Saints News steven king

[Plugger35]

Looks like another trial by media. Don't know how they can justify 6 weeks based on the replay I saw. Seems very similar to the Baker one, where footage was inconclusive and the suspension was based mainly on the media outcry and the injuries to the opposition player.

I'd like to see them fight it but I'm not sure it will achieve anything, other than getting the full 6 weeks rather than the discounted 4 weeks. Might be better just to cop it sweet. We should be OK, as long as Gardiner doesn't get injured or suspended in the meantime.

I do not agree with 4 weeks, that is very soft, 2 weeks would of been fine

But how can you argue its not high contact when the kid got knocked out, and (i was watching the game but) i don't think he was able to return to the field was he?

3 Weeks max, 2 weeks early plea would of been just

How can you be sure that the North player's injuries weren't from hitting his head on the ground when he fell, rather than from King's high contact?

The contact didn't look high impact to me anyway, the main problem was that the North player wasn't expecting it.

 

[StFly]

I do not agree with 4 weeks, that is very soft, 2 weeks would of been fine

But how can you argue its not high contact when the kid got knocked out, and (i was watching the game but) i don't think he was able to return to the field was he?

3 Weeks max, 2 weeks early plea would of been just

Contact is where the individual is hit, footage clearly shows that contact was made to the body, the body then arced (as you do when hit unexpectedly) and secondary contact was then (possibly) made with a head clash.

This is not high contact as contact was not made to the head. This is also not high impact because injury (impact) was made upon either the head clash (accidental & reckless) or contact to the ground.

I am sick and bloody tired of "oh but he got Ko'd, he got a broken jaw, he got this he got that" as an argument for someone to get more than another person because it's flawed. So what if he didn't return to the game afterwards? If all the bump did was take him off his feet and that was it how can you then say the initiator should be held responsible for him not bracing himself? Not protecting his fall? Not doing anything but dropping like a sack of potatoes?

Sure, he wasn't expecting it, "oh you gutless etc" but get your hand off it, intent over injury, and the intent was not to concuss the guy, he did not impede him after the bump was laid and you're villifying based on the possibility that everything was fine and dandy with it until "oh crap, ground!".

Damn you gravity for taking another victim and blaming man for it, you should get 47 weeks for that!

 

[alfy!]

Saints supporters can't keep bringing up the West incident though, it is from another year, and the AFL has been clear on a tightening of protecting players away from the ball. Most sensible AFL lovers can see the King incident didn't deserve 6/4 though.

 

[It Was A Good Day]

**** this. The afl has gone weak as piss

GOOD HIT KINGY. GOOD HIT

 

[Ketchup]

You can say what you want about being "ko'd" gravity when he hit gound, or it was the head clash, fact is he got "ko'd" and if king didn't hit him 20 meters of the ball when he wasn't expected there wouldn't of been a head clash or gravity, its kinda of like 02 when jason cloke got suspended for the grannie on the spoil, cloke didn't touch his head but he cause the impact, the crow player hit the groun got knocked out, and cloke got 2 weeks, fact is if cloke dind't hit him first to begin with he wouldn't of hit the ground.

You're right with majority of the things you say and i agree with you especcialy with his intent, he did not intend to knockout the kid, but fact is he did.

Just read through again So what if he didn't return to the game afterwards? If all the bump did was take him off his feet and that was it how can you then say the initiator should be held responsible for him not bracing himself? Not protecting his fall? Not doing anything but dropping like a sack of potatoes?
Thats half the point it was 20-30 meters of the ball not won't you be expecting contact from the side/behind, you shouldn't be getting it that far of the ball and thats what the AFL would of looked out first.

 

[tigers4spoon08]

**** this. The afl has gone weak as piss

GOOD HIT KINGY. GOOD HIT

you mean,

DOG HIT KINGY, DOG HIT.

Bloke was running that far away from the pill looking the other way, weak as piss. Now whoever if the mod of this board wants to give me a red card that is a joke.

