The off Field Game

[SaintWal]

Have just watched the vision of the KIng incident again.

Fair Dinkum, not that upset that he is out, but the less changes the better.

Grammy was less than 5 metres away from King at the point of impact and he was clearly calling for the ball. Power was moving towards Grammy anticipating the next stanza of play involving Grammy.

This point was a legitimate case to have the incident at least down graded.

To me we have copped an unfair whack yet again. I worry about our off field game and the advice that the club is receiveing

[Eastern]

It's done & dusted. We move on. Look at these things in October !!

[SaintWal]

Until it happens to a star player Eastern.

Then hopefully we roll the dice or when Lenny next pushes the limit of the laws do we cop it again.

Still feel that we are an AFL whipping boy even when we are on top of the ladder.

[Leo.J]

Until we get 50000 members and an ex polly or a media mega star (I use that term loosely) as president we will always be on the recieving end of these decisions

[rexy]

I agree, dont thinking theres any conspiracies or anything but am concerned at the advice we are getting on how to handle these cases. This particular one doesnt bother me as I hope Mac can go passed King this year anyway but what if we get a ruck injury in the next 4 weeks (I am touching wood we dont).

Some clubs very good at handling these get them downgraded, maybe 2 weeks instead of 4.

[plugger66]

Until we get 50000 members and an ex polly or a media mega star (I use that term loosely) as president we will always be on the recieving end of these decisions

Why are the WB or Melbourne or North. By the way do you think MG got a poor decision as well.

[Leo.J]

Until we get 50000 members and an ex polly or a media mega star (I use that term loosely) as president we will always be on the recieving end of these decisions

Why are the WB or Melbourne or North. By the way do you think MG got a poor decision as well.

I think that a forearm to the head that doesn't do any damage is worth a week.

[plugger66]

Until we get 50000 members and an ex polly or a media mega star (I use that term loosely) as president we will always be on the recieving end of these decisions

Why are the WB or Melbourne or North. By the way do you think MG got a poor decision as well.

I think that a forearm to the head that doesn't do any damage is worth a week.

He got 2 so they screwed on that as well in your opinion. How come we get screwed on these decisions but Melbourne, North and WB dont seem to. Dont think they are big profile clubs.

[SaintWal]

Until we get 50000 members and an ex polly or a media mega star (I use that term loosely) as president we will always be on the recieving end of these decisions

Why are the WB or Melbourne or North. By the way do you think MG got a poor decision as well.

I think that a forearm to the head that doesn't do any damage is worth a week.

He got 2 so they screwed on that as well in your opinion. How come we get screwed on these decisions but Melbourne, North and WB dont seem to. Dont think they are big profile clubs.

We do have a knack of pushing the boundaries of interpretation Plugger. Interesting that the three clubs you have picked are also the poorest in the AFL.

[saint patrick]

Until we get 50000 members and an ex polly or a media mega star (I use that term loosely) as president we will always be on the recieving end of these decisions

Why are the WB or Melbourne or North. By the way do you think MG got a poor decision as well.

I think that a forearm to the head that doesn't do any damage is worth a week.

He got 2 so they screwed on that as well in your opinion. How come we get screwed on these decisions but Melbourne, North and WB dont seem to. Dont think they are big profile clubs.

You still worry me plugger.Like you take a personal afront at the MRP being criticised...the decision was ridiculous...a standard bump and you can see as observed by Taylor ,Parkin on fox footy teams that Power hit his head on the ground hence the concussion.The club erred by not appea;ling and we have been screwed. Fact.

What north and the dogs have to do with it is irrelevent

[stinger]

Until it happens to a star player Eastern.

Then hopefully we roll the dice or when Lenny next pushes the limit of the laws do we cop it again.

Still feel that we are an AFL whipping boy even when we are on top of the ladder.

i'm with you.....but for the record...gardiner was very lucky...

[plugger66]

Until we get 50000 members and an ex polly or a media mega star (I use that term loosely) as president we will always be on the recieving end of these decisions

Why are the WB or Melbourne or North. By the way do you think MG got a poor decision as well.

