Remove this Banner Ad

Saints News steven king

  • Thread starter Thread starter dUkezz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

unbelievable, the afl once again picking a random time to make an example of an incident

trent west anyone?

flipping joke
 
it's ont he Huns superfooty site.

STEVEN King is looking at a month on the sidelines after being charged with rough conduct.

The St Kilda ruckman was involved in an off-the-ball incident on Saturday which left Kangaroo Sam Power unconscious.

The match review panel ruled the contact was intentional, high impact and high contact. If he takes it to the tribunal and loses, King faces a six-match ban, but an early plea reduces it to four weeks.

MORE TO COME
Click to expand...

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,25605032-19742,00.html
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Billy Brownless announced it on SEN.

It's probably harsh, but St Kilda supporters would have to be kidding to suggest that 0-1 week would have been just.
 
red+black said:
Billy Brownless announced it on SEN.

It's probably harsh, but St Kilda supporters would have to be kidding to suggest that 0-1 week would have been just.
Click to expand...

2-3 would have been appropriate, the only reason he's getting 4-6 is because Power got KO'd, no other reason other than injury.
 
barry hall got 6 for king hitting staker in the face, doesnt even compare to what steven king did

absolute disgrace
 
From the AFL tribunal page

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.
Click to expand...

Intentional, fine with that since it was intentional to lay the bump. High impact, contest this, the impact was sufficient enough to drop an individual who did not expect it, this could be anything from a little push to the force of a mack truck. High contact, contest this if the claims of an accidental head clash are true (Joey said Kingy was sporting a shiner / bruise where their heads clashed)

If it were me I'd contest it and get it down to 2-3 instead of 4-6.
 
High impact? High contact? Have they seen the footage?
 
An opposition supporter who is either ignorant or too stupid to understand what is/isn't acceptable when posting on another teams board.
 
tigers4spoon08 said:
Quoted a post that is now deleted
Click to expand...

I don't think that it will take too long until you get what you deserve...

4-6 weeks appears far over the top for me, especially given similar incidents recently which resulted in 0-2 weeks.

I guess the tribunal saw a player named Steven from St Kilda and immediately gave him six weeks - probably without even looking at the video evidence (they didn't need any for the Baker decision either...).
 

Remove this Banner Ad

How the media has changed there tune all i've heard all weekend on TV and radio is that King is a thug and he has duty of care and poor old Power not suspecting it............for f..ks sake spare me please, when Kozi got hit 30mtrs off the ball causing him to have a fractured skull and miss the next 12 months of football all these idiots said was it was Kozi's fault and he had no peripheral vision and should be expecting contact and bla bla bla. I'm a realist and King should be suspended but 4-6 come on AFL your having a laugh aren't you. 2-3 is reasonable.

The AFL definition of Reckless=

Definition of ‘reckless’ – [FONT=TGGUOU+HelveticaNeueLT-LightCon,Helvetica Neue LT][FONT=TGGUOU+HelveticaNeueLT-LightCon,Helvetica Neue LT]A player [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=SYWOAW+HelveticaNeueLT-BoldCond,Helvetica Neue LT][FONT=SYWOAW+HelveticaNeueLT-BoldCond,Helvetica Neue LT]recklessly [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=TGGUOU+HelveticaNeueLT-LightCon,Helvetica Neue LT][FONT=TGGUOU+HelveticaNeueLT-LightCon,Helvetica Neue LT]commits a reportable offence if he engages in conduct that he realises or that a reasonable player would realise may result in the reportable offence being committed but nevertheless proceeds with that conduct not caring whether or not that conduct will result in the commission of the reportable offence. The reckless commission of a reportable offence does not require any wish that the reportable offence be committed. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=TGGUOU+HelveticaNeueLT-LightCon,Helvetica Neue LT][FONT=TGGUOU+HelveticaNeueLT-LightCon,Helvetica Neue LT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=TGGUOU+HelveticaNeueLT-LightCon,Helvetica Neue LT][FONT=TGGUOU+HelveticaNeueLT-LightCon,Helvetica Neue LT] Surely we''ll argue that it was not high contact but body, it was high impact due to concussion and possibly reckless not intentional. If we've changed QC's since the Baker incident we have a chance. A level 4 not 5 at worst and should be a level 3. The AFL are kidding themselves if they rate this as the forth worst hit in the last 10 years behind Soloman,Hall & Bakes. 2-3 is a reasonable suspension Mr Demetriou get with the program.
[/FONT][/FONT]
 
tigers4spoon08 said:
Quoted a post that is now deleted
Click to expand...

Firstly, let me just hope that you enjoy the Red Card that is coming your way for coming onto another teams board and posting that.

Secondly, I find it very strange the the only difference between King's bump, and the bump that Cameron Cloke put on Ben Cousins behind play in Round One, is that Cousins was able to get up and play on.

Not sure what the difference was in the impact, because there seems to be no footage of the King bump, but both were clearly off the ball, and by bigger men on smaller players.

I find it hard to reconcile that one incident earns a 4-6 week suspension, while the other is deemed too slight for any case to be raised.

Thats the issue I guess, comparing apples with apples and getting orange juice.
 
absolute joke but at least big mac will get a run for the next month, should be interesting next week the two best rucks from the 07 draft we will see who made the better decesion
 
Would have been very interestin had Gardi got 2+ weeks.

Would we have gone with Kosi, Blake and Macca. Or brought in Stanley to do most of it with Macca?

Spose it doesnt matter, but Kingy hasnt been too great for us lately, so the rest will do him alright. 4 weeks is a joke though.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

goodie23 said:
High impact? High contact? Have they seen the footage?
Click to expand...
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
 
Look at this footage brothers.

[YOUTUBE]lbjiefgRt-g[/YOUTUBE]

Let's remember what occurred. X Clarke was taken off ON A STRETCHER and Trent West wasn't even cited. Absolute joke.

Also try this on for size. Let's say it was Jarryn Geary who made contact with Power instead of King. L2M4G says no way Geary gets more than a week.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

M
    • Like
    • Haha
Injury Max King's knee
27 28 29 30 31
Replies
774
Views
31K
OxSaint
OxSaint

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom