Steven Baker found guilty

[Waverley73]

and....how do you know it wasn't accidental?

How do we know what Judds intentions were when he put his fingers in the eyes of a player a few weeks back? My point is does it matter? No it doesn't. A decision has been made, he's been suspended on the back of what the player himself has said. I know you'll be whinging and whining on here all week about it but that wont change a thing.

 

[The Fireman]

We're ALL smart up here...we just dont like StKilda thats all

Wouldn't expect any different.

PS Not all

 

[Darkhour]

We're ALL smart up here...we just dont like StKilda thats all

don't lie Bollox.. I've read enough of your posts to know you like St Kilda...

 

[Bollox]

This is a brilliant case ...its a dream come true think about it.

Its like a 70's movie plot...SNIPER vs SNIPER

We get the best of everything...we get to see that dirty little prik Farmer belted balck and blue and Baker cops 7 weeks without a shred of evidence.

SENSATIONAL RESULT

 

[AFKAJR]

Well without harvey and baker i assume our midfield will run rampage.

Without kosi and hudghton the saint may struggle, but i refuse to rule them out yet.

what about your midfield? No Kerr, Cousins doubtful and Judd having his career ruined by leaving him on the frontline.

 

[wce4premiership]

Re: Baker deserves 12 weeks or should be let off- Blocking is suspendable ?

It was deserved.

12 weeks is harsh.

 

[The Fireman]

How do we know what Judds intentions were when he put his fingers in the eyes of a player a few weeks back? My point is does it matter? No it doesn't. A decision has been made, he's been suspended on the back of what the player himself has said. I know you'll be whinging and whining on here all week about it but that wont change a thing.

Therein lies the problem.

PS what a silly analogy, an eye gouge has obvious intentions, the intention of a block is to impede.

 

[Waverley73]

Therein lies the problem.

PS what a silly analogy, an eye gouge has obvious intentions, the intention of a block is to impede.

We all know what Judds intentions were - thats why I mentioned that. But it matters little because he was running (or hobbling) around the park the next week.

 

[The Casey Cat]

and....how do you know it wasn't accidental?

O pulease. You don't end up like Farmer did if it's an accident. You just don't. Quit being a fool and realise that. The severity of the penalty may have been harsh but then again Baker has himself to blame for that too. The correct decision was made.

 

[bourbons]

Doubt what you like, I have found you guilty of ignorance.

haha, how many weeks ya gonna give him?

 

[The Fireman]

O pulease. You don't end up like Farmer did if it's an accident. You just don't. Quit being a fool and realise that. The severity of the penalty may have been harsh but then again Baker has himself to blame for that too. The correct decision was made.

Really?, how do you know it wasn't an accident, did you see it? Fact is you don't know do you.
Before you call someone a fool , have a good look in the mirror mate.

 

[Chewy]

Ahhh and for some reason everyone is assuming the guilt of Baker...

What happens.. heaven forbid... if it WAS an accidental clash...

Everyone is jumping on the bandwagon to assume guilt but no third party is jumping in to defend him by presuming innocence until proven guilty which no-one can.

Your all bias with previous knowledge and that is why your all wrong and the tribunal is wrong... I've never said he didn't do anything wrong but you cant use biased views to form a presumption of guilt..

You missed my point. It does not matter about the minutiae of the evidence.
In our courts of law, rapists walk free due to the lack of evidence.

The AFL deals out it's own brand of justice.

I'm not sure if I'm one of those people you think are "jumping on the bandwagon", but in my opinion, Baker is one of those players who walks a fine line. He has probably committed 1000 dirty acts which were never highlighted. This time around, he wasn't so lucky. His actions caused more damage than he intended and so he must pay the price.

It's laughable that you would accuse me of bias when I couldn't give a rat's arse.
I only read these threads because I think it's funny to see the reaction of the biased fans (in this case, the biased Saints fans)

 

[AFKAJR]

No, I'm not struggling at all. The fact is we wont play your team again this year so it doesn't effect me at all. Your team probably only has 2 more games, possibly 3 to go for the season. Who is struggling mate?

He's been rubbed out so who do you think will replace him? We're back in the real world now - deal with it.

How can Geelong have 2 possibly 3 games left, there are still 2 rounds to go and even if they (almost typed we) went straight out of the final it will take two losses.

Thanks champ - wake up snoozer.

 

[JeffDunne]

How in god's name is blocking a "dirty act".

It really does make me laugh that people complain the game is soft then accept this sort of b/s ruling.

Earlier this morning I was discussing this case with NFL fans and they just about wet themselves laughing.

 

[The Fireman]

I only read these threads because I think it's funny to see the reaction of the biased fans (in this case, the biased Saints fans)

I agree, I had a chuckle when Freo fans were defending Jeff when he kneed that player in the head, perfect video evidence , they still defended him but this is bit different isn't it. We don't know what happened in this instance, there was a block , the rest is very vague. Biased? Every fan should be concerned that the tribunal can shelf a player with little or no evidence.

