OFFICIAL: King Offered 4 matches with early plea
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
OFFICIAL: King Offered 4 matches with early plea
Charges laid:
Steven King, St Kilda, has been charged with a Level Five engaging in rough conduct offence against Sam Power, North Melbourne, during the second quarter of the Round 11 match between St Kilda and North Melbourne, played at Docklands on Saturday June 6, 2009.
In summary, he can accept a four-match sanction with an early plea.
The incident was assessed as intentional conduct (three points), high impact (three points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of eight activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Five offence, drawing 550 demerit points and a five-match sanction. He has 70.31 points carried over from within the last 12 months, increasing the penalty to 620.31 points and a six-match sanction. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 465.23 points and a four-match sanction.
Hmmm...so the arseholes reckon it was high impact.
Was it? Or could you argue medium impact?
What the F*** about high contact?
Wasn't it a bump to the body, ie body contact?
If it is body contact not high, and medium not high impact, would'nt that bring it down to about 1 week, perhaps 2 with an early plea???
Steven King, St Kilda, has been charged with a Level Five engaging in rough conduct offence against Sam Power, North Melbourne, during the second quarter of the Round 11 match between St Kilda and North Melbourne, played at Docklands on Saturday June 6, 2009.
In summary, he can accept a four-match sanction with an early plea.
The incident was assessed as intentional conduct (three points), high impact (three points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of eight activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Five offence, drawing 550 demerit points and a five-match sanction. He has 70.31 points carried over from within the last 12 months, increasing the penalty to 620.31 points and a six-match sanction. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 465.23 points and a four-match sanction.
Hmmm...so the arseholes reckon it was high impact.
Was it? Or could you argue medium impact?
What the F*** about high contact?
Wasn't it a bump to the body, ie body contact?
If it is body contact not high, and medium not high impact, would'nt that bring it down to about 1 week, perhaps 2 with an early plea???
- howlinwolf
- Club Player
- Posts: 1359
- Joined: Tue 27 May 2008 8:51pm
- Location: Sittin' On Top Of the World
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 29 times
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1676
- Joined: Fri 28 May 2004 8:47pm
Its not a matter of whether gut feeling/intution says that it was worse/better than other incidents. The penalty revolves around the points system. Doesn't matter whether SEN want to cry about about it being out of play or 3 kms from the ball - simply a matter of doing the math - doesn't matter about "this looked worse than that".
If they contested it might go something like this...
Intentional, High Impact, Body contact draws 7 activation points, and is a Level 4 offence.
Or Intentional, Medium Impact, High contact draws 7 activation points and is a Level 4 offence.
Level 4 Rough Conduct offence draws 425 points. 4 match sanction
70.31 carry over points = 425+70.31= 495.31 = 4 match sanction.
If successful at contesting the Level of offence (i.e. pleading that it was a Level 4 not Level 5)
Less 25% plea = 371.4825 and 3 match suspension.
If not successful = 620.31 points and a six-match sanction as per original offer.
Worst case 6, Best case 3.
Do you cop 4 and move on?
I don't think there's much chance of arguing body contact (but I haven't seen footage of the incident merely going on how others have described it here and on the radio).
The guy was concussed - seems like high impact to me.
If they contested it might go something like this...
Intentional, High Impact, Body contact draws 7 activation points, and is a Level 4 offence.
Or Intentional, Medium Impact, High contact draws 7 activation points and is a Level 4 offence.
Level 4 Rough Conduct offence draws 425 points. 4 match sanction
70.31 carry over points = 425+70.31= 495.31 = 4 match sanction.
If successful at contesting the Level of offence (i.e. pleading that it was a Level 4 not Level 5)
Less 25% plea = 371.4825 and 3 match suspension.
If not successful = 620.31 points and a six-match sanction as per original offer.
Worst case 6, Best case 3.
Do you cop 4 and move on?
I don't think there's much chance of arguing body contact (but I haven't seen footage of the incident merely going on how others have described it here and on the radio).
Even if contact was made elsewhere on the body - the contact would still be high where the player's head made contact with ground.Contact shall be classified as high or to the groin where a
player's head or groin makes contact with another player or
object such as the fence or the ground as a result of the actions
of the offending player. By way of example, should a player
tackle another player around the waist and as a result of the
tackle, the tackled player's head made forceful contact with the
fence or the ground the contact in these circumstances would
be classified as high, even though the tackle was to the body.
The guy was concussed - seems like high impact to me.
