Matt King VS Paul Simpkins (1 Viewer)

[wuddie]

Melbourne Storm superstar centre Matt King has been fined $5000 for calling grand final referee Paul Simpkins a 'dickhead' on a fan's day. Obviously, King's reaction was a response to Simpkin's refereeing decisions in the grand final which saw Melb gone down to Bris.

I want to draw a comparison between Matt King's comment to Paul Simpkin and Andrew Johns' comment to the touch judge in a game against Manly Sea Eagles back in round 23 (when Johns said 'fucking cunt' to the touchy). The former copped a fine of $5000, for publicly swearing on a fan's day, and the tribunal isn't even going to look any further into the incident. However, the latter swored only to the touchy, in private, no one else needed to hear it (but the NRL HAD to reveal it, because it is Johns), and copped a grade 3 suspension.

Does it become excuseable for King because it was a grand final? Does it make it worse for Johns because he's the best player in the game?

Johns said it in a spur of the moment, on the field. King, on the other hand, said it days after the game, plenty of time to consider what he's saying, yet he comes out with such a comment. Doesn't common sense tell you that King, who swore in public, should get the heavier punishment?

Where is justice??

 

[wonga2046]

no such thing as justice in the nrl =D

 

[bazookajoe]

Seeing as it was a fan's day and he is technically not under the scrutiny of the NRL, the fact it was not in a game, the fact he managed to keep his mouth shut IN the game, the fact that dickhead is nowhere near as bad as "fucking cunt", AND the fact that the NRL would probably go out of there way to get Johns off easily makes your whole post stupid.

 

[blue_chameleon]

Melbourne Storm superstar centre Matt King has been fined $5000 for calling grand final referee Paul Simpkins a 'dickhead' on a fan's day. Obviously, King's reaction was a response to Simpkin's refereeing decisions in the grand final which saw Melb gone down to Bris.

I want to draw a comparison between Matt King's comment to Paul Simpkin and Andrew Johns' comment to the touch judge in a game against Manly Sea Eagles back in round 23 (when Johns said 'fucking cunt' to the touchy). The former copped a fine of $5000, for publicly swearing on a fan's day, and the tribunal isn't even going to look any further into the incident. However, the latter swored only to the touchy, in private, no one else needed to hear it (but the NRL HAD to reveal it, because it is Johns), and copped a grade 3 suspension.

Does it become excuseable for King because it was a grand final? Does it make it worse for Johns because he's the best player in the game?

Johns said it in a spur of the moment, on the field. King, on the other hand, said it days after the game, plenty of time to consider what he's saying, yet he comes out with such a comment. Doesn't common sense tell you that King, who swore in public, should get the heavier punishment?

Where is justice??

Matey, a couple of things:

Firstly, swored isnt a word, never has been. Its simply "swore".

Secondly, the Johns incident was never in private, as you say it was. It happened out on the field, in front of spectators, in front of the television audience.

Johns deserved everthing he got. Since when has a footballer or any sportsperson for that fact been able to swear in public at an official, regardless of the circumstances. Ref's make bad calls, thats the nature of rugby league, and many other games for that matter. Its a fast, high tempo game, and until the video referee is consulted more often in close calls, there will continue to be incorrect calls made.

Im a massive Melbourne supporter, but I dont think King was "excuseable" at all. Grand Final means nothing. Thats the nature of Matt King I guess, he's one of those guys that tends to speak his mind when emotions run high. But all in all, it was the wrong thing to do and he was disciplined and thats that, end of story.

In regards to King getting a heavier punishment, maybe you need to look at the actual language that was used. A pretty big difference in what is more abusive towards officials. Which would you be more offended by, being called a d***head, or being labelled a f***ing c***? I know what id be more leniant towards.

It may also be argued that Johns deserved a bigger penalty, because with him being such a role model and a player of such stature, it does not pose well for the game of rugby league for the language he used, and to whom he used it, to be seen as being condoned which is what would happen if Johns receieved any lighter punishment.

Im not sure why you've made a thread about this though, its not as though Johns mattered to the Knights anyway. He played and they still got 50 points put against them.

 

[wuddie]

re: chamelon

firstly, i admit the fact that johns swore on the field, but when he said it, NO ONE (besides the touchy) heard him swore, it was not until later when the NRL decided to let the word spread. true? if everyone swears gets a 3 match suspension, then no one will be playing by the end of the match.

it does not make a difference, in my opinion, whether you swear on the field or off it - you're still part of the game, and people will know about it. let alone the fact that matt king swore in front of the fans, publicly, where everyone heard him. whereas in johns' case, no one but the touchy heard him. you talk about being a role model and all to the juniors and all, what about King? he's in the australian squad, isn't he a role model then?

secondly, swearing is swearing, there's no degree of seriousness in the words chosen - not to the match officials anyway. if you swear, you swear. that's same as murder, if you murdered someone, then you'll be charged with manslaughter, it doesn't matter if you shot the person or stabbed him. so swearing is wrong, doesn't matter what words you've chosen. if johns got 2 weeks for it, so should king.

lastly, to your absolutely irrelevant comment about knights' flogging, did you consider the fact that buderus and simpson didnt play? or brisbane was absolutely on fire? or kurt gidley was playing fullback? or a reserve grader was playing five-eighth? so get your context right before you comment, ass clown.

 

[blue_chameleon]

...firstly, i admit the fact that johns swore on the field, but when he said it, NO ONE (besides the touchy) heard him swore, it was not until later when the NRL decided to let the word spread. true?

