt.

Both were intentional = ???? {spin the wheel please}.

Both were accidential head clashes. King had a duty of care and was hung, Ryder's could not be avoided.

Dangerfield and Power were both entitled not to be taken out.

King gets 6 (to 4) and Ryder gets 2 and appeals to get off.

Puzzling.

[reincarnated]

The tribunal is never going to be correct in the eyes of spectators, regardless of who anyone supports. Unfortunately we have been hit hard with a ruckman gone for a month but in my opinion we could be in a way worse situation

Be thankful its only King

[SaintDippa]

In any case it still astounds me how Ryder got off.

[reincarnated]

In any case it still astounds me how Ryder got off.

Well Essendon do not have any other ruckman so it seems fair

[SENsei]

In any case it still astounds me how Ryder got off.

Well Essendon do not have any other ruckman so it seems fair

WTF??



Yep, sounds logical. Seriously.

[saint75]

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.

Not true. We have fought, the Baker case is a prime example. We had to let this go. Short term pain for long term gain.

The AFL rules with an iron fist. It might make our supporters feel vindicated and better about the situation if they had fought it, but it would not have been worth the publicity or the long term pain to fight the decision. Be realistic, to come up against the AFL would have proved of NO BENEFIT and caused us greater pain in the long term. To think otherwise is sheer stupidity IMO.

Disagree, you get more respect for standing up (constructively) than you do for rolling over. You can appeal a decision diplomatically you know.

The Baker case was poorly handled all the way through, the decision to appeal was the only correct one made through the whole process.

Really? What good is respect going to do you when King is out for 6 weeks? Will that make all the Saints supporters sleep easier of a night because they stood up to the tribunal?

As I have stated several times in this thread, you have to pick your fights. This wasn't one of them, no matter how diplomatically it was handled. The AFL wanted to make an example of this case. He was never going to get off - END OF STORY. Take the 4 and and save the fight for a more important time, like the finals in case we have the misfortune to be in this situation again.

[To the top]

And the Essendon guy gets off!!!!!!!

The invitation I offer to Mr. Demtriou is to attend Docklands on Friday night and to wander amongst the crowd to guage how the fan in the outer is responding to his modelling of the AFL competition.

Come on Mr Demitriou, I challenge you.

In fact, I challenge you to attend ANY St Kilda match.

Because, even behind the plate glass you normally sit behind, I would suggest you may be feeling very, very uncomfortable.

In fact, your presence could replicate John Elliott at a St Kilda v. Carlton game at Waverly some years ago.

Elliott and his (then) wife sat front and centre behind the glass and no-one occupied a seat within 20 seats of them.

We were crammed in elsewhere, including standing behind the seats, but no-one went anywhere near Elliott.

He got the message.

You are next, Demitriou.

So come on, show your face.

There may be a benefit to you because the shape of you indicates that you badly need some exercise - so running may provide you with a long term benefit - and even prolong your life!

[plugger66]

Anyone who thinks Ryder should not have got off obviously doesnt want the shephard within 5 metres of the ball to still exist. I am glad he got off and that shephard/block still stays in our game. Anyone who want hits 30 metres off the ball to a player minding his own business needs to find another game to watch. To compare either is like comparing Plugger's kicking to Clinton Jones kicking.

[saint66au]

Anyone who thinks Ryder should not have got off obviously doesnt want the shephard within 5 metres of the ball to still exist

Agree..you cant suit your agenda just because they dont wear a Saints jumper

If you think Ryder should have been rubbed out then Hamill should have got life for taking out Aka in 2005. Both were, IMO, fair bumps in play.

FACT: Saints players will occasionally breach the rules and be suspended. Trying to twist facts just cos they wear RW&B is just silly.

People who just scream "corruption" every time a Saints player gets suspended yet want the electric chair for anyone who touches a Saint are just frankly ridiculous.

[SaintDippa]

Re: Ryder. I for one do not want the physicality to be removed and enjoy watching the hardness of our game.

My problem is that it seems that "duty of care" only applies to certain clubs. It seem to me that Ryder and Maxwell can (unintentionally) perform actions that result in injuries but carry no "duty of care".

Ryder's hit was solid and a part of the game I love, but how about the game adopts one interpretation and sticks to it for all teams.