If that was a St Kilda player going down you would be calling for blood. PErfectly ruled decision by the AFL, 4 weeks is very fair for that behind the play dog act.

That kind of play just is not on, like i said if it was 5 to 10 metres from the ball no problem at all, but 100 metres away smash to the head, give me a break Sainters.

 

[St DAC]

you mean,

DOG HIT KINGY, DOG HIT.

Bloke was running that far away from the pill looking the other way, weak as piss. Now whoever if the mod of this board wants to give me a red card that is a joke.

If that was a St Kilda player going down you would be calling for blood. PErfectly ruled decision by the AFL, 4 weeks is very fair for that behind the play dog act.

That kind of play just is not on, like i said if it was 5 to 10 metres from the ball no problem at all, but 100 metres away smash to the head, give me a break Sainters.

If he'd have whacked Power I'd have no problem with the penalty. But it was a bump; off the ball bumps happen in every game, many many times. IIRC Cameron Cloke sat Ben Cousins on his backside in R1 well and truly off the ball, and never was cited. Where is the consistency? West bumped X Clarke last year, he missed the rest of the game, no penalty. Consistency?

2 weeks? Perhaps. 6 reduced to 4? Completely over the top. Power could yet play this week, if so he will have missed half a game. 6 weeks is a bad joke.

 

[sainter]

give me a break Sainters.

You got it.

 

[sainter]

Show you got balls and fight it Saints.

While I think we've got every reason to challenge the decision you'd think the extra two week suspension that he will receive should he not be successful might unfortunately force us to accept the finding and move on.

 

[StFly]

You can say what you want about being "ko'd" gravity when he hit gound, or it was the head clash, fact is he got "ko'd" and if king didn't hit him 20 meters of the ball when he wasn't expected there wouldn't of been a head clash or gravity, its kinda of like 02 when jason cloke got suspended for the grannie on the spoil, cloke didn't touch his head but he cause the impact, the crow player hit the groun got knocked out, and cloke got 2 weeks, fact is if cloke dind't hit him first to begin with he wouldn't of hit the ground.

It doesn't work that way though. Every single hit legal or otherwise that ends with an injury could then be tied back to the person who initially made contact, so you cannot say without the bump this would happen since there is already precedent in blocking a players run off the ball (free +50 I think it is), saying that without the bump there is no contact to the ground is like saying without the tackle there is no broken arm, without the spoil there is no dislocation, without the marking contest there is no ACL. It was reported based on the injury sustained, the action itself, while it lead to ruin was not worth the judgement.

You're right with majority of the things you say and i agree with you especcialy with his intent, he did not intend to knockout the kid, but fact is he did.

Would we be thinking the same if Hall's clothesline of Roughie would have lead to Roughie choking or breaking his neck? Do we think of the Gia & Kosi incident any differently if we apply this years rules to it? The problem with rulings is that they need to stand up to scrutiny, and this punishment doesn't.

Just read through again So what if he didn't return to the game afterwards? If all the bump did was take him off his feet and that was it how can you then say the initiator should be held responsible for him not bracing himself? Not protecting his fall? Not doing anything but dropping like a sack of potatoes?
Thats half the point it was 20-30 meters of the ball not won't you be expecting contact from the side/behind, you shouldn't be getting it that far of the ball and thats what the AFL would of looked out first.

As I've posted in the thread in the MRP forum, if the intent was to free space to be the link up man for the switch 20-30m off the ball is very relevant because it is the next chain. While the opinion could be, and possibly rightly so, that King was still gutless to do it, it's not outside the realm of possibility. And I am sorry, but it's a footy field, if you're not expecting contact you're kidding yourself, especially when you're within a kick of contesting the footy. if it was 80m way, sure go hax, but lets not villify a bloke for it where this would be a non issue if Power could have braced himself or ot gotten knocked out when he did.

 

[TheStinger]

Sure Kingy hit him off the ball, way off the ball. But it was a legitimate shirt front, he stepped into it, didn't run at him and whack him and Powers head hit Kings as evidenced by the welt on Kings eye.

