Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
perfectionist wrote: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?
I agree completely. Surely this is relevent to what happened. To me the biggest issue was where on the ground it occurred with respect to the ball. On that basis King is in trouble and probably deserved a couple of weeks. The actual act though was not head high or malicious. I guess the counter argument is that due to the area of the ground where the incident took place, Power wasn't expecting contact and therefore wasn't braced or aware that contact was coming - which contributed to his concussion. If Power was near the ball then players are fair game to be 'taken out' fairly.
I still don't understand what King was trying to achieve. Maybe b/c a north defender was about to mark it he was trying to block his run for the next play. Just have to be smarter than that though. I'm positive it wasn't deliberate in the context of some bumps in a game though. Some bumps are designed to really hurt and they are the intention from the outset. King's was really just a clumsy block, and I reckon Kingy would have been shocked by the impact he had.
When you consider that Hall only received a couple more weeks for a blatant unprovoked king hit behind play last year, that if viewed by a court would be considered an assault, then King's penalty does seem harsh.
We have to appeal this one. We've been the one club that has been consistantly shafted by the tribunal and it's tinme we put our foot down and fought back properly.
Only thing that worries me if they appeal it is what will happen next time one of our players fronts the tribunal? Do we not remember the 2004, 2005, 2006 & 2007 years? Do we take the short term pain for long term gain? Not sure........
Makes Blakes spot in the team safe if he is gone for 4 weeks. Will need him as an option to help out Gardi and McEvoy.
None too happy about the mrp finding but I think this year in particular is NOT the time to seek a sh1t fight with the afl - the distraction is not necessary.
Unfortunately I think the best thing to do is for the club to advise Kingy to suck on the 4 weeks & then get on with the business of trying to win a flag.
(Also agree with others that this provides a good opportunity for McEvoy to get some experience. With the chance to play 5 games in a row he could just take the opportunity and establish himself so that it then became hard for King to get back in the team.)
ohwhenthesaints! wrote:We are just very lucky that Gardiner is coming back in this week, and that he has been our in form ruckman.
When do we find out if King will accept or challenge?
Tomorrow I believe. I have a feeling they will accept it. So furious over this ruling and there was a lot of cursing going on in this house this afternoon, however, you have to pick your fights. I don't think this is one they will take on.
karnaby wrote:None too happy about the mrp finding but I think this year in particular is NOT the time to seek a sh1t fight with the afl - the distraction is not necessary.
Unfortunately I think the best thing to do is for the club to advise Kingy to suck on the 4 weeks & then get on with the business of trying to win a flag.
(Also agree with others that this provides a good opportunity for McEvoy to get some experience. With the chance to play 5 games in a row he could just take the opportunity and establish himself so that it then became hard for King to get back in the team.)
Completely Agree.......would like to see Big Mac string a few good games together and get some confidence, there's a fair chance he will be needed at some stage during the finals and a few games now would be good.
Missing King is big but he has been our second ruckman this year. Four weeks will also help refresh him for a charge home into the finals.
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.
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.
Don't forget the history making ruling that cost us 2 points............you can't tell me that wasn't a slight at GT also. Can't move a game from a ground that will benefit all, but you can make an historic ruling to take a clubs points from them (when Grand Finals have been won in the past in the same circumstance).
Will be interested to hear his opinions tonight on Footy Classified.
There are issues for St Kilda, and have been for many years.
I can detail the incident chapter and verse.
I hasten to add that it has nothing to do with St Kilda FC Limited or anyone who has been officially involved with St Kilda FC Limited either as an administrator, in the employ of St Kilda FC Limited or as a player.
It revolves around a high profile supporter and benefactor of St Kilda FC.
And it involves betting on AFL football and reneging on settlement.
karnaby wrote:None too happy about the mrp finding but I think this year in particular is NOT the time to seek a sh1t fight with the afl - the distraction is not necessary.
Unfortunately I think the best thing to do is for the club to advise Kingy to suck on the 4 weeks & then get on with the business of trying to win a flag.
(Also agree with others that this provides a good opportunity for McEvoy to get some experience. With the chance to play 5 games in a row he could just take the opportunity and establish himself so that it then became hard for King to get back in the team.)
Completely Agree.......would like to see Big Mac string a few good games together and get some confidence, there's a fair chance he will be needed at some stage during the finals and a few games now would be good.
