-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Steven Baker found guilty
- Thread starter Baroclinic instability
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Status
My god, a reasonable Fremantle supporter.
No wonder you are a moderator.
Can we frame you and freeze your DNA?
How can what Baker did be worse than what Ben Johnson did? Seriously.
7 weeks is the sort of penalty that is deserving of a king hit to the face, or shoving an umpire.
Not shepherding someone off the ball.
channel seven showed some vision of a "block" that baker performed on kerr back in round 12, i'll try my best to describe it....
baker was running in front of kerr and then he braced his arms against his waist and bent forward a tad like a speccy was being taken over him, then proceeded to smash backwards into the front of kerr, putting kerr on his backside on the ground. at no point was he simply standing there bracing, he moved with force back into kerr.
from what i've been hearing about the incident, it's pretty much the same as what he did to farmer except he didn't lean his head forward so the back of his head wacked farmer in the snoz or farmer was leaning forward a bit. either way, it was an illegal 'block' and wasn't really necessary to do as the ball was 50 metres away.
that said, the way the tribunals gone about this has been crap. more cameras would've made the process fairer. could ask hawthorn for a loan of their cameras....
to the supreme court robin!
baker was running in front of kerr and then he braced his arms against his waist and bent forward a tad like a speccy was being taken over him, then proceeded to smash backwards into the front of kerr, putting kerr on his backside on the ground. at no point was he simply standing there bracing, he moved with force back into kerr.
from what i've been hearing about the incident, it's pretty much the same as what he did to farmer except he didn't lean his head forward so the back of his head wacked farmer in the snoz or farmer was leaning forward a bit. either way, it was an illegal 'block' and wasn't really necessary to do as the ball was 50 metres away.
that said, the way the tribunals gone about this has been crap. more cameras would've made the process fairer. could ask hawthorn for a loan of their cameras....
to the supreme court robin!
lol,
1 > 0
That's right, zero, zip, nothing.
Not one award, no history, nothing.
And funniest of all - you chose to wear purple.
A St Kilda supporter talking about success. ROTFL.
One piddly Victorian State League flag in one hundred and eleven years of competition, and a proud collection of 26 wooden spoons.
Try to stick to the thread topic about Mr Baker getting what he deserved.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Banned
- #1,030
lol,
1 > 0
That's right, zero, zip, nothing.
Not one award, no history, nothing.
And funniest of all - you chose to wear purple.
Speak to me in - wait for it - 29 years time!!
God knows how long your rabble was in that state competition before '66.
But he really only got 4 weeks. His priors gave him the extra 3.
- Banned
- #1,032
channel seven showed some vision of a "block" that baker performed on kerr back in round 12, i'll try my best to describe it....
baker was running in front of kerr and then he braced his arms against his waist and bent forward a tad like a speccy was being taken over him, then proceeded to smash backwards into the front of kerr, putting kerr on his backside on the ground. at no point was he simply standing there bracing, he moved with force back into kerr.
from what i've been hearing about the incident, it's pretty much the same as what he did to farmer except he didn't lean his head forward so the back of his head wacked farmer in the snoz or farmer was leaning forward a bit. either way, it was an illegal 'block' and wasn't really necessary to do as the ball was 50 metres away.
that said, the way the tribunals gone about this has been crap. more cameras would've made the process fairer. could ask hawthorn for a loan of their cameras....
to the supreme court robin!
And he did it to Brent Harvey. And no doubt he did EXACTLY the same to Jeffrey. He's been practising.
Perhaps the 4 weeks plus bad record is a bit lenient.
If the AFL have a sense of humour they'll fixture the rabble v Freo in Rd 6 next year.
We'll welcome the sniper with open arms. Rest assured.
JeffDunne
TheBrownDog
Putting your hands into someone's back is also illegal in the game. If a player falls after being pushed and cracks his head are you seriously suggest he's been assulted?
I've read some reaches in this thread, but to suggest stopping in front of someone could result in an assult charge has to take the cake.
The activation points are based on subjective gradings. Players have been successful in having there gradings reduced and hence the severity of the punishment.
Can I ask a question, why in god's name do you think we have an appeal process?
WTF? I don't think you understand in the slightest the justice system and their responsibilities.
Bloody oath because we not only would we win but we would expose the farcical nature of the system Anderson has put in place. Pissing him off and embarressing him would be a pleasant by-product.
1,000+ posts on a sniper found guilty twice.
Thankyou St Kilda and supporters.
For a young club like Freo you're certainly an example to us of how not to run a club.
1966 and counting
Still waiting for all your "evidence" that Victorian clubs are favoured Chopsticks. Clearly you make claims that are wrong and cannot be backed up, hence you are unwilling to provide any evidence.
Let me help you before your mum makes you go to bed.
Coming to mind include:
- Baker getting 7 weeks (despite no one seeing the incident)
- Ben Johnson getting 6 weeks (for a very dangerous act, but a very harsh penalty)
- Greg Williams got 9 for grazing an umpire
- Todd Curley four games for pushing someone into the path of an umpire
Non-Vic clubs:
- Former boxer, Barry Hall smashes Matt Maguire in the stomach when the ball is 75 meters away - caught on camera. Zero weeks.
