On the definition of king-hits, I saw nothing in the recent legislation that said that you had to hit someone unawares and from behind to 'qualify' as some have suggested. But in any case, hitting a seriously drunk person from any direction could be seen as hitting him unawares.

It seems unpopular here, but I'm with Redleg on this. A push is OK, if that is what he did, but no more. Until you are really physically threatened rather than just extremely annoyed you should not hit anyone including a drunk nuisance. Walk away or threaten to call the fuzz and call them if that doesn't work.

Like all of us I don't know the details, but I'm surprised that 40 minutes went by with little action to defuse things as has been claimed. If it was me, I can imagine just putting up with being annoyed for that long. But I'm surprised when a high-profile person doesn't clear out long before other people might, knowing that they are likely to be a target for drunk idiots and the resulting media interest. Poor judgement if nothing else.

(Don't tell me that 'celebs' shouldn't have to act differently than the rest of us (while having the same legal rights) - sorry, that is one of the prices of fame.)

That legislation is not designed to be applied for this reason.

It is relevant to the situations that both Melbourne and Sydney endure when their young people go out and get some hero decides to play enforcer.

It's application to this situation is laughable, and detracts from the very real issue that has affected quite a few families all over the country.

Slight digression here.

When it comes to defending ones self, I heard a story from a mate who was in a position where he defended himself.

The attacker had time off work as a result of the scuffle and made an insurance claim on their policy which had some type of income protection.

The insurance company, as insurance companies do, looked to recover their losses and decided to sue my mate.

The point in this story isn't about who is right or wrong or even the level of injury sustained by the attacker (in this case the injuries were exaggerated for time off), it is more about your capacity to fight off a rampant well funded insurance company. Not many of us could financially withstand that.

Edit:spulling

My view on all of this is that the real issue is not Clarkson's reaction but more the fact that drunk people can be in public places harassing people and that is considered acceptable.

Individuals need to take more responsibility for their drunken behaviour. Licensed venues also need to be accountable for serving alchohol to people that are intoxicated and made to answer why they served alchohol to people who were clearly intoxicated.

Had Clarkson pushed the guy hard (e.g into a wall) or punched him then I'd say he has something to answer for but not in this case. Unfortunately Clarkson and his family will suffer from the stress of this while the idiots who provoked him will make some money.

Boo hoo poor Clarko, having drunk guys harassing him and filming him as he leaves a venue late at night.

Grow a uterus and harden up.

?

What an insane comment. What if you or someone you're with is being assaulted/sexually attacked/robbed on the street? Oh I guess there IS a situation where it is acceptable to hit someone. What this moron did put himself in a position where his victim was absolutely in his rights to stand up for himself. As many have said, it's a shame he didn't get knocked out cold because that what morons like him deserve. Why would anyone be going in to bat for this character, it is mind-boggling. Here's how to not get a hard shove from a former footballer - don't get in his face with intimidating, stupid behaviour and you'll be fine.

Your's is the insane comment curry. You took one sentence from several in a post and claim it as representative of what the poster meant. You go on to compare it with, amongst other things, sexual assault and violent robbery. You are full of hyperbole. The post was about retaliation and I believe the absolute statement on retaliation was in relation to the Clarkson incident.

For you to say "it's a shame he didn't get knocked out cold because that what morons like him deserve" is as dumb as it gets. If you knew someone who was knocked over while drunk and died from head impact, you would certainly not say that.

I don't condone what the drunk idiot did, it's unanomously agreed he is a jerk, but Clarko's reaction was disproportionate and shows he lost his temper. Both have made fools of themselves.

So by law do you have to tolerate drunk people invading your space and repeatedly yelling in your ear as you try to walk the street?

Not where I come from Redleg.

I wouldn't do it to others and i would not accept it for as long as Clarkson did.

I love people who argue their point, by quoting someone and then completely ignoring the quote.

This what you highlighted " Sorry, didn't realize invading his space meant he actually touched him."

Now, is your point that invading someone's space means actual contact?

To answer your new point, no you don't have to tolerate drunk people invading your space and repeatedly yelling in your ear as you try to walk the street. But you have to use reasonable force only, or preferably none, to end the situation.

