OFFICIAL: King Offered 4 matches with early plea

[saint1974]

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.

So what has this got to do with King!!!!!!

[happy feet]

Log onto Fox Sports and go to AFL videos - look at the match report on Saints v. North.

[Mr Magic]

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.

You know you and I will never agree on umpires/MRP/Tribunal decisions.

How do you know he was knocked out?
You may think he was but how do you know it as a fact.
Not even the doctors can state as fact when he was actually knocked out.

That's the whole point.
The Tribunal is supposed to give decisions based on facts, not probabilities, suppositions or thoughts.
If they cannot prove that the contact was to the head, then I don't think there is even a reportable offence to defend?

[saint75]

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.

Are you referring to the Elwood proposal where we were set to have our home ground prior to Moorabbin that all went south?

[The_Dud]

u can't knock a bloke out behind play and expect to get away with it...

[benengel14]

Given that they cannot prove any head contact, tehn the charge should be thrown out for lack of evidence - no head contact, no charge.

It doesn't matter where King made contact to Sam Power, if Sam Power hit his head on the ground "as a result of King's actions" then it will still be "high Contact" (there's a quote from the tribunal booklet in the 3rd/4th post on the first page).

[Mr Magic]

Given that they cannot prove any head contact, tehn the charge should be thrown out for lack of evidence - no head contact, no charge.

It doesn't matter where King made contact to Sam Power, if he caused him to hit his head on the ground and this is where the impact was made and it will still be "high Contact" (there's a quote from the tribunal booklet in the 3rd/4th post on the first page).

Ok - I missed it, thanks

[plugger66]

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.

You know you and I will never agree on umpires/MRP/Tribunal decisions.

How do you know he was knocked out?
You may think he was but how do you know it as a fact.
Not even the doctors can state as fact when he was actually knocked out.

That's the whole point.
The Tribunal is supposed to give decisions based on facts, not probabilities, suppositions or thoughts.
If they cannot prove that the contact was to the head, then I don't think there is even a reportable offence to defend?

You obviously missed channel 9 yesterday. There is no doubt he was knocked out before he hit the ground.

[stinger]

take it to the tribunal i say.....

[Milton66]

Meh, unless we've got a good case, take the 4 and move on.

Yes, King is ok, but big Mac can do just as well. Perhaps he's not as good a tap ruckmen, but he cab get around the ground and take a few marks.

No big drama afaiac

[benengel14]

Ok - I missed it, thanks

No worries, I wish there was a way out for King. But I can't find it - I think the club would be clutching at straws to try and reduce the sanction.

[perfectionist]

... the charge should be thrown out for lack of evidence - no head contact, no charge.

Agree. It's obvious. That's why someone needs to be held responsible for the decision. The MVP could have said it was intentional or negligent, high impact and body contact (which the video shows), leading to 7 or 6 activation points and 4 or 3 weeks. But they have decided to go the guts, as the sportal story says, with the second most severe charge possible. Is this the second most severe offence that you have seen? Not bloody likely. It's bad luck for the player, but he will back next week. Kosi was out for the best part of the year and what about Luke Ball the following week? Took at least a year to fully recover.

[St Fidelius]

take it to the tribunal i say.....

If we take it to the tribunal and lose, 6 weeks out of the game would be huge

[benengel14]

Perhaps he's not as good a tap ruckmen, but he cab get around the ground and take a few marks.

No doubt he'll improve, and I hope he does quickly.
But I wouldn't say his marking last match was one of his better qualities. Particularly the effort near the goal square...I guess it means there's more potential for him.

If anything King is a decent mark around the ground especially where there's a bit of pressure applied.

I think we'll miss him, but best of luck to McEvoy.

[perfectionist]

...It doesn't matter where King made contact to Sam Power, if Sam Power hit his head on the ground "as a result of King's actions" then it will still be "high Contact" (there's a quote from the tribunal booklet in the 3rd/4th post on the first page).

That's only true in the context of an illegal contact. For instance, if a player is bumped side on while running to contest a loose ball and he falls over and hits his head on the ground, no offence has been committed, therefore the "head" rule does not apply - nor should it. If a player gets kneed in the head as a player is flying for mark and is knocked out, no offence has been committed.

Players bump each other off the ball all the time these days. Watch after a goal has been scored. It's stupid bravado and I hate it. Players get bumped as they are going to and coming from the bench. No free kick because apparently no illegal contact. What we are being asked to accept is that if a player falls over and hits his head on the ground as a result of a bump off the ball then that is illegal. That's wrong. The act is either within the laws or it is not. The extent of the damage to the player should be considered when a penalty is being determined and should not be the determinant of whether an offence has occurred. That's obvious, or it should be.

[Milton66]

Perhaps he's not as good a tap ruckmen, but he cab get around the ground and take a few marks.

No doubt he'll improve, and I hope he does quickly.
But I wouldn't say his marking last match was one of his better qualities. Particularly the effort near the goal square...I guess it means there's more potential for him.

