One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: Tigermonk on June 20, 2011, 05:52:37 PM
-
Kingy just copped 1 week against Mcgrath :banghead
-
Jake King, Richmond, has been charged with a Level Two striking offence against Ash McGrath, Brisbane Lions, during the first quarter of the Round 13 match between Richmond and the Brisbane Lions, played at the Gabba on Saturday June 18, 2011.
In summary, due to a previous poor record, his one-match sanction must remain at one-match, even with an early plea.
Based on the video evidence available, an investigation by the MRP and a medical report from the Brisbane Lions, the incident was assessed as reckless conduct (two points), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Two offence, drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match sanction. He has an existing poor record of four matches suspended within the last three years, increasing the penalty by 40 per cent to 175 demerit points. He also has 9.35 demerit points carried over from within the last 12 months, increasing the penalty to 184.35 points and a one-match sanction. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 138.26 points and a one-match sanction.
---------------------
Contact between the Brisbane Lions’ Jack Redden and Richmond’s Shane Edwards from the third quarter of Saturday’s match was assessed. Contact was made to the upper arm and chest area, while the force was deemed below that required to constitute a reportable offence. No further action was taken.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/116696/default.aspx
-
Will the umpires be suspended for clearly making wrong decisions >:(
-
That sucks :banghead Will he still be eligible for AA selection ;) :outtahere
-
That sucks :banghead Will he still be eligible for AA ;) :outtahere
A bloke like Kingy would never make a AA side. Selectors are too biased
-
A bloke like Kingy would never make a AA side. Selectors are too biased
What rubbish ! Selectors aren't biased at all. He'd get in if he deserved it which at the moment he doesn't. If he has a great second half of the season then maybe
-
So buddy gets the same as Kingy, so if King ever did what buddy done he will acheive brereton status
-
What rubbish ! Selectors aren't biased at all. He'd get in if he deserved it which at the moment he doesn't. If he has a great second half of the season then maybe
Incredibly harsh - for the role he is playing = small defensive forward I'd argue he has been excellent.
Would the selectors chose such a player for the AA side? Not a chance; they always put in as many mid-fielders as they possibly can, they don't (haven't in the past) selected a player specifically for that type of role and somehow I dont' think they are going to start
-
Looks like the jumper punch got Kingy into trouble. Not sure what the MRP expects a player to do when he is being wrestled by an opponent. It takes two to tango.
-
Looks like the jumper punch got Kingy into trouble. Not sure what the MRP expects a player to do when he is being wrestled by an opponent. It takes two to tango.
Was a little bit more to it that jumper punching
-
When was the last time a player from another club got suspended for striking a richmond player?
-
We won't know until 11am but we might be challenging this one as apparently the video evidence isn't clear.
-
We won't know until 11am but we might be challenging this one as apparently the video evidence isn't clear.
That didn't help Selwood.
-
We won't know until 11am but we might be challenging this one as apparently the video evidence isn't clear.
That didn't help Selwood.
That's true but the low impact charge and lack of video evidence is why the Club is considering challenging.
Every other player has accepted their ban/fine going by 3aw twitter but no mention of Kingy!
-
The Club and Jakey have been given a 24 hour extension by the AFL. So we won't find out until 11am tomorrow whether we are challenging or not.
-
Incredibly harsh - for the role he is playing = small defensive forward I'd argue he has been excellent.
Think you misunderstood me , I agree he's been excellent. Just don't think he's done enough to be AA at this stage. Still 11 rounds to go though so if he keeps his form up then he's a slim chance for AA. Also unless a player has been really outstanding the selectors often won't give AA selection until a player has a few good seasons in a row.
And I agree , hard for a bloke playing his position to get selected for AA
-
The Club and Jakey have been given a 24 hour extension by the AFL. So we won't find out until 11am tomorrow whether we are challenging or not.
You would think we are going to fight it if we have asked for an extension. Organise a different tv angle and get some biomechanist and psychologist to argue Kingy was just testing what the collar of McGrath's jumper was made of and his fist accidently slipped upwards :whistle.
-
Ashley McGrath's head made contact with Jake King. Could we be more succint than that? On that eb=vidence he has to get off. :thumbsup
-
The only reason he's been given 1 week is because his name is Jake King. Anyone else and the MRP wouldn't even think twice about throwing it out.
-
Richmond is expected to challenge in-form forward Jake King's offer of a one-match ban for striking Brisbane's Ash McGrath. The Tigers asked for an extension on their response due to a family bereavement.
http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/sling-tackles-not-an-issue-for-pies-jolly-20110621-1gdji.html#ixzz1PwAokaj0
-
The only reason he's been given 1 week is because his name is Jake King. Anyone else and the MRP wouldn't even think twice about throwing it out.
You can just imagine the MRP...
'Ok, next up is Jake King'
'Give him a week'
'Did you want to see the footage?'
'What for, it's Jake King'
-
RICHMOND forward Jake King has decided to challenge his striking charge at the AFL tribunal.
