One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on August 30, 2011, 12:24:40 AM
-
New video lands Jake King in trouble
Jon Ralph
From: Herald Sun
August 30, 2011
MYSTERY surrounded a likely suspension for Richmond forward Jake King after new vision emerged of a sling tackle on Adelaide's Andy Otten.
The AFL told the Herald Sun last night a decision would be released this morning, given the footage came to light after the match review panel released its findings.
But the Tigers were bracing for a possible two-week suspension for King, who has a 50 per cent loading after a host of recent suspensions.
The suspicion from Punt Rd last night was that the vision may have come from an Adelaide camp that felt King should have been cited for the tackle during Richmond's victory on Sunday.
Otten is likely to miss the Round 24 clash with concussion after a head knock late in the game.
The panel did not consider the incident in its initial review, but AFL spokesman Patrick Keane said the panel was still able to consider findings after yesterday's release of the list of suspensions.
"There was some vision that came through late, which they are assessing, but I haven't got a decision yet," Keane said.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/new-video-lands-jake-king-in-trouble/story-e6frf9jf-1226124912172
-
No loss for us if he doesnt play. Hasnt done anything for atleast 3 months.
-
Played ok on Sunday though.rather have him than Matt White
-
he was very good on sunday esp with his pressure and hardness
stuff they are really after him
-
what a bunch of sooks to dob him in though... Geez.
-
For a Richmond supporter Jon Ralph does write some garbage articles.
Why the witchunt now? What were the MRP doing?
-
For a Richmond supporter Jon Ralph does write some garbage articles.
Why the witchunt now? What were the MRP doing?
Watching Daisy Thomas smash Ibbotson and ponder how can we let him off lightly ;D
he was very good on sunday esp with his pressure and hardness
His first half was average but his 2nd half was excellent, certainly gave us a spark
-
Richmond forward Jake King has been offered a two-game suspension by the AFL Match Review Panel, stemming from Sunday’s win against Adelaide.
King will contest the charge at the AFL Tribunal tonight. The suspension would remain at two matches, even with an early guilty plea.
Full article at: http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/6301/newsid/122225/default.aspx
-
King will contest the charge at the AFL Tribunal tonight. The suspension would remain at two matches, even with an early guilty plea.
Why ??? :banghead
History says his chances of getting off are buckleys & none and as a club our contesting at the tribunal has been dreadful ;D
-
King will contest the charge at the AFL Tribunal tonight. The suspension would remain at two matches, even with an early guilty plea.
[/quote
Why ??? :banghe
History says his chances of getting off are buckleys & none and as a club our contesting at the tribunal has been dreadful ;D
Nothing to lose?
:thumbsup
-
Gee would like to know who stitched him up, what a mans man.
-
Adelaide denies role in King suspension
August 30, 2011 - 1:30PM
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/adelaide-denies-role-in-king-suspension-20110830-1jj8k.html#ixzz1WUnjuf3R
I reckon it would of been one of the haters in the media tipping them off who spotted it in a replay.
-
Adelaide are not only tattle tellers but also fibbers ::).
"Chairman David Jones giving the background of how this charge came about. Says AFL football operations department was contacted by a club (Adelaide) after the MRP report came out yesterday, asking for explanation about this incident. So there you go. But there was no formal complaint lodged, he says. "
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/122234/default.aspx
-
Tribunal counsel Gleeson reading out the medical report from Adelaide. Says Otten was seen to on-field by a trainer, but said he was OK and played on. He then presented with concussion early in the last quarter. He had a number of symptoms and was kept in hospital overnight for observation. But, the doctor's report says, it wasn't certain that the concussion was a result of the incident involving King.
King's advocate Michael Tovey QC is showing footage from the game of the minute or so after the incident. It shows Otten receiving and giving a handpass having run down the ground from where he was tackled by King.
-
It's not in dispute that the contact was high, but the Tigers are disputing that there was sufficient impact to constitute a report. Otten's ability to run up the ground and get involved in play immediately after the incident is their evidence of that.
Jake King won't be giving evidence.
So Richmond's defence has finished. Tribunal counsel Gleeson now speaking. Points out that Otten had disposed of the ball when King slung him to the ground. Says even if King was not aware of that, the tackle was still "inherently dangerous".
