King offered FOUR according to ABC radio just then...

Thinline · Post: # 754073Post **Thinline** » Mon 08 Jun 2009 4:53pm

That's just silly....

SaintJay · Post: # 754074Post **SaintJay** » Mon 08 Jun 2009 4:53pm

With or without early plea?

sarah 2 · Post: # 754075Post **sarah 2** » Mon 08 Jun 2009 4:54pm

and if contests and loses will get 6
same source abc

Thinline · Post: # 754076Post **Thinline** » Mon 08 Jun 2009 4:54pm

The report was four if he takes the plea and SIX otherwise...

Might as well fight it I reckon.

That is an outrageous penalty when the intention couldn't possibly marry up with the outcome...

Spinner · Post: # 754078Post **Spinner** » Mon 08 Jun 2009 4:56pm

What the f***?

SaintJay · Post: # 754080Post **SaintJay** » Mon 08 Jun 2009 4:57pm

So one less than what Hall got for punching someone in the face? Sounds reasonable to me.

saintspremiers · Mon 08 Jun 2009 4:57pm

bullshyte farking crap

May as well call him Baker.

saint75 · Post: # 754082Post **saint75** » Mon 08 Jun 2009 4:57pm

Spinner wrote:What the f***?

My sentiments as well. Absolute joke!!!!

Thinline · Post: # 754083Post **Thinline** » Mon 08 Jun 2009 4:58pm

Tough comparison Saintjay... a punch in the head and a bump to the side could never be seen as remotely equivalent.

saint75 · Post: # 754085Post **saint75** » Mon 08 Jun 2009 5:00pm

saintspremiers wrote:bullshyte farking crap

May as well call him Baker.

Hillarious. This one they had vision of, Bakers there was none. Could you imagine what he would have received had they had no vision? Would easily have been 8, but hey, Fraser copped 2 weeks for a tummy tap........

SaintJay · Post: # 754087Post **SaintJay** » Mon 08 Jun 2009 5:02pm

I was being sarcastic Thinline, I too think that it is absolute rubbish. Should have been 2 maximum. We better appeal.

bigcarl · Post: # 754091Post **bigcarl** » Mon 08 Jun 2009 5:04pm

SaintJay wrote:So one less than what Hall got for punching someone in the face? Sounds reasonable to me.

Hall's record is worse though I'd say. What's king's like out of interest?

Nattens · Post: # 754096Post **Nattens** » Mon 08 Jun 2009 5:07pm

Triple M just said that he got 6.

Mr Magic · Post: # 754097Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 08 Jun 2009 5:08pm

bigcarl wrote:
SaintJay wrote:So one less than what Hall got for punching someone in the face? Sounds reasonable to me.
Hall's record is worse though I'd say. What's king's like out of interest?

I report, earlier this year, in the last 5 seasons.

And just out of interest, to get 6 matches the activation points have to total over 600 (he has approx 70 carryover).

Was he carrying a concealed gun when the bump took place?
If not how on earth did they make it to over 530 activatition points for this incident?

S.A Saint · Post: # 754098Post **S.A Saint** » Mon 08 Jun 2009 5:09pm

4 weeks with an early plea

6 weeks if they try to over turn it

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

Sobraz · Post: # 754099Post **Sobraz** » Mon 08 Jun 2009 5:09pm

wow..... really.... wow...

this match review, tribunal, AFL system has gone to s***....

what an F'ing joke...

Schillaci · Post: # 754102Post **Schillaci** » Mon 08 Jun 2009 5:10pm

Unbelievable...must contest.
Only bright side is McEvoy can back up Gards in the meantime.

On the Bench · Mon 08 Jun 2009 5:10pm

It's up on the AFL site:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

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.

Not a lot to say other than probably worth a challenge, with the right legal eagles.

saint66au · Post: # 754105Post **saint66au** » Mon 08 Jun 2009 5:14pm

IMHO the only part we could contest is the high impact..thees no proof that King caused Power's injury...could have been a clash of heads or Powers head hititng the ground that cuased his injury.

The intentional conduct and high contact seem a given

mordi · Post: # 754108Post **mordi** » Mon 08 Jun 2009 5:16pm

..... is it clear that King was the instigator?

I dont think he blindsided him ......

saint patrick · Mon 08 Jun 2009 5:18pm

saint66au wrote:IMHO the only part we could contest is the high impact..thees no proof that King caused Power's injury...could have been a clash of heads or Powers head hititng the ground that cuased his injury.

The intentional conduct and high contact seem a given

Still question the high contact...looks like a body to body job...this is ridiculous and should be challenged

Noone will convince me that the media didn't play its part by over stating this run in the mill collision...

And to think Hall got zip for punching Goose in the guts and played in a grandfinal grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

saintsrus · Post: # 754111Post **saintsrus** » Mon 08 Jun 2009 5:22pm

saintspremiers wrote:
May as well call him Baker.

Lets hope we dont use Bakers defendants

ozrulestrace · Mon 08 Jun 2009 5:22pm

Once again it reflects on the AFL that there are not cameras from 4 points of the game filming independently of the broadcaster.
Fair dinkum who can get a good view of what happened other than some blurred vision. Footage taken from behind the goals might have clarified the intent or lack of it.
Someone should tell Mark Robinson to rack off, how does he know what King's intent was within the context of play. Did anyone ask Barry Hall when he thumped Goose in that prelim final, not that it mattered because it was "off the ball" but as they pointed out on SEN on Saturday, "that rule was changed afterwards"

For all the money and influence the AFL has, it is occasions like this that show how much of a cheapstake they are and rank amateurs when it comes to them not spending the money and relying on a distortedpiece of vision to use as evidence.

evertonfc · Post: # 754113Post **evertonfc** » Mon 08 Jun 2009 5:24pm

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.

bigcarl · Post: # 754114Post **bigcarl** » Mon 08 Jun 2009 5:24pm

Not good news, but crisis created opportunity. This is mcevoy's chance to grab a spot and might even present one for goose if Ross does decide to go with a mobile type.

Should we contest it? So long as we're prepared to live with a possible six weeks and so long as it doesn't prove too much of a distraction.