This is a 2 week suspension maximum. It was off the ball and hard. It was accidental high contact and the outcome should not come into it. This is the MRP trying to make up for the perceived leniency on Gardi. Pure and simple.

 

[dg102]

4 weeks, bit harsh. But we can cover him anyway.
I say bring in Stanley!

 

[AFaiL]

Fight the charge st kilda, dont bow down to he bastards at the AFaiL. My usernam says it all

 

[CHBench]

While I think we've got every reason to challenge the decision you'd think the extra two week suspension that he will receive should he not be successful might unfortunately force us to accept the finding and move on.

Others may think differently, but i'd be happy, (wait happy isn't the right word) i'd accept the 6weeks if i knew that the club did all it can to fight the decision.

 

[Bourky23]

I say bring in Stanley!

this.

Can't believe how horribly wrong the tribunal has got it wrong, but would love to see Rhys get a crack while he's out

 

[seanoff]

1st the AFL have stated the got the West v Clarke clash wrong.

2nd, it was a very cheap shot on a smaller man. 30 -40m off the ball, against a bloke who would not have been reasonably expecting contact in that situation.

so

intentional - not much argument there, went out of his way to smash a guy 30 - 40m off the ball.

high impact - can't argue that one either, heavily concussed and took power out of that game and possibly the next one

high contact - hard to contest that given the height difference.


got an extra week for carry over points - not much argument there either.


3rd- be very careful what you wish for here. St Kilda have a few players that could easily be taken out in this way. If you really are (and some of you are) saying this is OK then players that could be targeted this way include Ball (prone to concussion) and Kosi (not known for his awareness). and if you don't think teams will go out and get people in a final if this is OK you are living in a fairy story


take the 4 weeks, tell your ruckmen to pull their heads in and get on with it.


StFly, you need to read the rules.

http://aflpa.com.au/sites/all/files/AFL Tribunal Booklet 2009.pdf

read impact and contact on pg3. they are the rules for this yr, they may not have been the rules last yr.

also

When determining whether or not the conduct was
unreasonable, consideration should be given, but not
limited, to whether the player is not, or would not
reasonably be, expected to influence the contest. (this is the X Clarke rule. pg3 of the link in BOLD, see point 1 above)

there is no way that Power was in any way effecting the contest.

 

[saintsownthedome]

it was a very cheap shot on a smaller man. 30 -40m off the ball, against a bloke who would not have been reasonably expecting contact in that situation.

so

intentional - not much argument there, went out of his way to smash a guy 30 - 40m off the ball.

high impact - can't argue that one either, heavily concussed and took power out of that game and possibly the next one

high contact - hard to contest that given the height difference.


.

OK - now reconcile this with the Cameron Cloke hit on Ben Cousins off the ball in Week 1.

Use your theory to differentiate between 6 weeks vs no case to answer and explain the consistency in both decisions.

 

[seanoff]

OK - now reconcile this with the Cameron Cloke hit on Ben Cousins off the ball in Week 1.

Use your theory to differentiate between 6 weeks vs no case to answer and explain the consistency in both decisions.

2 wrongs don't make a right and its not a theory. they are the rules. they appear to have been correctly enforced in this case.

Maybe the Cousins one was wrong, i honestly can't remember the incident. but you can't argue that because one was wrong they have to get everything else wrong too.

but St Kilda will have a hard time getting anything less than the 4 weeks. pg 8 of the tribunal booklet, if they contest 2 factors and are only successful in 1 then they lose the guilty plea discount. If they get one down, it'll still be 4 weeks.

i find it strange that you are all defending king after the squealing about X last yr. the AFL got that one wrong, thus the change this yr. you got the change, but when one of your guys takes a cheap shot, it's suddenly tough, he should have expected it (from 30+m no less) etc.

grow up a bit. he did the wrong thing, he's getting whacked for it. don't want to get suspended, don't play tough by taking out people way off the play. If he'd done it as a shepherd in play or if power had the ball, fair enough. this incident, cheap and cowardly.