I think that a forearm to the head that doesn't do any damage is worth a week.

He got 2 so they screwed on that as well in your opinion. How come we get screwed on these decisions but Melbourne, North and WB dont seem to. Dont think they are big profile clubs.

You still worry me plugger.Like you take a personal afront at the MRP being criticised...the decision was ridiculous...a standard bump and you can see as observed by Taylor ,Parkin on fox footy teams that Power hit his head on the ground hence the concussion.The club erred by not appea;ling and we have been screwed. Fact.

What north and the dogs have to do with it is irrelevent

So lets get this right. Fox footy say it was wrong so they are right and just about every other media say the decision was right so they are wrong. He was clearly knocked out before he hit the ground as Channel 9 said on Sunday so King is responsible for his actions. Got 4 deserved 4. As for North and Dogs and what do they have to do with it maybe you should read the other guys post abd you will understand. If the tribunal are wrong I will say iy and Clarkes was clearly a terrible decision just as this is the right decision.

[Milton66]

Can we stop with the "we're a poor club so we get screwed victim mentality" already?

The club in its wisdom has moved on, and so should we.

We're hunting Scum tomorrow.

[Leo.J]

Until we get 50000 members and an ex polly or a media mega star (I use that term loosely) as president we will always be on the recieving end of these decisions

Why are the WB or Melbourne or North. By the way do you think MG got a poor decision as well.

I think that a forearm to the head that doesn't do any damage is worth a week.

He got 2 so they screwed on that as well in your opinion. How come we get screwed on these decisions but Melbourne, North and WB dont seem to. Dont think they are big profile clubs.

I think its because we are the highest profile poor club. The AFL regularly make a stand on issues by burning us.

The won't do it to the non vic clubs, they don't do it to the rich vic clubs, and its not news worthy if they do it to the clubs you've mentioned.

They want to act tough on certain issues and get as much publicity as possible with as little trouble as possible. We are an easy target because we have no clout and yet we are news worthy.

[Milton66]

Until we get 50000 members and an ex polly or a media mega star (I use that term loosely) as president we will always be on the recieving end of these decisions

Why are the WB or Melbourne or North. By the way do you think MG got a poor decision as well.

I think that a forearm to the head that doesn't do any damage is worth a week.

He got 2 so they screwed on that as well in your opinion. How come we get screwed on these decisions but Melbourne, North and WB dont seem to. Dont think they are big profile clubs.

Yep, try explaining that logic to Pt Adelaide and Hawthorn.

I think its because we are the highest profile poor club. The AFL regularly make a stand on issues by burning us.

The won't do it to the non vic clubs, they don't do it to the rich vic clubs, and its not news worthy if they do it to the clubs you've mentioned.

They want to act tough on certain issues and get as much publicity as possible with as little trouble as possible. We are an easy target because we have no clout and yet we are news worthy.

[SaintWal]

Until we get 50000 members and an ex polly or a media mega star (I use that term loosely) as president we will always be on the recieving end of these decisions

Why are the WB or Melbourne or North. By the way do you think MG got a poor decision as well.

I think that a forearm to the head that doesn't do any damage is worth a week.

He got 2 so they screwed on that as well in your opinion. How come we get screwed on these decisions but Melbourne, North and WB dont seem to. Dont think they are big profile clubs.

You still worry me plugger.Like you take a personal afront at the MRP being criticised...the decision was ridiculous...a standard bump and you can see as observed by Taylor ,Parkin on fox footy teams that Power hit his head on the ground hence the concussion.The club erred by not appea;ling and we have been screwed. Fact.

What north and the dogs have to do with it is irrelevent

So lets get this right. Fox footy say it was wrong so they are right and just about every other media say the decision was right so they are wrong. He was clearly knocked out before he hit the ground as Channel 9 said on Sunday so King is responsible for his actions. Got 4 deserved 4. As for North and Dogs and what do they have to do with it maybe you should read the other guys post abd you will understand. If the tribunal are wrong I will say iy and Clarkes was clearly a terrible decision just as this is the right decision.