The NRL "decided" to let the word spread? I dont see how that makes sense. The NRL are competing for big bucks with the popularity of their code, up against rugby union and the A-League. This means that they need to be doing everything they can to highlight the games good points (and hide the bad). So dont think that the NRL were responsible for "leaking" what happened.

secondly, swearing is swearing, there's no degree of seriousness in the words chosen - not to the match officials anyway. if you swear, you swear. that's same as murder, if you murdered someone, then you'll be charged with manslaughter. it doesn't matter if you shot the person or stabbed him. so swearing is wrong, doesn't matter what words you've chosen. if johns got 2 weeks for it, so should king.

Actually, if you murder someone, you're charged with murder, not manslaughter, and you are required to face court. In regards to it not being an issue as to what words you use, you're wrong. Yes, a lot of footballers swear on the field, and yes, increasingly at the match officials. You dont think the match officials are aware of this increasing trend? They will have been called dickheads hundreds of times before, although is well known by all that some words are more acceptable than others. What Johns called the touch judge was no where near acceptable, and he paid the price.

The surroundings Matt King gave his remarks in was also not an acceptable, but I think you forget that he wasnt at an NRL function, he was represnting his club. So in that respect, his club is the ones that should penalise him, and they were the ones who came out and demanded King to issue an apology, and he did, before the whole issue got out of hand. He has paid the appropriate price for what he said.

On the note of timely apologies, if you remember, Johns was quite stubborn in not issuing an apology, with both him and the Knights management maintaining they were right in what he said, and standing by it. It wasnt until Johns faced a lengthy spell on the side lines did he change his stance and issue a formal apology, which if you read you would see that it hardly had any backbone to it as he issued the apology only days after he made public his opposing stance.

If he had of copped it on the chin, and accepted what he said was wrong, instead of thinking he was above the game and its officials, then he quite possibly could have had a largely reduced sentence. But critising the NRL in his column he runs in the Herald, as well as not accepting any wrongdoing or responsibility for his actions, brought the game into disrepute and no doubt angered the NRL, and so they should be.

Thats why you cant link the Matt King case to the Andrew Johns case, because of the way they were dealt with by the person involved. End of story.

...did you consider the fact that buderus and simpson didnt play? or brisbane was absolutely on fire? or kurt gidley was playing fullback? or a reserve grader was playing five-eighth? so get your context right before you comment, ass clown.

Yeah, so the Knights had a few big name players out of their team? There is a team in the NRL that finished on 44 competition points, that coming into this season didnt have a five eigth, didnt have forwards, had lack of experience, and nobody rated them. They ended up winning the minor premiership and taking a place in the Grand Final. So dont use the "awh, but we didnt have any players.." line to justify the Knights shocking performance. Decent players stand up when they are called to, so go figure.

As for calling me an ass clown, what are you like 14 or something? Really, it only shows your immaturity and doesnt strengthen your argument at all, which is essentially what this forum is for, presenting different views and their arguments, but whatever works for you kiddo.

 

[blue_chameleon]

...(but the NRL HAD to reveal it, because it is Johns)...

Im interested to know of a player that could say what Johns said without it being released. Can you name any?

 

[angelduck]

Just to point it out...i work at EnergyAus stadium...and trust me./...it WAS heard by spectators....little kids at the game, everyone was talking about it AT the game, so dont try and say it was only noticed when the NRL made a deal about it - the sidelines at newcastle are pretty close to the field, i was at the halfway line and i could hear it - he was YELLING

 

[sweet_as]

Wuddie, from memory, I think we have discussed the Johns saga before, and what was said in that thread by myself and others has been reaffirmed here.

As for the Matt King incident, I am not sure as to wether the penalty imposed is adequate or not. I remember that in 2004, the AFL fined Essendon's James Hird $20 000 for his comments on The Footy Show, where he singled out Scott McLaren's performance as 'disgraceful' from the previous round's match. No swearing was used at all, however it appeared the Hird restrained from further comment from the shocked expressions from Eddie McGuire and co. It called mass controversey, with McLaren issuing a statement about how upset he was about the whole situation. However, things were smoothed over and by the next round's matches, the two parties had already made up. Hird even became part of the Umpires Development Program to help recruit and retain young umpires!

However, credit to King who apologised for his actions, and the Melbourne Storm to for the same thing.

 

[davo_]

I don't see the problem... If a player has a bad game, he will cop it on the chin - an umpire/ref whatever is a protected species. And lets be honest - I'm on neutral ground - Simpkins didn't have the best match. A ref knows what he's getting himself into when he takes the job on - criticism is granted - I hardly think it matters whom the criticism comes from. And being an official is not for the week - I've seen touch judges close to tears in domestic matches. Let Matt King go - the word "dickhead" is a word that can be used in prime time on television these days. And to say King had plenty of time to consider what he was saying: he was drunk, and I'm sure the comments were mostly meant on a light-hearted level. Stop being such a nancy tightpants wuddie.

 

[wuddie]

re davo and sweet_as

the only point i was trying to make in this topic, is that the nrl body should be consistent in what they do. if they penalise johns 3 games for swearing, so should king, regardless of the circumstance or the words chosen. they've got to be consistent to make it convincing.

 

[sweet_as]

Mate, 'fucking cunt' is alot worse than 'Dickhead'! It is different, it may be considered obscene language all the same, but some people think 'crap ' or 'hell' is counted as swearing. Penalties are based on the severity of the words used, therefore there is no inconsistency!!

 

[wuddie]

what? so the nrl has a rule book with all the swearing words in it? whatever the players say, they will match it according to the book? they dont.

let's have a little experiment, go to your principal and call him any of those two things, let's see if you get off easier with calling him a 'dickhead'.

 

[sweet_as]

For fuck's sake:

you're a dickhead

OR

you're a fucking cunt

Which is worse? Not fucking hard.