-
ive changed my mind now im so glad we beat those weak ... and got the 4 points.
they can get stuffed.... bunch of poofs
Edit: don't avoid the swear filter.
-
Gleeson says it wasn't excessive force in the extreme, but it was excessive in the circumstance that Otten's head was heading towards the ground.
Gleeson saying that on the balance of probabilities, Otten's concussion probably came about as a result of King's tackle. He does concede though that there is a possibility that something else happened between the tackle (four minutes left in the third quarter) and Otten coming off the ground and being assessed as concussed (four minutes left in the match). Otten can't shed any light on that, because he can't remember anything.
Michael Tovey QC now summing up for the Tigers. Says the AFL hasn't proved its case.
-
Tovey arguing that the tackle was executed in the exact way that players are taught to tackle. Says King couldn't take Otten forward without being penalised for in the back, couldn't take him back because he's much smaller, so his only option was to take him to the side.
Tovey concedes that Otten's head looks to have hit the ground during the tackle, but says it's impossible to tell the degree of force. Says the medical report is inconclusive about when the concussion occured. Points out that Otten told trainers he was OK straight after the incident, and was able to run up the field and get involved in play a short time later.
-
Tovey says it's up to the AFL to prove that Otten didn't hit his head at any other stage, otherwise the fact that he was assessed as concussed after the match shouldn't be taken into account at this hearing.
Therefore, says Tovey, you (the tribunal) couldn't be satisfied that the impact was of a reportable level. Throws in an extra point: there was no remonstration by any Adelaide player, as is usually seen for a reportable offence. Seemed to be seen by the opposition, he says, as part and parcel of a game of football.
-
Tovey has had it pointed out to him by Gleeson that the onus of proof isn't on the AFL. Tovey concedes that, but says there is still not enough evidence for King to be found guilty.
-
Presentations from both sides now finished. Chairman David Jones instructing the tribunal members as to what they need to consider when coming to a decision.
nb. the tribunal needs to be satisfied "on the balance of probabilities" that King engaged in rough conduct that was unreasonable in the circumstances, and that the impact was sufficient to constitute a reportable offence.
Decision takes usually around five or 10 minutes.
-
Jones to the tribunal on whether they can consider Otten's concussion as evidence that the level of contact was reportable: "You have to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the concussion occurred as a result of this incident." If they're not, they can't take it into account.
Tribunal now to deliberate, which means we leave. Back soon.
-
r u there mt? lol if u r
-
"on the balance of probabilities that "
That aint evidential fact
-
MT = Michael Toovey lol
-
r u there mt? lol if u r
MT = Michael Toovey lol
Yeah I'm txting to OER as I'm presenting Kingy's case :rollin
Nah there's live commentary here: http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/122234/default.aspx
-
Update: They're still outside waiting to be let back in to hear the verdict. Lots of discussion among the journos about which way this one is going to go. No-one really certain one way or the other.
Any Collingwood players got a tener for a bet ;D.
-
Garbage one way or another.
Just shows how derelict of their duty the MRP are.
Saving face by suspending a player who was cleared by the same group 24 hours earlier.
I just wonder if Dale Thomas was in the shoes of Jake King and committed that sling tackle whether he would be facing a two week suspension in the way Jake is.
-
Still no news. Taking a little longer than usual.
Ed. If the tribunal can't be certain and need longer to discuss it then surely that means a not guilty verdict?
-
Taking a looooong time with decision = reasonable doubt, perhaps
-
Remember the AFL Tribunal is not a court of law so if there is not enough evidence that means skata.
-
Hope he threatened to kill their families too
-
(http://ih1.redbubble.net/work.3764259.3.stuff.v3.jpg)
-
Standing by for a verdict now.
-
Guilty. :(
-
Bullskata. :-\
-
Jake's out for two weeks: this weekend and round one next season.
That's it. Tribunal hearing is finished so no further reason was given.
-
(http://ih1.redbubble.net/work.3764259.3.stuff.v3.jpg)
Gosh that takes me back.
:thumbsup
-
Jake's out for two weeks: this weekend and round one next season.
That's it. Tribunal hearing is finished so no further reason was given.
How many carry over points will he have?
-
What a 'pussy' game we play in this age!!!
-
How many carry over points will he have?