Last edited by benengel14 on Mon 08 Jun 2009 5:37pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 718
- Joined: Fri 09 Apr 2004 1:04pm
- Has thanked: 26 times
- Been thanked: 31 times
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1676
- Joined: Fri 28 May 2004 8:47pm
There's no provision to contest the charge based on "its the vibe of the thing" or "it just doesn't seem right".Harvey To Hayes wrote:Crucified again. We have to appeal it, irrespective of the points system it just doesn't look bad enough on video to warrant 6 matches reduced to four. He could probably appeal the intentional aspect of it as well, as well as the level of contact...
The club could try and downgrade it to Level 4 offence (and get 3 weeks if successful) by arguing Intentional --> Reckless OR High impact --> Med Impact or High contact --> Body contact.
For the sake of 1 week less it doesn't seem worth the (large risk) of getting 2 extra weeks?
Alternatively it could try for the 3 weeks by downgradign to Level 4 offence. Then the Tribunal could stick us with 6 weeks.
And then it could go to a further appeal - either on "Sanction imposed manifestly excessive" or the other criteria (error in law, classification of offence was manifestly excessive or no tribunal acting reasonably...).
Club will take 4, wont risk 6 weeks to get 3 weeks.
Last edited by benengel14 on Mon 08 Jun 2009 5:45pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 931
- Joined: Sun 26 Aug 2007 10:06pm
- Location: Perth WA
But it does matter what SEN say. They are the official mouthpiece of the AFL.benengel14 wrote: Doesn't matter whether SEN want to cry about about it being out of play or 3 kms from the ball .
All of their opinions have to be sanctioned by the AFl prior to them going to air.
Not one of their supposed "experts" have an opinion of their own - only what they are told to say by the AFL and the management of the station.
Robinson and Swartz would have been told to push this barrow by the AFL so they could push their agenda.
Dont be fooled. Whateve the AFL want to happen is broadcast by their propoganda machine that is SEN.
Not once on that station did I hear that the impact and concussion could have been from Power's head hitting the ground. Never once was that countenanced.
From the video it is inconclusive if Kings head hit Powers but that hasn't stopped the AFL oops I mean SEn from hang drawing and quartering King and making sure everyone was conditioned to believe that King hit Power high.
Robinson was warned after trying to defend the appalling AFL inspired sacking of Grant Thomas and now toes the corporate line. Swartz needs the money as after his gambling addiction and will do the bidding of his masters.
Doot be fooled. This is how the AFl operates. Not just against the Saints but against all clubs.
Witness what happened to Brisbane the other night.
Nothing to lose in taking it to the tribunal and attempting to get this reduced.
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>)
Sort of agree about the best 22.BigMart wrote:Not sure he is in the best 22 anyway.......I have different view on the need for a second lumbering ruckman.....
However, I would fight it........Trent West
Unfortunately the AFl has acknowledged that the MRP ruling about West was wrong and it cant be used as precedent.
King is cooked.
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>)
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1676
- Joined: Fri 28 May 2004 8:47pm
I really don't think it matters, if there is "body" contact made and a player subsequently flies head first into the fence/ground - it will be deemed high contact.Not once on that station did I hear that the impact and concussion could have been from Power's head hitting the ground. Never once was that countenanced.
Fortunately/Unfortunately it seems all too black and white to me.
But I agree with you, SEN has lost a lot of respect from me over their handling of GT, their discussion of Steven King which lacked any sense of professionalism. And some other comments that get thrown up in the air by so called commentators.
Last edited by benengel14 on Mon 08 Jun 2009 5:54pm, edited 1 time in total.
- perfectionist
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9022
- Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 3:06pm
- Has thanked: 60 times
- Been thanked: 347 times
If this incident had occurred within five metres of the ball, would a free kick have been paid? If so, what for? Clash of heads? Can't read that one in the book and isn't that what occurred with Kosi and Gia?
The AFL decided to ignore the "off-the-ball" rule to ensure that Barry Hall played in the 2005 GF. This was done for purely commercial reasons, a premiership to Sydney would enable some of millions spent propping up the club to be recouped and for a more successful Sydney experiment.
Since then, two decisions have been a travesty of justice, the Baker case -he stopped, a player ran into the back of his head and Baker gets suspended, and this one. The club should do three things. First, take it to the tribunal. Second, if unsuccessful, take it to the Appeals body. Third, if unsuccessful there, go to court. Somewhere along the line, someone is going to have to say what they think King did and why it is against the rules warranting a 5 match suspension (ignoring the carry over points). The thing about the court option is that those who have made the decision are liable to cross examination. Also, evidence can be introduced to show that the penalty far exceeds the penalties for much worse offences. A tape of Barry Hall's offences would be a start.