It will be forgotten next week until Clarkson's next incident where the footage will be used in his highlight reel.

I would feel more empathy for Clarko if he did not have form for the very same thing. Remember he started a blue at an under 10 or 12s game by badgering an umpire who was quite young. Whilst they are trying to downplay the reaction it was a roundhouse punch. In thugby they call it a swinging arm tackle and we would probably call it a coathanger. Clarkson has a real anger problem. I cannot imagine any other coach reacting the same way to the Fwits (okay maybe the Scott Bros or Lyon who apparently gets annoyed by having his photo taken from a distance). I cannot see Roos, Buckley or any of the others belting somebody for being taunted. He should catch the train home from Collingwood games and see what its really like to be harassed.

As for the F'wits the cops should charge them with wasting their time and give them a kick up the backside, which their parents obviously did not do. (oooh the old codger in me just came out).

Your's is the insane comment curry. You took one sentence from several in a post and claim it as representative of what the poster meant. You go on to compare it with, amongst other things, sexual assault and violent robbery. You are full of hyperbole. The post was about retaliation and I believe the absolute statement on retaliation was in relation to the Clarkson incident.

For you to say "it's a shame he didn't get knocked out cold because that what morons like him deserve" is as dumb as it gets. If you knew someone who was knocked over while drunk and died from head impact, you would certainly not say that.

I don't condone what the drunk idiot did, it's unanomously agreed he is a jerk, but Clarko's reaction was disproportionate and shows he lost his temper. Both have made fools of themselves.

How have I misrepresented what the poster meant? He said there is 'never' an occasion where it is OK to hit someone which is obviously incorrect. 90% of the country agrees with me that the reaction was indeed proportionate and in fact light, if anything. Why are you fighting for the rights of drunken cretins to be getting in the face of innocent people on the street. If you don't behave like that, you won't have to worry about somebody breaking your jaw. It's very simple.

How have I misrepresented what the poster meant? He said there is 'never' an occasion where it is OK to hit someone which is obviously incorrect. 90% of the country agrees with me that the reaction was indeed proportionate and in fact light, if anything. Why are you fighting for the rights of drunken cretins to be getting in the face of innocent people on the street. If you don't behave like that, you won't have to worry about somebody breaking your jaw. It's very simple.

The first line of the initial post said "Aggressors should not be allowed to prevail. Nor should those who retaliate". That best sums up the post, but you chose to take another sentence out of the context of his total post. Had you perhaps considered that 'never' was referring to the context of the Clarko incident? No.

Could you give me a link to the 90% of the country agreeing with you? Was it the same source that told you the drunk's jaw was broken? More hyperbole.

And if you think I'm fighting for the rights of drunken cretins, you clearly didn't read my post which said I believed they both were made to look the fool.

"Aggressors should not be allowed to prevail. Nor should those who retaliate".

uummmmmmmmmmm that is EXACTLY the same as saying 'it is never OK to hit someone'

which is the point I am arguing

I'm stopping now though because I am having flashbacks of your insane, pointless, 'arguing for a reason that is unclear with a point that is equally unclear' pedantry and i'm just not up for it today thankyouverymuch

According to the law what Clarkson did does equal assault, but having said that it can also be that the drunkn moron did to.

If Clarkson & co can actually argue that he was in fear of being assaulted then a decent soli will be able to get them off. In my line of work I've seen someone glass another person and get off on self defence despite the fact they were never physically touched.

Fair end result from the AFL point of view is Clarkson has a suspended fine & makes a donation to the One Punch charity, think the name is Step Back Think.

The fan is banned from attending AFL matches for a year with an apology & completion of alcohol awarness course or life if he refuses the course + apology.

Anyone remember when Clarkson played for us?

A favorite among many a MFC supporter due to his aggression and snarly attitude on the ground. The proverbial "small, angry man".