The incident was assessed by the match review panel as negligent, low impact and high contact, drawing 125 demerit points.
It would have been a one-week ban, but due to King's poor record it led to a two-match sanction, even with an early guilty plea.
King has an existing poor record of five matches suspended within the last three years, increasing the penalty by 50 per cent to 187.50 points. He has also 84.35 demerit points carried over from within the last 12 months, increasing the penalty to 271.85 points and a two-match sanction.
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/6301/newsid/122288/default.aspx
-
ABC news just showed the vision of the incident. Sheesh laughable that was worth two weeks when compared to Thomas leaping and shirtfronting an opponent in the head ::).
-
Disgusting. This is a stitch up. I have watched the replay over and over and its soft as baby stool.
-
Sadly not great surprise
Not saying it's right just saying he was never going to get off
Pathetic effort by the Adelaide Footy Club
-
what a bunch of backward, inbred, serial killer, stabbers they are.
-
That's what drinking bore water every day does to you. :help
-
That's what drinking bore water every day does to you. :help
LOL aint that the truth, I reckon I would want to neck someone drinking that septic run off too lol
Come to think of it, they could of blamed his symptoms of dizzyness and vomiting on that.
-
spose I have to say sorry to all the crow eaters who barrack for Richmond now, your excluded from my slurs of course.
-
Will next year be the third year in a row Kingy has been rubbed out for round 1? That must be some kind of record lol.
It should be interesting next year when we play Adelaide again. Not love lost after the Crows dobbed Kingy in.
-
What a weak prick.. these Adelaide guys put us in it, they are gonna get it back in spades from everyone now, no mercy.
-
Tiger fury at Crow dibber-dobbers after Jake King found guilty of rough conduct
Bruce Matthews
From: Herald Sun
August 31, 2011
RICHMOND'S Jake King is condemned to make a late start to another season following a failed challenge at the AFL Tribunal.
King must sit out Sunday's last game against North Melbourne and the first home-and-away round of the 2012 season.
The tough little Tiger couldn't convince the tribunal jury to overturn a two-match suspension for rough conduct in his sling tackle on Adelaide's Andy Otten late in the third quarter last Sunday.
The verdict will fuel bad blood between the clubs as King was only cited by the AFL match review panel after a Crows' inquiry to the league on Monday to ask why the incident hadn't been part of the normal post-round video scrutiny.
King, who didn't give evidence at the hearing, left without comment, accompanied by Tigers football manager Ross Monaghan.
The jury of ex-players, Richard Loveridge, Wayne Henwood and Wayne Schimmelbusch, deliberated for 22 minutes - nearly as long as the actual hearing - before finding King guilty of negligent conduct, low impact and high contact.
King, who missed the opening round through suspension this season, has now been outed for seven matches in the past three years.
With inconclusive video, the jury relied on two Adelaide football club medical reports, the second which said it couldn't be determined whether Otten's concussion was caused by King's tackle.
The first Crows' medical report on Monday said Otten left the field with four minutes left in the game and he couldn't remember anything from the second half.
Another report from a different medical officer, emailed to the AFL, said Otten told a trainer he was OK immediately after the incident in the third quarter.
It said Otten suffered dizziness, confusion and blurred vision after the game, but it couldn't be determined whether that came from the tackle.
Defence advocate Michael Tovey QC showed the jury a videotape of Otten giving off and receiving a handpass only 30 seconds after the incident.
AFL legal counsel Jeff Gleeson SC conceded that King executed a "reasonably fluid" one-movement tackle on Otten.
But he said the tackle was "inherently dangerous with the pivoting and pinning Otten and the swing to the ground".
Toovey told the jury that King's action was "executed the way players are taught to tackle".
He said it was impossible to determine at what degree of force Otten's head hit the ground. And that there was no evidence that the concussion happened in the incident.
Tribunal chairman David Jones, in his summing up to the jury, said: "You have to be satisfied the concussion resulted from this incident."
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/jake-king-found-guilty-on-sling-tackle/story-e6frf9jf-1226125825804
Tigers cry foul over King suspension
Martin Blake
August 31, 2011
RICHMOND was furious yesterday after a discussion between an Adelaide official and an AFL staffer led to small forward Jake King being suspended.