- Chris Judd eye gouges Campbell Brown. Clearly caught on camera and witnessed by several players. Zero weeks.
- Adam Goodes strikes Simon Godfrey. Caught on camera. Zero weeks.
Huge Victorian bias there clearly.
At some stage he should have been able to give a guilty plea and get 25% off. Maybe after the first hearing, instead of appealing he could of got the 25% off.
I know that. In a way Baker was unlucky it was Jeffery. The tribunal threw the book at him earlier in the season and as any Freo supporter knows He gets little protection from the officials (and Giesh and Co would have been made well aware of that).
It was really only a matter of time before He got cleaned up and IMO there is a lot of arse covering going on.
Bakers record is not as bad as it has been made out to be.
A few wrestlings and 2 weeks for "attempting to strike"
A St Kilda supporter talking about success. ROTFL.
One piddly Victorian State League flag in one hundred and eleven years of competition, and a proud collection of 26 wooden spoons.
Try to stick to the thread topic about Mr Baker getting what he deserved.
St.Kilda certainly has a terrible record.
We are comforted somewhat that Freo's record is even worse. One finals win ever is pitiful.
- Banned
- #1,038
Read the post again you dweeb.
JeffDunne
TheBrownDog
channel seven showed some vision of a "block" that baker performed on kerr back in round 12, i'll try my best to describe it....
baker was running in front of kerr and then he braced his arms against his waist and bent forward a tad like a speccy was being taken over him, then proceeded to smash backwards into the front of kerr, putting kerr on his backside on the ground. at no point was he simply standing there bracing, he moved with force back into kerr.
from what i've been hearing about the incident, it's pretty much the same as what he did to farmer except he didn't lean his head forward so the back of his head wacked farmer in the snoz or farmer was leaning forward a bit. either way, it was an illegal 'block' and wasn't really necessary to do as the ball was 50 metres away.
that said, the way the tribunals gone about this has been crap. more cameras would've made the process fairer. could ask hawthorn for a loan of their cameras....
to the supreme court robin!
I could find footage of Baker whacking Kane Johnson.
Does that mean he whacked Farmer?
Of course it doesn't so I see little relevance in what might have happened in another incident.
Or are you suggesting this penalty was a square up because the (W)AFL missed one?
- Banned
- #1,040
Hall smashes Maguire?
Geez, way to over dramatise things by these idiotic Aints supporters. lol Will they ever give up? Get over it. It will be interesting to see the next to the Aints play the Dockers in Perth. Your posts have provided no evidence - however, I am willing to stand corrected if you can just spend a few minutes listing all the times Victorian clubs have been so favoured, and non-Vic team have been hard done by.
Does that make sense to you or should I use smaller words?
Hall smashes Maguire?
If I were a Sydney supporter I would be keeping my mouth shut.
Trying to defend the AFL over the Hall incident would be tough for Robert Richter.
- Banned
- #1,043
No and no. For intellectual dwarfs like you in future I'll include one of these
You like pictures don't you?
did i say anything about the (W)AFL?
i was merely pointing out Baker's method of 'blocking' and it just happened to be kerr that was my example (supposedly he's done it to Brent Harvey as well). It is relevant because Baker admitted he was blocking (which is illegal anyways) Farmer and i was shedding light on what i believe happened.
and maybe you skipped over the part where i said the way the tribunals dealt with this has been crap?
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Putting your hands into someone's back is also illegal in the game. If a player falls after being pushed and cracks his head are you seriously suggest he's been assulted?
I've read some reaches in this thread, but to suggest stopping in front of someone could result in an assult charge has to take the cake.
The assault charge was a tongue in cheak reference to the likely hood of him being let off. In other words there is no way in hell he would be charged with assault but even less likely to be found not guilty.
How can a court find him not guilty if he admits his actions were unlawful under AFL rules and resulted in a broken nose and concussion?
They have been successful via the AFL appeals process. A court would need a higher standard of proof that the AFL were in fact wrong in their grading. They wouldn't want to meddle in the AFL affairs unless there was a gross injustice.
So the AFL can be sure they are right in their decision making in the unlikely event that a club decides to take this to court.
JeffDunne
TheBrownDog
- Banned
- #1,047
Are you still here?
Man, you have one hell of an obsession with St Kilda.
Man, you are delusional if you think that. This is an AFL board not a Aints board.
- Banned
- #1,048
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Will St Kilda take the case to the Supreme Court? If they do they will win the case easily imo, so will they risk it or just cop it?
No and no. For intellectual dwarfs like you in future I'll include one of these
You like pictures don't you?
Just to clarify:
1. Chopsticks makes strong claim (that "Victorian clubs are favored by the tribunal"). Provides no evidence at all to back up claim.
2. Schwabie asks Chopsticks for evidence to support claim.
3. Chopsticks fails to provide any evidence.
4. Schwabie provides evidence to contradict Chopsticks' claim.
5. Chopsticks once against makes erroneous claim, again without any evidence.
5. Schwabie once again asks Chopsticks for evidence to support initial claim.
6. Chopsticks again refuses to provide any evidence, but tries to shoot across a few low-quality insults to cover his stupidity.
When you turn 17, you could maybe apply for a job at the AFL, probably the only organization in the country who would accept you.
- Status