Either drop this "duty of care" or enforce it irrespective of who you are or who you play for.

[saint66au]

Ryder's hit was solid and a part of the game I love, but how about the game adopts one interpretation and sticks to it for all teams.

So you genuinely think that the MRP treats some clubs differently to others?? Really?? Honestly?? Has two sets of rules just cos of what jumper they wear?? Look the AFL aint perfect and in some respects (the draw) some teams are blatantly favoured..but this is a huge call

Ryder's bump was in play...King collected his bloke in a different postcode to play and his man got carted off semi-conscious

With all respect..ya gotta open the other eye just occasionally

[SaintDippa]

Goodes on numerious occasions and Hall on Maguire?????

My point is - make a rule and stick to it no matter who it is or what took place. No discussions, no interpretations.

Hit a bloke hard. I love it.

Injure him, well, you pay a price. No discussions, no interpretations.

{eyes open} King deserved a penality - 4 was very harsh.

[joffaboy]

Anyone who thinks Ryder should not have got off obviously doesnt want the shephard within 5 metres of the ball to still exist

Agree..you cant suit your agenda just because they dont wear a Saints jumper

If you think Ryder should have been rubbed out then Hamill should have got life for taking out Aka in 2005. Both were, IMO, fair bumps in play.

FACT: Saints players will occasionally breach the rules and be suspended. Trying to twist facts just cos they wear RW&B is just silly.

People who just scream "corruption" every time a Saints player gets suspended yet want the electric chair for anyone who touches a Saint are just frankly ridiculous.

Spot on the both of you. Ryder deserved to get off. King didn't. While I believe the King decision is excessive as I dont believe it was intentionally high, it was nevertheless a suspendable offence.

We all screamed blue murder when X was taken out by West and the MRP made the wrong decision.

So the AFL rectify the situation and just because a Saint player gets caught in the new rule, it doesn't mean a vendetta against the Saints.

This is different to the baker case, and the Gehrig case, but I dont see anyone complaining that Gardiner only got a week for a forearm to the head last week.

Really King made a decision that cost him 4 weeks. Bad luck - move on.

[bergholt]

stop sooking, please.

the afl's not biased. conspiracy theories are for morons. king made a mistake and will pay for it. deal with that and move on.

[SaintDippa]

I have no problem with Ryder getting off.

But please Mr MRP and Mrs Tribunal – if that’s the direction you want to follow, great - but leave alone the next bloke who comes off the square to clean up a player standing within 5m of the ball.

I thought picking blokes off – a la Ryder {again who I have no problem with getting off) – was something the AFL was trying to stop? Obviously not.

[Ghost Like]

Happy for Ryder to get off. Not happy we didn't have a crack at trying to reduce the severity of King's penalty. Still decision is made and I'm sure King would have had some input. The club appears to be pulling the right reins so I respect their decision to accept the 4 weeks.

C'mon Ben make the scum this week wish that King had been playing!!!

[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.

Not true. We have fought, the Baker case is a prime example. We had to let this go. Short term pain for long term gain.

The AFL rules with an iron fist. It might make our supporters feel vindicated and better about the situation if they had fought it, but it would not have been worth the publicity or the long term pain to fight the decision. Be realistic, to come up against the AFL would have proved of NO BENEFIT and caused us greater pain in the long term. To think otherwise is sheer stupidity IMO.

This post defies sense and logic.

Cause the AFL run the comp we have to bend over frontways on every decision?

Imagine IF Essendon/Ryder had taken that "logical" approach???

You seriously call that bungled mess of Bakers "saints standing up" - Id hate to to see us really try.

Its ok if you are comfortable as an apologist. Accepting of every piece of cr@p the AFL throw our way- Im not.

Im not stupid enough to believe we have an even handed administration in this competition that treats all teams the same - we dont.

For you to believe otherwise is naive at best and dumb otherwise.

[reincarnated]

The Baker scenario was just a mess from all and was duplicated when one Ricky Nixon was asked (or thought of) to give evidence into the hit, trial by football follower anyone?

One thing that members of the St Kilda fraternity do well is not letting past issues go, any club built with a winning culture and less whining from its supporters display this. This is not to be mistaken for a parallel between clubs supporters and the performance of the team obviously, just pointing out a sad, sad fact that will only be changed with a dynasty and a premiership win or two