The AFL decided to ignore the "off-the-ball" rule to ensure that Barry Hall played in the 2005 GF. This was done for purely commercial reasons, a premiership to Sydney would enable some of millions spent propping up the club to be recouped and for a more successful Sydney experiment.
Since then, two decisions have been a travesty of justice, the Baker case -he stopped, a player ran into the back of his head and Baker gets suspended, and this one. The club should do three things. First, take it to the tribunal. Second, if unsuccessful, take it to the Appeals body. Third, if unsuccessful there, go to court. Somewhere along the line, someone is going to have to say what they think King did and why it is against the rules warranting a 5 match suspension (ignoring the carry over points). The thing about the court option is that those who have made the decision are liable to cross examination. Also, evidence can be introduced to show that the penalty far exceeds the penalties for much worse offences. A tape of Barry Hall's offences would be a start.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: Thu 28 Dec 2006 8:34am
- Location: Jurassic Park
I would take it to court site previous cases and make the tribunal look like the clowns they are.
If King get's this penalty then how come Nick Maxwell had his sentence completely squashed except for the fact he wears black and white.
The AFL needs to be taken down a cog or two and exposed as corrupt organisers of sport, just look at the fixture based on favoring the chosen few.
Interesting to hear Caroline Wilson yesterday who stated that other codes overseas think the way the fixture is done is a complete joke.
If King get's this penalty then how come Nick Maxwell had his sentence completely squashed except for the fact he wears black and white.
The AFL needs to be taken down a cog or two and exposed as corrupt organisers of sport, just look at the fixture based on favoring the chosen few.
Interesting to hear Caroline Wilson yesterday who stated that other codes overseas think the way the fixture is done is a complete joke.
Except for the sanity nothing much has been lost.
please tell me there is other vision?
Basically the upgrade on every count comes because of the concussion.
Still think we could pull this to bits
Basically the upgrade on every count comes because of the concussion.
Still think we could pull this to bits
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
- perfectionist
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9022
- Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 3:06pm
- Has thanked: 60 times
- Been thanked: 347 times
If the penalty remains, he will miss the Adelaide and Bulldogs games as well as Carlton, Richmond, Geelong and West Coast. He will be able to play in the last five games.Mr Magic wrote:I thnik we should take it to the Tribunal, and then to Appeal if necessary.
But beware the ramifications if we do.
At some stage, the St Kilda Football Club has to stand up to the AFL and say we will not be pushed around forever and a day.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1676
- Joined: Fri 28 May 2004 8:47pm
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12753
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 762 times
- Been thanked: 423 times
In this I agree with Perfectionist.benengel14 wrote:If we are aware of the ramifications - shouldn't we not go to the Tribunal?Mr Magic wrote:I thnik we should take it to the Tribunal, and then to Appeal if necessary.
But beware the ramifications if we do.
The ramifications I'm talking about have nothing to do with the penalty to King, but to the retribution the AFL will doubtless take out on us for bringing their rules adncontrol of the game into question.
Never ever forget 'Whispers in teh Sky'.
No matter how many times plugger66 tells us that it wouldn't/couldn't/didn't happen, you'll not convince me that the umpiring fraternity didn't punish us for GT that night.
- perfectionist
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9022
- Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 3:06pm
- Has thanked: 60 times
- Been thanked: 347 times
To be fair, it was just one umpire. Then again, you only need one "Dick" Head.Mr Magic wrote:...No matter how many times plugger66 tells us that it wouldn't/couldn't/didn't happen, you'll not convince me that the umpiring fraternity didn't punish us for GT that night.
Last edited by perfectionist on Mon 08 Jun 2009 6:18pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1166
- Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2007 1:52pm
- Location: Outer Wing Moorabbin
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10598
- Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2005 7:04pm
- Location: North
- Has thanked: 1011 times
- Been thanked: 1055 times
It looked inconclusive to me on the replays I saw on Fox. Is there a different angle available apart from behind and on a 45 degree angle because that's the only one I've seen.
If the available is inconclusive, then this is a travesty. BBBB left hooks Staker flush on the jaw and cops 7, so the King incident is assessed as only marginally worse. Pfffftttt!!!
If the available is inconclusive, then this is a travesty. BBBB left hooks Staker flush on the jaw and cops 7, so the King incident is assessed as only marginally worse. Pfffftttt!!!