 

[Fehring]

Has anyone seen any cameras other than the one that's up high and side on, with the incident in the bottom left hand corner? I don't see how anyone could be rubbed out based on that vision. To me, it looks like they were moving in the same direction before King hit him. That may be an optical illusion, but that's what it looks like to me - in other words, not a shirtfront.

There must be another camera angle because you couldn't offer a bloke a sentence on that evidence while keeping a straight face.

 

[r_boy]

6 weeks would seem harsh but I think 4 is appropriate. It was a really dog hit I'm astounded at the reaction by some Saints supporters.

 

[cartwright]

he was always going to get weeks -- even though we've had 2 players hit off the ball & neither of them got anything.

Anyway - 6 weeks is an effing joke. Doubt we'll contest it though - the risk of the extra 2 weeks is too much.

the punishment far exceeds the act in this incident.

A dog hit? Bumping someone off the ball? Come on. No, a dog act is turning around & punching someone in the face when they're not expecting it. According to the AFL these 2 incidents warrant almost the same punishment.

 

[Armitage2Riewoldt]

Anyone see what Ryder got done for?

Surprised Kingy didnt get life after what Ryder got a week for haha.

 

[Squizz]

6 weeks would seem harsh but I think 4 is appropriate. It was a really dog hit I'm astounded at the reaction by some Saints supporters.

I'm astounded you think it was a dog hit - pretty dumb comment when if they hadn't of clashed heads Power would have been winded and no-one would have been commenting on the incident.

Last week the much bigger Jamar cleaned up Geary well off the ball, and there I was saying that it was to be expected i.e. he's a big unit who would would be expected to use his body for the team's advantage.

But if North supporters can't see that it was a 1-2 week job - and only because there was an unfortunate and unintended head clash - then this is not the place to post a comment.

I have lost count of the number of times there is contact off the ball - particularly cheap shots to the kidneys from behind - but it seems unless an injury is sustained it doesn't count?

I like Scott Thompson as a player, but his elbows never left Kosi's body. Seems the pirates (with their single eye) abound on BigFooty when incidents happen.

 

[krusden]

2 wrongs don't make a right and its not a theory. they are the rules. they appear to have been correctly enforced in this case.

Maybe the Cousins one was wrong, i honestly can't remember the incident. but you can't argue that because one was wrong they have to get everything else wrong too.

but St Kilda will have a hard time getting anything less than the 4 weeks. pg 8 of the tribunal booklet, if they contest 2 factors and are only successful in 1 then they lose the guilty plea discount. If they get one down, it'll still be 4 weeks.

i find it strange that you are all defending king after the squealing about X last yr. the AFL got that one wrong, thus the change this yr. you got the change, but when one of your guys takes a cheap shot, it's suddenly tough, he should have expected it (from 30+m no less) etc.

grow up a bit. he did the wrong thing, he's getting whacked for it. don't want to get suspended, don't play tough by taking out people way off the play. If he'd done it as a shepherd in play or if power had the ball, fair enough. this incident, cheap and cowardly.

list a team before making accusations seanoff.
not listing a team, coming here and slagging off our ruckman is cheap and cowardly.

 

[Plugger35]

6 weeks would seem harsh but I think 4 is appropriate. It was a really dog hit I'm astounded at the reaction by some Saints supporters.

You must have a strange idea of what a "dog hit" is. Have you actually watched the replay or just listened to all the hysterical garbage from hack journos like Mark Robinson.

There was no hit involved, it was nothing more than a tame hip & shoulder. Sure it was off the ball, but that sort of thing happens hundreds of times on a football field. If you call that a "dog hit" than players like Carey & Archer would have been guilty of dog hits almost every game of their careers.

The only thing that made this one worse was that the North player wasn't expecting it and suffered concussion as a result. Even then it was front on contact and the North player should have been aware of King and expected or avoided contact.

Like most Saints supporters, I agree that King probably deserved some penalty (ie. 1 or 2 weeks) but 4-6 weeks is ridiculously excessive given the actual evidence.