If anything King is a decent mark around the ground especially where there's a bit of pressure applied.

I think we'll miss him, but best of luck to McEvoy.

Agree, but let's look at the facts: Who else do we have? Kosi and Blake. So it's Mac time.

[St Fidelius]

take it to the tribunal i say.....

If we take it to the tribunal and lose, 6 weeks out of the game would be huge

With the bye that would mean 7 weeks out of the game.

Far too long out of the game considering his age and hamstrings if we lose

[joffaboy]

Meh, unless we've got a good case, take the 4 and move on.

Yes, King is ok, but big Mac can do just as well. Perhaps he's not as good a tap ruckmen, but he cab get around the ground and take a few marks.

No big drama afaiac

I agree - after all its not Riewoldt. King is borderline on the 22 and it gives Big Mac a go for a few weeks.

Thinline - I dont know why you hysterically called me paranoid and that I reckon it is a conspirarcy. If you had have read any of my posts on the issue you would have known I said King was in strife.

The point is that SEN IS the mouthpiece of the AFL.

Nothing passes for opinion at SEN unless the AFL has vetted it. This is not paranoid - this is fact.

And not just about the Saints. THis is a fact that their "experts" have to toe the management line - and the management gets their orders from the AFL.

If you had followed the Thomas sacking you would know this. It is common knowledge that the AFL run SEN. I dont know why you would try to argue this.

Now try to follow this. The AFl want to crack down on head injuries (any club not just the Saints) they use their acolytes like Swartz and Robinson - who are both in the pay of the AFL oops I mena SEN to condition the public when it comes to palyers suffering head injuries.

Power was knocked out. But when? When his head hit the ground? Not once has this been asked. The thought has been put out there that King hit Power high and that knocked him out.

Now the MRP is free to issue its activation points and call the shot high without any scrutiny.

I wouldn't take it to the tribunal as the AFL has made up its mind on the penalty it wants King to have. If you challenge King will get six.

Take the four and move on. But dont think for one second that SEN is independant.

[saintjake]

THIS IS THE BIGGEST LOAD OF BULLDUST EVER!
HOW CAN HE GET 6 WEEKS, WHEN YOU ONLY SEE A LITTLE BIT OF THE INCIDENT!
ITS THE SAME AS BAKER, THEY WENT ON THE FREO RUNNER, AND JEFF FARMER, THE DARK LORD.
HALL DELIBERATLY KNOCKS OUT STAKER AND GETS A SLAP ON THE WRIST THE MRP IS CORRUPT
REMOVE IT AND THE BIG CHIEF.

[Devilhead]

Yes the decision is harsh and once again we have copped the shite end of the stick ... but

Agree with accepting it and moving on - going up against satan at this stage of the season will just get us publicity for the wrong reasons ie: whinging - if it were a game out from the finals then i would be contesting it

Anyway this a great chance to get a few high profile games into McEvoy (Carlton , Geelong)

King can rest up his body as we need to keep him relatively fresh for finals

[Eastern]

The point is that SEN IS the mouthpiece of the AFL.

Nothing passes for opinion at SEN unless the AFL has vetted it. This is not paranoid - this is fact.

And not just about the Saints. THis is a fact that their "experts" have to toe the management line - and the management gets their orders from the AFL.

It is common knowledge that the AFL run SEN.

Now try to follow this. The AFl want to crack down on head injuries (any club not just the Saints) they use their acolytes like Swartz and Robinson - who are both in the pay of the AFL oops I mena SEN to condition the public when it comes to palyers suffering head injuries.



Take the four and move on. But dont think for one second that SEN is independant.

Geezus. I think this is the 2nd time I have agreed with this poster. Taking it a step further, SEN should ALWAYS use a disclaimer when talking anything AFL;

THE AFL IS A MAJOR SHAREHOLDER IN SEN . Fairfax Media (3AW) has a smaller shareholding !!

[saint66au]

Yes the decision is harsh and once again we have copped the shite end of the stick ... but

Agree with accepting it and moving on - going up against satan at this stage of the season will just get us publicity for the wrong reasons ie: whinging - if it were a game out from the finals then i would be contesting it

Anyway this a great chance to get a few high profile games into McEvoy (Carlton , Geelong)

King can rest up his body as we need to keep him relatively fresh for finals

+1..well said

[redwhite&blackblood]

u can't knock a bloke out behind play and expect to get away with it...

Unless you are a Geelong Ruckman playing against St Kilda that is.

[Eastern]

u can't knock a bloke out behind play and expect to get away with it...

Unless you are a Geelong Ruckman playing against St Kilda that is.

or a Footscray bloke with an alphabet for a name !!

[True Blue Sainter]

u can't knock a bloke out behind play and expect to get away with it...

Unless you are a Geelong Ruckman playing against St Kilda that is.

West's hit on Clarke was worse than this.