OFFICIAL: King Offered 4 matches with early plea

[saintspremiers]

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???

[Mr Magic]

They've prabably considered the accidental head clash as the high contact.

Time to get the legal eagles out I think.
(and not the bloke that Bakes had)

[howlinwolf]

With a penalty as harsh as that I think it would be worth the challenge.

I fail to see how that is worth anywhere near the Barry Hall/ Brent Staker
hit ?

[benengel14]

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).

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.

Even if contact was made elsewhere on the body - the contact would still be high where the player's head made contact with ground.
The guy was concussed - seems like high impact to me.

[Harvey To Hayes]

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...

[jonesy]

Outrageous...absolutley outrageous. 4-6 weeks for a minor bump...fair dinkum laughable this game is turning into. Lucky we're on top of the ladder,as the muppets in charge almost make you want to turn from the game.

[benengel14]

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...

There's no provision to contest the charge based on "its the vibe of the thing" or "it just doesn't seem right".

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.

[St Michele]

I hope we appeal it as it didn't look bad to me at all.
Not worth that many weeks anyway
Michele

[Red]

Reckless act off the ball. Take the plea and get on with it.

Gives him a good rest going into the finals.

[joffaboy]

Doesn't matter whether SEN want to cry about about it being out of play or 3 kms from the ball .

But it does matter what SEN say. They are the official mouthpiece of the AFL.

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.

[BigMart]

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

[joffaboy]

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

Sort of agree about the best 22.

Unfortunately the AFl has acknowledged that the MRP ruling about West was wrong and it cant be used as precedent.

King is cooked.

[benengel14]

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.

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.
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.

[perfectionist]

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.

[3rd generation saint]

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.

[Mr Magic]

I thnik we should take it to the Tribunal, and then to Appeal if necessary.

But beware the ramifications if we do.

[Solar]

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

[perfectionist]

I thnik we should take it to the Tribunal, and then to Appeal if necessary.

But beware the ramifications if we do.

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.

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.

[benengel14]

I thnik we should take it to the Tribunal, and then to Appeal if necessary.

But beware the ramifications if we do.

If we are aware of the ramifications - shouldn't we not go to the Tribunal?

[Mr Magic]

I thnik we should take it to the Tribunal, and then to Appeal if necessary.

But beware the ramifications if we do.

If we are aware of the ramifications - shouldn't we not go to the Tribunal?

In this I agree with Perfectionist.
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.

[dcole13]

Is there a video of the incident available online anywhere ?

[perfectionist]

...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.

To be fair, it was just one umpire. Then again, you only need one "Dick" Head.

[markp]

Surely with carry over points etc., the best case scenario at appeal would be 3 weeks?.... Take the 4.

[claystreet]

Which ever way it goes Mac gets some game time which is a good thing.

See if the kid can play himself in over a couple of weeks

[st.byron]

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!!!