Missing King is big but he has been our second ruckman this year. Four weeks will also help refresh him for a charge home into the finals.
Yup, it doesn't have to be a disaster.... if we were heading into the finals it would be different.
Baker - shafted
X Clarke - shafted
King - shafted.
we are used and abused regularly.
This is trial by media - need to fight this one it simply isnt good enough - Maxwell is the example.
Yes I agree one hundred percent, the tribunal is renowned for shafting St Kilda. Even well known saints supporter and media personality Mark Fine acknowledged this on air earlier this season. However, they got Maxwell a short time later didn't they?
Is it worth us holding our breath everytime a player is reported or appears before the tribunal? Have to look at the bigger picture.
benengel14 wrote: 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.
You don't think you are being a teensy bit conspiratorial and/or paranoid?
Fair dinkum, you knock a bloke out, you're walking a pretty fine line...
The 'AFL's out to get you' line is bordering on pretty childish, mate.
Usually like reading your stuff, but this is just petty drivel.
IMO take the appeal, lose the high contact (which has to be arguable on the vision), gets three weeks instead of four.
Last edited by Thinline on Mon 08 Jun 2009 6:40pm, edited 1 time in total.
I just had a look at the footage on Fox Sports. IMHO I think King did not need to make the contact, but he did and that is all there is to it. I think 4 weeks is a bit much and it will be a hard decision for the Club to make whether or not to fight it.
What cheeses me off though is the treatment some of our players get and it does not even make it to the Tribunal. What about the number of head high shots on Luke Ball?
I sent a e-mail to Clinton Grybas a couple of years ago about an incident where Matthew Lloyd, after the ball was out of bounds, slung a Saints player around and into the fence (can't remember who it was). I recall Lenny Hayes breaking his wrist in Brisbane in a similar manner. This was dangerous play and was unnecessary and Clinton put the question the Derek Humphrey Smith - I did not make it home in time to see the show so never found the answer out.
I just watched the incident on replay again (I recorded the game on IQ).
Unfortunately my tv is not widescreen and the Fox Camera only captured the incident at the left margin of my screen. When they replayed it through the telecast it showed the ball quite clearly about 15-20m away (not sure who it was that was claiming it was 40m behind play), and there appears to be no vision of either Kings elbow, shoulder or head coming into contact with Power's head.
So unless there is other video, I think the MRP nave 'guessed' that head contact was made (maybe relying on Joey's comments on tv yesterday?).
Given that the MRP don't appear in front of the Tribunal (they only send up the charge sheet), I would argue that at the very least there is no evidence of head contact - I would not call King to give evidence - only show the video and ask the Tribunal to show where head contact was made.
Given that they cannot prove any head contact, tehn the charge should be thrown out for lack of evidence - no head contact, no charge.
I'd rather risk two more games knowing that we stood up for our players, than watch the club turn around and bend over with a red rose between the cheeks.
Mr Magic wrote:I just watched the incident on replay again (I recorded the game on IQ).
Unfortunately my tv is not widescreen and the Fox Camera only captured the incident at the left margin of my screen. When they replayed it through the telecast it showed the ball quite clearly about 15-20m away (not sure who it was that was claiming it was 40m behind play), and there appears to be no vision of either Kings elbow, shoulder or head coming into contact with Power's head.
So unless there is other video, I think the MRP nave 'guessed' that head contact was made (maybe relying on Joey's comments on tv yesterday?).
Given that the MRP don't appear in front of the Tribunal (they only send up the charge sheet), I would argue that at the very least there is no evidence of head contact - I would not call King to give evidence - only show the video and ask the Tribunal to show where head contact was made.
Given that they cannot prove any head contact, tehn the charge should be thrown out for lack of evidence - no head contact, no charge.
He ran into him and he was knocked out before he hit the ground so he is responsible for what happened. Take the 4 and get on with it.
To the top wrote:There are issues for St Kilda, and have been for many years.
I can detail the incident chapter and verse.
I hasten to add that it has nothing to do with St Kilda FC Limited or anyone who has been officially involved with St Kilda FC Limited either as an administrator, in the employ of St Kilda FC Limited or as a player.
It revolves around a high profile supporter and benefactor of St Kilda FC.
And it involves betting on AFL football and reneging on settlement.
Spell it out then. Clear the air. Divulge your conspiracy and/or paranoid delusion whichever it is. We are all ears.