King was suspended for two matches by the AFL tribunal last night after he was charged by the match review panel with rough conduct in relation to a sling tackle on Adelaide's Andy Otten on Sunday. The feisty Tiger refused to comment as he left the hearing.
The charge was laid on Monday night, long after the match review panel had released its findings from the weekend's games. Later, it emerged that the charge was only laid after an Adelaide official discussed the incident with the AFL.
But the Crows denied any wrongdoing. ''I want to make it clear the Adelaide Football Club did not ask the AFL to investigate the incident, or supply any video of the alleged incident,'' said Crows football operations manager Phil Harper.
''The incident was mentioned in a discussion with an AFL official late [on Monday] … but it was certainly not our intention for any investigation to occur. In fact, we thought it was too late for that.''
Richmond was in no doubt what happened. ''The charge was not laid as part of the original match review panel findings, and was brought to the AFL's attention by the Adelaide Crows [on Monday night],'' the Tigers said on their website yesterday.
The tribunal deliberated for more than 20 minutes last night before finding King guilty, despite being shown only inconclusive footage of the incident.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/tigers-cry-foul-over-king-suspension-20110830-1jk5v.html#ixzz1WWyJarDq
-
Tribunal chairman David Jones, in his summing up to the jury, said: "You have to be satisfied the concussion resulted from this incident."
how could anyone, but someone with a pre conceived notion of the result be satisfied with that, in particular after the defence put forward.
David Jones, you are in charge of a kangaroo court and should be ashamed to be associated with, let alone in charge of, such a buggering debacle.
It's ironic that the league has measures in place to attempt to make the competition fair ( obviously ignoring the draw though) yet when it comes to the tribunal they are more than happy to deny natural justice.
-
This must be Adelaide's way of getting back at us for the Tambling trade.
-
lol i was thinking the same thing but, Tambling was playing for everyone to see they had every opportunity to make up their own minds.
-
Why the code of silence is dead
Jon Ralph
From: Herald Sun
August 31, 2011
RICHMOND was in a happy place on Monday night. The match review panel had come through and not only had Jake King got off, but so had a pair of key midfielders.
Dustin Martin's sling tackle on Adelaide's Bernie Vince was studied but given the all-clear by the panel, and Bachar Houli's bump on Graham Johncock wasn't even scrutinised.
Then Adelaide got involved.
The Crows version is that during a phone conversation between Phil Harper and AFL official Scott Taylor, the Adelaide football manager mentioned the King hit in passing.
Later that night the AFL called back and told them the MRP was re-opening its findings.
According to Adelaide, they were shocked by the league's response and tried to plead with the league not to review the case.
Officials from the Crows yesterday used words to explain their regret like "shattered'', and "mortified''.
By 9pm the Tigers had not only been notified about the case, they were told King would get two weeks.
The inference was clear - an Adelaide football department dirty about the lack of scrutiny on Richmond players had put it in.
As the Tigers would argue, why would Adelaide be talking to the match review panel or AFL officials if not to bring the case to light?
They could understand a cheap shot behind play being highlighted, but not a regulation tackle caught by half a dozen cameras.
Dobbing. Lagging. Whatever you want to call it, the old-fashioned player code is now dead.
Partly it has come about because of the professional age, and precedents where players including Campbell Brown have been fined for lying about tribunal cases.
But the introduction of medical reports which basically decide cases has also flared tension between clubs.
Melbourne was filthy that Adelaide reported concussion for Patrick Dangerfield from a Jack Trengove sling tackle only days before the Crows star kicked six goals against the Gold Coast.
Dangerfield was legitimately concussed but it shows how easily clubs can be at each other's throats.
As the AFL points, there is no double jeopardy in the King case because he hasn't been tried.
But the match review panel had been given the chance to look at the incident, which somehow fell between the cracks.
Exactly why is a fair question to ask.
But in a culture when tiny advantages have never been more important, there are no beg pardons any more between rival teams.
WHAT THEY SAID
Tigers president Gary March said Adelaide's conduct was far from ideal.
"If they did that, it's disappointing. It's not something I imagine we would ever do. If it came from Adelaide raising it, that's disappointing. I don't really think it's in the spirit of the 17 clubs,'' he told the aifHerald Sun.aif
"It's pretty disappointing from a person in football. I know it's not something I would condone.''