My point is that I believe that the tribunal was wrong and that the Saints either did not have the balls or the legal insight to challenge the decision. In a way it does not matter who the player is as they should all be defended equally. Yes it was a stupid act, or was it? If Gram had of accepted the handball receive we probably would have been congratulating King on a great bump. The point also is that it was too fine a line for 4 weeks out of the game.

[Leo.J]

Until we get 50000 members and an ex polly or a media mega star (I use that term loosely) as president we will always be on the recieving end of these decisions

Why are the WB or Melbourne or North. By the way do you think MG got a poor decision as well.

I think that a forearm to the head that doesn't do any damage is worth a week.

He got 2 so they screwed on that as well in your opinion. How come we get screwed on these decisions but Melbourne, North and WB dont seem to. Dont think they are big profile clubs.

I think its because we are the highest profile poor club. The AFL regularly make a stand on issues by burning us.

The won't do it to the non vic clubs, they don't do it to the rich vic clubs, and its not news worthy if they do it to the clubs you've mentioned.

They want to act tough on certain issues and get as much publicity as possible with as little trouble as possible. We are an easy target because we have no clout and yet we are news worthy.

Yep, try explaining that logic to Pt Adelaide and Hawthorn.

Why?

[Milton66]

Until we get 50000 members and an ex polly or a media mega star (I use that term loosely) as president we will always be on the recieving end of these decisions

Why are the WB or Melbourne or North. By the way do you think MG got a poor decision as well.

I think that a forearm to the head that doesn't do any damage is worth a week.

He got 2 so they screwed on that as well in your opinion. How come we get screwed on these decisions but Melbourne, North and WB dont seem to. Dont think they are big profile clubs.

I think its because we are the highest profile poor club. The AFL regularly make a stand on issues by burning us.

The won't do it to the non vic clubs, they don't do it to the rich vic clubs, and its not news worthy if they do it to the clubs you've mentioned.

They want to act tough on certain issues and get as much publicity as possible with as little trouble as possible. We are an easy target because we have no clout and yet we are news worthy.

Yep, try explaining that logic to Pt Adelaide and Hawthorn.

Why?

I beleive both teams copped a fair few suspensions this year.

[kosifantutti23]

So lets get this right. Fox footy say it was wrong so they are right and just about every other media say the decision was right so they are wrong. He was clearly knocked out before he hit the ground as Channel 9 said on Sunday so King is responsible for his actions. Got 4 deserved 4. As for North and Dogs and what do they have to do with it maybe you should read the other guys post abd you will understand. If the tribunal are wrong I will say iy and Clarkes was clearly a terrible decision just as this is the right decision.

I don't know what the Channel 9 medico (Bruckner?) was looking at. I respect his medical opinion about having arms crossed and that being some sort of protective mechanism. But you just don't see that on the replay. Either he made it up or he's got some other view that we can't see.

[plugger66]

So lets get this right. Fox footy say it was wrong so they are right and just about every other media say the decision was right so they are wrong. He was clearly knocked out before he hit the ground as Channel 9 said on Sunday so King is responsible for his actions. Got 4 deserved 4. As for North and Dogs and what do they have to do with it maybe you should read the other guys post abd you will understand. If the tribunal are wrong I will say iy and Clarkes was clearly a terrible decision just as this is the right decision.

I don't know what the Channel 9 medico (Bruckner?) was looking at. I respect his medical opinion about having arms crossed and that being some sort of protective mechanism. But you just don't see that on the replay. Either he made it up or he's got some other view that we can't see.

Well it certainly looked like that to me.

[saint patrick]

Bruckners views are contentious at best..I work in the medical field...get this through your head plugger ...it was a standard bump IMO..king very stiff...dozens of players should be getting multiple weeks each week...I feel the club has not done the right thing by not appealing but understand why they may have chosen to let it go...if you disagree with me its your right but don't come the you know best bullshyst...have some expertise in the area...

