OFFICIAL: King Offered 4 matches with early plea

[thequarry]

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?

Could we have more information please?

[Longwayfromhome]

The whole idea of a five week suspension for something so questionable is so very AFL. Remember the Baker vs Freemantle moron case.
King was running goal to goal. Power was running wing to wing. Who met who. The bump on Kings cheek suggests incidental contact.
Go to the tribunal and beat the bastards around the head. This is not good enough.

[ace]

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?

When you are charged with any offence you are always in the hands of the integrity of the those who make the final decision.

In many third world countries the word lawyer simply means negotiator.
You get off the charge if the negotiations go your way and the money in the oppossite direction, otherwise you are convicted.

In Malaysia the highest appeal court found a case of sodomy took place in a particular hotel despite the fact that the hotel had not been built at the time of the offence.
The judges knew the powers that be wanted the defendant convicted.

The AFL tribunal is not even a court of law.
If the publicity around a case is low you can expect the rules of evidence to apply.
But with high publicity like in the Baker case the tribunal only needs to look at the injury to make the "acceptable" decision.

[3rd generation saint]

We should definetly appeal, there was no elbow, no untoward contact other than it was 25 metres from the ball.
If the poor little North boy hadn't been knocked out, there would be absolutely no penalty and that is the only thing that is getting King 4 weeks.
If we have medical evidence as in King's cheek to show contact was incidental and not deliberate, than the case collapses.

[ace]

We should definetly appeal, there was no elbow, no untoward contact other than it was 25 metres from the ball.
If the poor little North boy hadn't been knocked out, there would be absolutely no penalty and that is the only thing that is getting King 4 weeks.
If we have medical evidence as in King's cheek to show contact was incidental and not deliberate, than the case collapses.

The poor little North boy WAS knocked out.
Mum's don't like their little boys playing sports where their little boys get knocked out.
The AFL must show that it finds little boys being knocked out to be unacceptable.
Hence King must receive an "acceptable" judgement and punishment.

[Ghost Like]

WTF...6 weeks (4 weeks)

Is Power on life support now?

Appeal it!... 4 weeks / 6 weeks, no real difference...more time into Big Mac (bonus). King is a hard worker, he won't lose his condition (see his '07 season) then he has a week or two at Sandy, then back in for the final month of H&A to get used to our structure and team play again. Certainly not the end of the world whether it is 4 or 6 weeks.

Appeal by all means but keep the courts out of it. One kangaroo court's enough.

My memory of it (have not seen the replay) was that we had the ball and kicked back and across. King to my way of thinking was actually running back to where the ball was going or certainly running to a position to give an option for the next transfer of play. Am I wrong in trying to stretch that or offer that as a partial defence?

[markp]

The AFL tribunal is not even a court of law.

Everyone should remember that... it's just an instrument of the AFL.

Barry Hall's Premiership medallion should be proof enough.

[Legendary]

This is the only post that makes sense:

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).

Basically, the best we could hope for on appeal would be 3 weeks ... and personally I believe it is a remote possibility.

There is no system of precedent in the AFL.

It does not matter how close the incident was to the ball.

Principles of equity do not apply.



4 weeks is the best King is going to do IMHO, so we would be wise to take it and move on ... despite the apparent "injustice".

[saintspremiers]

WTF...6 weeks (4 weeks)

Is Power on life support now?

Appeal it!... 4 weeks / 6 weeks, no real difference...more time into Big Mac (bonus). King is a hard worker, he won't lose his condition (see his '07 season) then he has a week or two at Sandy, then back in for the final month of H&A to get used to our structure and team play again. Certainly not the end of the world whether it is 4 or 6 weeks.

Appeal by all means but keep the courts out of it. One kangaroo court's enough.

My memory of it (have not seen the replay) was that we had the ball and kicked back and across. King to my way of thinking was actually running back to where the ball was going or certainly running to a position to give an option for the next transfer of play. Am I wrong in trying to stretch that or offer that as a partial defence?

ummm......just a question, you say "appeal it", but you need to take it to the tribunal first, and then you appeal only IF the tribunal outcome is not to your liking.

Sorry to get the process right, but it's important to understand that.

So we are screwed....it is high contact as Power copped it in the head - be from the ground or King's head - is irrelevant in AFL land......it's a bit like manslaughter charges - you don't have to have the intent to kill someone, but if they get a heart attack and die as a result of your actions at a later stage, you'll cop the manslaughter charge!

Cop the 4, and perhaps if Big Mac will perform better now knowing he has a clear run of 4 consecutive matches to show his worth and can relax a bit and play his natural game.

Who knows, in a month's time, we may be hailing Big Mac as better than King? (a longshot, but so was winning 11 straight 3 months ago!).

[Grimfang]

What irritates me most is that the rules as they currently stand have come about due to incidents where our players have been the victim and the act was deemed to be within the rules of the game at the time. (Gia on Kosi and West on Clarke, to be precise.) Yet we seem to cop it the worst as a result of these changes. (Baker/Farmer and now King/Power.)

Really beginning to wonder who I should be angriest with.

[sunsaint]

we need to ask one question.
What would Collingwood or Hawthorn do?