King was charged with a level two striking offence for a jumper punch on Brisbane Lions player Ash McGrath during a behind-the-play scuffle in the first quarter of the Tigers' win at the Gabba on Saturday night.
The Richmond small forward faces a one week suspension if found guilty, which would rule him out of this weekend's clash with Melbourne.
The Tigers are not risking a longer suspension by taking the case to the tribunal.
The hearing will be held at 5pm AEST.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/116814/default.aspx
-
Tribunal hearing has just started. Michael Tovey QC is representing King and Andrew Tinney SC is acting on behalf of the prosecution. David Jones is chairman of the Tribunal with Richard Loveridge, Wayne Henwood and Wayne Schimmelbusch sitting members.
-
We're calling Ash McGrath as a witness via telephone. I wonder if the old-school player code at the tribunal still exists :whistle.
Edit: We're arguing that the vision is not clear. Trying to get the charge reduced to negligent conduct instead of reckless. Discussing legal definitions of reckless and negligent.
-
Tinney disputing Tovey's assertions on legal meaning of reckless.
About two minutes of footage shown. Incident is 1:09 in.
Vision not conclusive say Tigers.
Medical report from Lions indicates McGrath was treated for a laceration after tooth punctured through lip skin with two stitches required.
-
Well, it looks like he's stuffed then
-
McGrath & King interviewed by investigator over incident. Chairman to read out transcripts.
McGrath: Me and King were just bumping. Couple of jumper punches. One might have gone a bit high. Just punching each other back and forth. Doesn't recall which hand struck him. Let go when ball bounced. No history between pair. He's just one of those players who gets under your skin. Wanted to show him who was boss.
McGrath: Nothing else to it. Jumper punch that slipped.
King: I'm pretty sure they'd been told to be a bit difficult. I pushed him and then we grabbed on to each other. It was more of a power thing. I pushed him and then he tried to throw me down.
King: More of a power/stand over thing. They were being aggressive.
King: Wasn't trying to punch him. I've moved away from that sort of thing. I don't want to be known as a thug.
King: Blood was already on McGrath's chin when they started scuffling.
-
McGrath about to be called.
McGrath on the phone now.
McGrath has read the charge and seen the vision.
Tigers: Vickery and King pushed you to ground? McGrath: Yep.
-
McGrath first felt lip pain as the pair were walking backwards before he slung King. No precise recollection of exactly when it happened.
McGrath says it wasn't deliberate. Wasn't wearing mouthguard.
McGrath: wanted to show him who was boss. Became aware of bleeding after he got off the ground.
Edit: Counsel for Tribunal asking questions now.
-
McGrath: both pushing and pulling. Nothing more to add really. He's off the phone now.
OE: If Kingy gets off he can thank McGrath :thumbsup
-
Tinney summing up prosecution case. Damage happened before wrestling. King's hand coming into contact with McGrath's face caused it.
-
Prosecution summed up now.
Tigers summing up. No vision can determine guilt.
Tigers: Negligence should apply.
-
Tigers: McGrath didn't know which fist hit him. He was a backman trying to impose himself physically.
OE: Which is guilty .... the left fist or the right fist?! ;D
-
Chairman just summing up for Tribunal members.
Tribunal to deliberate now.
Edit: Still deliberating. The vision was to be shown in the Tribunal room again while they decide.
-
King back in the room now. Verdict imminent.
-
Tribunal satisfied with prosecution's argument. One-match ban stands :(.
184.35 points stands. Failed to plea argue down to negligent.
-
a holes
only cos its kingy
bastards
-
Oh well
Thems the break at least they didn't up the penalty
Time to focus on the deplorable Dees ;D
-
Hmmm all the evidence was in Kingy's favour yet it made no difference ???.
Having said that I'm not sure why we went down the path of trying to get the charge reduced from reckless to negligent rather than just trying to get Kingy off due to lack of clear evidence. The former says to the tribunal that Kingy did do something wrong whereas claiming complete innocence would've had a better chance of succeeding based on the evidence presented tonight.
-
only cos its kingy
Kingy should have changed his name by deed poll to 'Chris Judd' ::)
-
What a joke.
A pinnochio of MRP board members is all.
-
R soles >:(
-
only cos its kingy
Kingy should have changed his name by deed poll to 'Chris Judd' ::)
Now now MT we have to cop it on the chin. Everyone knows Matthew Pavlich's head made negligent and forceful contact with Juddy's fist and the Pavlich is a chronic bleeder. Please that is uncalled for. Geez this forum is degenarating due to the anti Juddy Collingwood and Carlton sentiments. ;D
-
only cos its kingy
Kingy should have changed his name by deed poll to 'Chris Judd' ::)
Now now MT we have to cop it on the chin. Everyone knows Matthew Pavlich's head made negligent and forceful contact with Juddy's fist and the Pavlich is a chronic bleeder. Please that is uncalled for. Geez this forum is degenarating due to the anti Juddy Collingwood and Carlton sentiments. ;D
;D
And what's wrong with the bold bit ;D.