What's changed?

uummmmmmmmmmm that is EXACTLY the same as saying 'it is never OK to hit someone'

which is the point I am arguing

I'm stopping now though because I am having flashbacks of your insane, pointless, 'arguing for a reason that is unclear with a point that is equally unclear' pedantry and i'm just not up for it today thankyouverymuch

FMD, now you're arguing in support of 'it's never ok to hit someone'?

And you think my posts are unclear!

I'm not supporting the drunken idiot or Clarko. They are both fools. Is that clear enough?

Angry little man!!! I always laugh at this dumb comment.....what has size got to do with being angry? Besides your dumb comments, I am with Clarkson on this. No one should have to put up with drunks who hassle people. The wankers should have the phones shoved up their collective backsides. Tossers!!

You're not short are you Soidee?

Small dogs are more aggressive than big dogs. Not much point discussing Napolean, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Tom Cruise(Joke)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3336044/Short-man-syndrome-is-not-just-a-tall-story.html

Why are senior football personnel walking around the streets around midnight without security?

You're not short are you Soidee?

Small dogs are more aggressive than big dogs. Not much point discussing Napolean, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Tom Cruise(Joke)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3336044/Short-man-syndrome-is-not-just-a-tall-story.html

Why are senior football personnel walking around the streets around midnight without security?

WTF? What sort of country would we be in if they can't.

WTF? What sort of country would we be in if they can't.

Adelaide!

Why are senior football personnel walking around the streets around midnight without security?

sounds like

"why are women walking around the streets after midnight without security" etc type argument

he's perfectly entitled to even if some think it inadvisable. doesn't give any drunk any rights to harass him

anyway, a complete storm in a tea-cup. no-one hurt, nothing to see here, too many sports journalists, not enough news

You're not short are you Soidee?

Small dogs are more aggressive than big dogs. Not much point discussing Napolean, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Tom Cruise(Joke)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3336044/Short-man-syndrome-is-not-just-a-tall-story.html

Why are senior football personnel walking around the streets around midnight without security?

Now dogs and Hitler are part of the debate!!! Wow!!

sounds like

"why are women walking around the streets after midnight without security" etc type argument

he's perfectly entitled to even if some think it inadvisable. doesn't give any drunk any rights to harass him

anyway, a complete storm in a tea-cup. no-one hurt, nothing to see here, too many sports journalists, not enough news

Unfortunately DC that is the way society is heading, we can ignore it and face the consequences or take steps to avoid bad outcomes. I do not blame the victims but recognise that care needs to be taken. Idiots are out there.

Edit: - If Damian Monkhorst was there he could have provided some breathing space for Clarko by placing his ample frame between Clarko and the drunks.

No. You do not understand.

This is a complete set up so that a few drunken thugs get their 15 minutes of fame.

This will be Back Page Herald Scum tomorrow

They love it.

Clarko is well within his rights of harassment to put the guy in his place.

Sorry I don't think you understand at all.

Let's replay your "facts":

He was set up.

They were drunk.

He knows it's going to be in the Press if he does something stupid.

.....he does something stupid.

Was Clarko drunk too?

Sorry I don't think you understand at all.

Let's replay your "facts":

He was set up.

They were drunk.

He knows it's going to be in the Press if he does something stupid.

.....he does something stupid.

I think Clarko would have been more concerned for his own self preservation whilst in the moment, than what the media consequences were going to be.

I understand alright. I copped a lot of crap at school...

Sorry I don't think you understand at all.

Let's replay your "facts":

He was set up.

They were drunk.

He knows it's going to be in the Press if he does something stupid.

... and this must have been blatantly obvious to the senior Hawthorn people who were with him,

but they chose not to intervene, so ...

.....he does something stupid.

You left out a couple of steps.

If that happened to a mate of yours & you were there, wouldn't you at least step in between them & separate them?

If you got decked doing it, THEN you've got a serious assault case.

Channel 7 should find out who he is (and it would have been him who gave them the footage which they've probably paid for, so they should know), splash his name & face all over the media, let his family & employers find out. This guy deserves having every shock-jock and narcisso-journalist in the country down his throat for the next 4 weeks or more.

Remember what happened to that 12yo girl who called Adam Goodes an ape? She probably copped too much in the end. But this guy deserves all that 10 times over.