AFL spokesman Patrick Keane yesterday said there was no set time on AFL investigations on or off the field.
"Generally we are made aware of all the vision and there can be a couple of late cases on Tuesday or Wednesday but there are also investigations which can run two or three days,'' he said.
"If we are aware of it before the next match is played, we will act on it.''
Adelaide football operations manager Phil Harper yesterday said he had not deliberately alerted the AFL.
"I want to make it clear the Adelaide Football Club did not ask the AFL to investigate the incident or supply any video of the alleged incident,'' he said.
"The incident was mentioned in a discussion with an AFL official late yesterday after the release of the match review panel findings but it was certainly not our intention for any investigation to occur. In fact, we thought it was too late for that.''
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/why-the-code-of-silence-is-dead/story-fn6cisdj-1226126079529
-
Paul Chapman's sling tackle last night. I'm not saying he should be suspended but is there any difference to Kingy's tackle?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvSVJRZRB0Q
Before the Game also apparently showed a fan at the footy hold up a sign saying "suspend Jake King" or something like that (?).
-
Paul Chapman's sling tackle last night. I'm not saying he should be suspended but is there any difference to Kingy's tackle?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvSVJRZRB0Q
Before the Game also apparently showed a fan at the footy hold up a sign saying "suspend Jake King" or something like that (?).
Clutching at a straw there, Cyclops? Wellingham (?) bounced straight up, I think.
-
Paul Chapman's sling tackle last night. I'm not saying he should be suspended but is there any difference to Kingy's tackle?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvSVJRZRB0Q
Before the Game also apparently showed a fan at the footy hold up a sign saying "suspend Jake King" or something like that (?).
Clutching at a straw there, Cyclops? Wellingham (?) bounced straight up, I think.
Possibly I am clutching at a straw Muscles but Otten also bounced up as he was involved in the play shortly after King's tackle; the concussion wasn't noticed until later on. My point is both instances involved a firm sling tackle. Is the only difference that Wellingham's head luckily didn't appear to hit the turf hard? How does a tackler in a split instance control that?
-
Paul Chapman's sling tackle last night. I'm not saying he should be suspended but is there any difference to Kingy's tackle?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvSVJRZRB0Q
Before the Game also apparently showed a fan at the footy hold up a sign saying "suspend Jake King" or something like that (?).
Clutching at a straw there, Cyclops? Wellingham (?) bounced straight up, I think.
Possibly I am clutching at a straw Muscles but Otten also bounced up as he was involved in the play shortly after King's tackle; the concussion wasn't noticed until later on. My point is both instances involved a firm sling tackle. Is the only difference that Wellingham's head luckily didn't appear to hit the turf hard? How does a tackler in a split instance control that?
It's Russian Roulette for the tackler. The sling tackle isn't illegal, it's just if the outcome causes damage to the tackled player. Same as the bump in that respect. Bit like saying you can drive through red traffic lights and t-bone other cars, just so long as you don't put anyone in hospital.
The AFL doesn't have the cojones to ban the bump or the sling tackle, they just want to make them so dangerous for the bumper or the tackler that they naturally just fade away.
Fair enough that concussion damage is bad news in the longer term, but they also don't have the cojones to require a multiple-week rest if a player is diagnosed with concussion.
-
It is absolutely ridiculous and they have turned this game into a total farce. In the past, this would of been seen for what it was, part and parcel of the game, I can understand the concern whereby the players arms are pinned and he cannot protect his head, but they are turning this game into ponce ball and frankly, people don't want to watch it. Great tackles are not rewarded and instead players are suspended? They will be wearing stack hats next year and shoulder armor like stuffing grid iron players.
-
I saw Damir on the telly the other night talking about the Wallace case.
"what about the presumption of innocence until proven guilty" He asked.
What a low life, cat buggering, hypocritical turd he is.
No presumption of innocence at the tribunal is there? The king case is a disgrace and in a court of law would have been thrown out, but not in this kangaroo court.
20 odd years ago when Brereton got rubbed out from one piece of dodgy camera footage at a reserves game a number of legal people commented about how the the AFL tribunal system denies "natural Justice"
For all their effing with the rules and such, it seems that nothing has changed in regards to this.
Fat ignorant pigs with their snouts in the trough.