Seriously what stinks is the one rule for some and another for others. Our players this year have been on the receiving end of worse contact from opposition players than what Kingy did (eg: McGuane being kicked in the groin, Edwards being hit behind play just this weekend, etc...) yet somehow these incidents are considered contact "below the force required to warrant a report" while it appears every Tiger ends up coping a reprimand or suspension. What are our players expected to do when Brisbane comes out fired up willing to throw their weight around? Just stand there and get rag-dolled ::). Based on the evidence and testimonies presented tonight at the tribunal I'd like to know how the charge was sustained.
-
King ban stands
By Jason Phelan
Wed 22 Jun, 2011
"I'm disappointed with the outcome," King said as he left the hearing at Etihad Stadium.
"I would have liked to have played this week. Hopefully the boys can get over the line without me.
"I'll be thinking of them."
Vision of the incident was shown during a hearing that lasted approximately an hour and 15 minutes and McGrath was called to give evidence over the telephone.
The Lions' utility could not recall the exact moment when he suffered the injury that saw him leave the field under the blood rule and receive two stitches, according to a club medical report introduced into evidence by Tribunal legal counsel Andrew Tinney SC.
King did not testify in his defence at the hearing, but told AFL investigator Graeme McDonald that he and McGrath had been wrestling each other in a show of strength before the opening bounce. McGrath said during his testimony that the pair had been wrestling and exchanging jumper punches in a bid to try and "show who was boss".
Richmond's legal team contended that vision of the incident was inconclusive, as was McGrath's testimony, but the tribunal consisting of Richard Loveridge, Wayne Henwood and Wayne Schimmelbusch delivered a guilty verdict after 15 minutes of deliberation.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/116877/default.aspx
-
I reckon we need a new legal team
We not very good at appealing these things
-
I reckon we need a new legal team
We not very good at appealing these things
We need OER to do the appeals ;D
-
I reckon we need a new legal team
We not very good at appealing these things
We need OER to do the appeals ;D
Yep, for starters
Flagman & Tucker to do the opening & closing arguments
MT on stats & media watch
Jack, Mr Tigra on repeating the same things eg Rance wont make it, Hislop is a dud etc
and Me doing nothing but taking the glory when it works and dis-owning any knowledge of it when it fails
-
That's right WP. We succeed together but fail alone.
Always the team player. ;D
-
I reckon we need a new legal team
We not very good at appealing these things
We need OER to do the appeals ;D
Yep, for starters
Flagman & Tucker to do the opening & closing arguments
MT on stats & media watch
Jack, Mr Tigra on repeating the same things eg Rance wont make it, Hislop is a dud etc
and Me doing nothing but taking the glory when it works and dis-owning any knowledge of it when it fails
That sounds about right ;D
And FNM telling David Jones she'll never shop at his stores ever again if a Tiger player is suspended ;D.
-
Banned King says he's not a thug
Bruce Matthews
From: Herald Sun
June 23, 2011
RICHMOND'S reinvented forward Jake King told an AFL investigator this week how he was trying to repair his image.
King said in an interview he did not want to be regarded in football circles as a "thug".
A transcript of King's answers to questions from AFL investigations officer Graeme McDonald was tabled at the AFL Tribunal when the Tiger failed with a challenge to a one-match suspension.
The jury rejected King's assertion that his strike to Brisbane Lions defender Ash McGrath was negligent rather than reckless conduct.
Had the downgrade been successful, the lesser demerit points tally would have let him escape with a reprimand.
King, the Tigers' fourth leading goalkicker this season behind Jack Riewoldt, Tyrone Vickery and Dustin Martin, will miss Saturday's game against Melbourne at the MCG.
The 27-year-old, who moved from defence this season, told McDonald on Monday he had not struck McGrath when the pair grappled before the opening bounce at the Gabba on Saturday night.
"It was more a power standover thing because they (Lions defenders) were being aggressive," King said.
Denying he threw a punch, King said: "I've moved away from that. I'm trying to play good football. I've stuffed up in the past. I don't want to be known as a thug."
McGrath told McDonald he suffered a cut lip from the pair grabbing each other's jumpers.
"He's just one of those players who gets under your skin," McGrath said.
"I just wanted to show him who was boss."
King's defence advocate, Michael Toovey, QC, was allowed to call McGrath to give evidence at the hearing.
McGrath said by phone from Brisbane he assumed from the video that a punch had caused his cut lip.
Asked by AFL counsel Andrew Tinney, SC, to identify the point of contact, McGrath said: "When you see me react, try to sling him to the ground."
A Lions medical report, requested by the AFL match review panel, said McGrath had a laceration, requiring two stitches, below the lower lip after a tooth pierced the skin.
McGrath told the hearing he had not been wearing a mouthguard.
King missed the opening game of the season while serving a one-game suspension for striking in Round 22 last year.
He must carry 84.35 demerit points for the next year and will have a 50 per cent points loading for any future offence.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/richmonds-jake-king-to-contest-striking-ban/story-e6frf9jf-1226079780416
-
That's right WP. We succeed together but fail alone.
Always the team player. ;D
Yep just think how many games I could have played for some AFL teams over the last 10-15 odd years with that approach