Your sensitivity over any criticism of all things AFL still worrys me as I said

[Leo.J]

Until we get 50000 members and an ex polly or a media mega star (I use that term loosely) as president we will always be on the recieving end of these decisions

Why are the WB or Melbourne or North. By the way do you think MG got a poor decision as well.

I think that a forearm to the head that doesn't do any damage is worth a week.

He got 2 so they screwed on that as well in your opinion. How come we get screwed on these decisions but Melbourne, North and WB dont seem to. Dont think they are big profile clubs.

I think its because we are the highest profile poor club. The AFL regularly make a stand on issues by burning us.

The won't do it to the non vic clubs, they don't do it to the rich vic clubs, and its not news worthy if they do it to the clubs you've mentioned.

They want to act tough on certain issues and get as much publicity as possible with as little trouble as possible. We are an easy target because we have no clout and yet we are news worthy.

Yep, try explaining that logic to Pt Adelaide and Hawthorn.

Why?

I beleive both teams copped a fair few suspensions this year.

Were they warranted or fair?

[felixleo]

Until we get 50000 members and an ex polly or a media mega star (I use that term loosely) as president we will always be on the recieving end of these decisions

Why are the WB or Melbourne or North. By the way do you think MG got a poor decision as well.

I think that a forearm to the head that doesn't do any damage is worth a week.

He got 2 so they screwed on that as well in your opinion. How come we get screwed on these decisions but Melbourne, North and WB dont seem to. Dont think they are big profile clubs.

You still worry me plugger.Like you take a personal afront at the MRP being criticised...the decision was ridiculous...a standard bump and you can see as observed by Taylor ,Parkin on fox footy teams that Power hit his head on the ground hence the concussion.The club erred by not appea;ling and we have been screwed. Fact.

What north and the dogs have to do with it is irrelevent

So lets get this right. Fox footy say it was wrong so they are right and just about every other media say the decision was right so they are wrong. He was clearly knocked out before he hit the ground as Channel 9 said on Sunday so King is responsible for his actions. Got 4 deserved 4. As for North and Dogs and what do they have to do with it maybe you should read the other guys post abd you will understand. If the tribunal are wrong I will say iy and Clarkes was clearly a terrible decision just as this is the right decision.

You say he got four and deserved four well what do you say to that he was actually given six and compare that to the seven Barry Hall got for 'That Punch'.

[plugger66]

Until we get 50000 members and an ex polly or a media mega star (I use that term loosely) as president we will always be on the recieving end of these decisions

Why are the WB or Melbourne or North. By the way do you think MG got a poor decision as well.

I think that a forearm to the head that doesn't do any damage is worth a week.

He got 2 so they screwed on that as well in your opinion. How come we get screwed on these decisions but Melbourne, North and WB dont seem to. Dont think they are big profile clubs.

You still worry me plugger.Like you take a personal afront at the MRP being criticised...the decision was ridiculous...a standard bump and you can see as observed by Taylor ,Parkin on fox footy teams that Power hit his head on the ground hence the concussion.The club erred by not appea;ling and we have been screwed. Fact.

What north and the dogs have to do with it is irrelevent

So lets get this right. Fox footy say it was wrong so they are right and just about every other media say the decision was right so they are wrong. He was clearly knocked out before he hit the ground as Channel 9 said on Sunday so King is responsible for his actions. Got 4 deserved 4. As for North and Dogs and what do they have to do with it maybe you should read the other guys post abd you will understand. If the tribunal are wrong I will say iy and Clarkes was clearly a terrible decision just as this is the right decision.

You say he got four and deserved four well what do you say to that he was actually given six and compare that to the seven Barry Hall got for 'That Punch'.

He actually got 5. Its all about points. Which one of the charges to get the points was wrong?

[kosifantutti23]

He actually got 5. Its all about points. Which one of the charges to get the points was wrong?

Intention.

You can't couple intentional with high impact and high contact unless he intended high impact and high contact.

Maybe he did intend to knock him unconscious by clashing heads but it would be very easy to argue that he was just trying to apply a hip and shoulder.