[Milton66]

we need to ask one question.
What would Collingwood or Hawthorn do?

1- wouldn't happen because Josh is a squibb.

[Enrico_Misso]

Do we know the names of the "Experts" on the MRP that made such a definitive and precise judgement on this issue based on that scrathy wide-angle Zapruder footage ?

Any ex-Carlton players ?

[maverick]

Look it really is a tossup, 6 is a problem, 4 is a pain in the butt....the Bulldogs game needs King.

I reckon the one chance we have is the intentional part of the charge. He certainly didn't intend the head clash, and wouldn't have intended knocking Power out.

This is our best chance of downgrade for mine, surely its reckless at worst?

[SaintDippa]

Unless there is another angle the contact looked almost side on - shoulder to shoulder. Good solid and fair bump and in play.

We should stand up - for once - and appeal.

[Enrico_Misso]

We also need to make sure we don't employ the S. Baker defence team.

[Ghost Like]

ummm......just a question, you say "appeal it", but you need to take it to the tribunal first, and then you appeal only IF the tribunal outcome is not to your liking.

Sorry to get the process right, but it's important to understand that.

You're right saintspremiers, I meant take it to the tribunal (Kangaroo Court). No need to be sorry for getting the process right.

3, 4, 6 weeks...doesn't matter, make a stand.

[Legendary]

We also need to make sure we don't employ the S. Baker defence team.

Ironically we employed a guy in that case who is one of the more esteemed criminal barristers in Victoria ...



But there's no point challenging it. The BEST case scenario is that it gets reduced to 3 weeks (as has been outlined above).

To get a 1 week reduction, at the very high risk of King getting 6 weeks by taking it to the tribunal ... IMO if we are going to "play the percentages" then there is no point challenging.

We have to be pragmatic about this.

[kosifantutti23]

I reckon the one chance we have is the intentional part of the charge. He certainly didn't intend the head clash, and wouldn't have intended knocking Power out.

This is our best chance of downgrade for mine, surely its reckless at worst?

Exactly.

It was an intentional bump but you can't couple intentional with high contact and high impact because you can not prove that King wanted to cause a concussion. More likely he wanted to put one of their scragging taggers on his ass.

It has to be negligent or reckless. I don't know the difference between these and I suspect the MRP struggles with it as well.

[Mr Magic]

We also need to make sure we don't employ the S. Baker defence team.

Ironically we employed a guy in that case who is one of the more esteemed criminal barristers in Victoria ...



But there's no point challenging it. The BEST case scenario is that it gets reduced to 3 weeks (as has been outlined above).

To get a 1 week reduction, at the very high risk of King getting 6 weeks by taking it to the tribunal ... IMO if we are going to "play the percentages" then there is no point challenging.

We have to be pragmatic about this.

I'm sure they'll be pragmatic about it.
They'll have their legal people looking at the case and give an opinion as to whether they (the legals) believe their is any benefit in fighting it.

My understanding is that there is a difference between how the MRP sees things, how the Tribunal sees the same issue, and how the Appeals tribunal sees things.
Each step up the 'ladder' becomes more legally technical.

After teh Maxwell case (pre season) was overturned on appeal, the AFL changed the rules re incidental/accidental head contact in a knee-jerk reaction. I don't believe that anybody has actually challenged those ammendments yet?

BenEngel14 has been correct in his quoting of the AFL rules and if they are upheld, then his view on this would appear to be also correct.

But what if the rules (ammended) are not upheld and found to be 'unconstitutional'?
My guess is that the Club are also investigating that point with their legal representatives.

[Enrico_Misso]

Was this the same MRP that let Hall off ?

[bigcarl]

Who else do we have? Kosi and Blake. So it's Mac time.

ross has mentioned the possibility of goose as a mobile second ruck.

though i'd be surprised to see it, stranger things have happened.

though conceding height at the bounces, he's a very strong player with nearly 100 senior games to his credit who no doubt would contribute plenty around the ground.

the king suspension is not good news, but crisis creates opportunity.

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.

[Moccha]

I was looking forward seeing King play against Geelong

Mark Blake is crap and King would have killed him

I thought his name was Mark Flake

[plugger66]

Unless there is another angle the contact looked almost side on - shoulder to shoulder. Good solid and fair bump and in play.

We should stand up - for once - and appeal.

The bump may or may not have been fair but that has nothing to do with it. If you choose to bump you suffer the consequenses. The guy was knocked out and King has a prior. That are the 2 problems. No point in appealing as he may get one week off or 2 added. Would you punt on those choices.

[kosifantutti23]

So we are screwed....it is high contact as Power copped it in the head - be from the ground or King's head - is irrelevant in AFL land......it's a bit like manslaughter charges - you don't have to have the intent to kill someone, but if they get a heart attack and die as a result of your actions at a later stage, you'll cop the manslaughter charge!

Yes but in the real world manslaughter carries a lesser charge than murder. King has been found guilty of intentional high contact with high impact (first degree murder). It is either intentional body contact with low impact (assault) or it is reckless / negligent high contact with high impact (manslaughter).

You don't have to be a legal genius to see that this would not stand up to a challenge.