 

[Waverley73]

How can Geelong have 2 possibly 3 games left, there are still 2 rounds to go and even if they (almost typed we) went straight out of the final it will take two losses.

Thanks champ - wake up snoozer.

What?? I said 'your team' (i.e. St Kilda). Re-read my post mate.

 

[Kempie]

Earlier this morning I was discussing this case with NFL fans and they just about wet themselves laughing.

They'd been reading your posts here ?

 

[Bollox]

O pulease. You don't end up like Farmer did if it's an accident. You just don't. Quit being a fool and realise that. The severity of the penalty may have been harsh but then again Baker has himself to blame for that too. The correct decision was made.

I've broken my nose on the ground after a hard bump when off balance....and hitting your head on the ground is probably the most common way i;ve seen of getting knocked out too. As u know its like concrete to your head. Have seen a bloke fracture a cheekbone MAKING a tackle too...accidental shoulder that was HIS fault. Shyt happens.

Point being there's lots of ways....i can understand why many would see a problem coz it looks like there must have been an ASSUMPTION regarding Farmers injury in order to convict Baker. Its perfectly possible he got hit by a hard bump and simply hit his head on the ground...not uncommon yanno. Afterall the only people that have come forward that saw it said he hit hip/shoulder and arm....so its not like he simply belted the bloke off the ball...sounds like he;s smoked him with a bit bump but he could;ve easily kissed the turf and got knocked senseless from that.

Who knows...tribunal must have psychic insights they havent told us about.

Generally speaking tho if you;re holding a shotgun and there's a dead body at your feet the chances are you shot him.

 

[bourbons]

How do you know the injuries weren't accidental?

FACT. You are struggling mate.

The point is it doesn't matter even if they were accidental. Once Baker admitted to an illegal act (block) 50 meters off the ball, he becomes responsible for what happens to Farmer, even if most of Farmer's injuries are caused, say, by his head hitting the turf or another player on the way down.

I don't really agree with it myself but thats the way it has been adjudicated this year, you can't be that suprised with the suspension. Just coz its an accident doesn't mean you get off.

 

[The Fireman]

They'd been reading your posts here ?

Can NFL fans read?

 

[The Casey Cat]

Really?, how do you know it wasn't an accident, did you see it? Fact is you don't know do you.
Before you call someone a fool , have a good look in the mirror mate.

Or how about before you continue you're biased, ignorant and stupid defense of this known sniper you consider he was rubbed out for SEVEN weeks. I don't always agree with AFL tribunal either but as inconsistent as it is I can't believe they would take the action of rubbing someone out for SEVEN weeks for something that may have been 'accidental'. Most people seem to be able to realise this.

 

[The Fireman]

Or how about before you continue you're biased, ignorant and stupid defense of this known sniper you consider he was rubbed out for SEVEN weeks. I don't always agree with AFL tribunal either but as inconsistent as it is I can't believe they would take the action of rubbing someone out for SEVEN weeks for something that may have been 'accidental'. Most people seem to be able to realise this.

You called me a fool and you have undying faith in the tribunal. Good luck with that pal.

 

[Chewy]

Most of us have been hit hard off the ball and never saw it coming....when u arnt expecting a hit it can knock u senseless but if u ARE expecting it u usually just absorb it ok even if it hits u high.

This much i still cant accept and seems funny to me....

Lets say you want to sheppard for your ball carrier and line up a guy chasing him...and u leave the ground and catch him flush in the head with your bump at FULL PACE.

Doesnt that seem reckless too ? The AFL talk about a DUTY OF CARE to others yet the blame for the Gia hit on Kosi was placed sqaurely at Kosi for not being aware....but he got lined up with what was a MASSIVE head high hip and shoulder.

Why isnt it considered reckless when its within 5m of the ball ?....i.e. why is it deemed ok to hit a bloke thats watching the ball carrier with a huge hit to the scone simply coz its within 5m of the ball ?

I dont recall Gia being suspended for reckless head high contact with a hip and shoulder to the head. Called IN PLAY wasnt it ?...which means its ok ?

Its the inconsistency and silliness of this sort of stuff that pi$$es ppl off. A 5m rule around the ball shouldnt mean u can be belted unconcious legally ...you are still UNAWARE and its dangerous.

You are wrong to say that was a hip and shoulder to the head. Giansiracusa left the ground to deliver the hip and shoulder, but it was an accidental clash of heads that caused the damage. Giansiracusa was stunned himself after this bump and was "out" on the ground for a few seconds.

 

[Darkhour]

Of course your bias, you just said he's probably committed a 1000 dirty acts.. your already biased in presuming his guilt in this situation.. of course you give a rats...

what a load of crap.. when does an illegal block off the ball warrant him being responsible if it was an accident...

and of course we're biased.. no-one has said we were not going to be.. you can use my arguments for any other case with similar circumstances..

 

[MRobbo]

St Kilda have decided to waste the $5000 and appeal the decision, it will be heard tonight.

Before St Kilda supporters jump up and down for joy NO appeal has ever been successful.