Baker Appeal

[Qsaint]

http://www.saints.com.au/Season2007/News/NewsArticle/tabid/5315/Default.aspx?newsId=49511

The club was making a decision of what to do 15 minutes ago, any one heard?

 

[PHX]

According SEN they are indeed appealing.

 

[Qsaint]

According SEN they are indeed appealing.

Good I thought they were going to do another Sirengate and cop it on the Chin

 

[West Coast 06]

How can they appeal it when the tribunal came to their verdict from what Baker told them? Are they appealing their own evidence?

He would have only got two weeks if it wasn't for his poor record and carry over points, fair enough.

 

[Qsaint]

How can they appeal it when the tribunal came to their verdict from what Baker told them? Are they appealing their own evidence?

He would have only got two weeks if it wasn't for his poor record and carry over points, fair enough.

Judicial Fairness is one of a number of grounds. Both Freemantle witnesses were affectively found to be lying and the tribunal therefore should have let Baker off, but instead they fiddled and adjusted the charge mid tribunal hearing. If this was a court, the charges would have been thrown out.

They are not challenging the severity of the sentence and I would think this could end up in the courts Friday Morning

 

[bubblegoose]

Good I thought they were going to do another Sirengate and cop it on the Chin

Good. I was furious that we didn't fight that. I hated that the AFL changed their own rules to soothe the squeaky wheel. Anyone have any thoughts on what would have happened if the circumstances were reversed?

The club have to stop being the easy pushovers of the competition! The club has to stop accepting to be the AFL scapegoats! We can accept no more of the AFL's crap! At every challenge put up a massive fight, don't shy away from the battle!

Sure it couldn't come at a worse time of the year. But this might be bigger than that.

If the club doesn't stand up to fiercely take on this sort of "changing of the rules / make an example of / inconsistencies / start a brand new precedent against the Saints because they really won't make more than a squeak about this" attitude, this will filter down to the actual players in the team.

The club may even earn a little respect back amongst the supporters too.

Be strong on and off the field, no exceptions!!!

I'm furious! * the AFL!

 

[Dusky]

Hope they appeal, absolute disgrace if he's made to cop the 7 weeks.

 

[Jesbo]

how about the Selwood-Headland case where the tribunal didnt know who to belive was telling the truth and ended up agreeing with both cases? Now i guess every1 is guilty...

 

[West Coast 06]

Judicial Fairness is one of a number of grounds. Both Freemantle witnesses were affectively found to be lying and the tribunal therefore should have let Baker off, but instead they fiddled and adjusted the charge mid tribunal hearing. If this was a court, the charges would have been thrown out.

They are not challenging the severity of the sentence and I would think this could end up in the courts Friday Morning

You could say the same thing about a lot of cases that go before the tribunal!

I haven't read anything official, but did they actually say they thought the Freo official was lying? I thought they inferred that they went with Bakers version of events and that is how they arrived at their verdict. He admitted to causing contact a long way off the ball and it resulted in Farmer having a broken nose, concusion, unable to play any further part in the match and in doubt for this week also. By admitting that he caused the contact, he effectively stitched himself up.

 

[Kildonan]

He admitted to causing contact a long way off the ball and it resulted in Farmer having a broken nose, concusion, unable to play any further part in the match and in doubt for this week also. By admitting that he caused the contact, he effectively stitched himself up.

He didn't admit that he caused contact at all. This is the basis of the appeal. The AFL have accepted Baker's version of events - i.e. that he was blocking Farmer's run. But it was FARMER who ran into the back of Baker. The AFL have accepted that version of events and so cannot make a decision of culpability against Baker because he did NOT initiate contact. Farmer ran into him.

If they do not overturn this - then every defender that ever runs in front of an opponent and stops must be reported

 

[astro_toby]

Judicial Fairness is one of a number of grounds. Both Freemantle witnesses were affectively found to be lying and the tribunal therefore should have let Baker off, but instead they fiddled and adjusted the charge mid tribunal hearing. If this was a court, the charges would have been thrown out.

They are not challenging the severity of the sentence and I would think this could end up in the courts Friday Morning

how where they "found" to be lying if their was no visuals? because it didn't match up with Baker's account??

no matter whose account was used of what happened - he would have still been found guilty, as it was against the rules - he had duty of care NOT to make contact to Farmers head, 100m2 off the play. if the try hard didn't wanna be a smart ass 100m2 up the field he wouldn't have been rubbed out, and been in this situation - he was trying to be tough and sheppard farmer - to act tough - and know he will miss 7 weeks.

and besides, he got 2 weeks, the other 5 is because of how bad his record is already - he is a serial pest

 

[astro_toby]

If they do not overturn this - then every defender that ever runs in front of an opponent and stops must be reported

yeah -100m2 off the play, resulting in a opposition player getting knocked out and a broken nose? thats a lot of damage

 

[Bourky23]

the tribunal is a farce

 

[Harvey's Crew]

how where they "found" to be lying if their was no visuals? because it didn't match up with Baker's account??

no matter whose account was used of what happened - he would have still been found guilty, as it was against the rules - he had duty of care NOT to make contact to Farmers head, 100m2 off the play. if the try hard didn't wanna be a smart ass 100m2 up the field he wouldn't have been rubbed out, and been in this situation - he was trying to be tough and sheppard farmer - to act tough - and know he will miss 7 weeks.

and besides, he got 2 weeks, the other 5 is because of how bad his record is already - he is a serial pest

So now it's the defenders job to protect their opponents head? Well if thats true, then why doesn't every forward smash their head into their defenders back. Then the defender is sure to be rubbed out

 

[Emmo]

yeah -100m2 off the play, resulting in a opposition player getting knocked out and a broken nose? thats a lot of damage

Why M2? their just normal m, but any ways if there is no footage there is no evidence unless they start using the general public who went to the game which i was one of and unfortunately didn't see there is no credible evidence.
(also i found surprising usually when something lioke this happens you hear a OOOH when someone gets hit were ever on the ground it is. I'm astonished that there wasn't even a murmur at the ground)

now i know there going on what baker said but farmer is just as much in the wrong for trying to hit him so hard that he broke his nose you dont see him appealing against the mirror he smashed....low i know but had to be said.

 

[astro_toby]

when you lay a sheppard ( a defensive blocking movement to stop the run of an opposition player) on someone - which is pretty much exactly what baker said he did, YOU who is making the action - it is your responsibility to make sure you don't make head contact - as it is about to that player to have A DUTY OF CARE - this was made a rule after the KOSSIE stuff last year, the same stuff you all screamed about last year.

well done, you won - you got the rules changed - unfortunately this time round your Bake's is Gia, and the law has changed.

 

[astro_toby]

So now it's the defenders job to protect their opponents head? Well if thats true, then why doesn't every forward smash their head into their defenders back. Then the defender is sure to be rubbed out

thats ridiculous - why would a player want to knock themselves out and break their nose - just to get a defender rubbed out?

Baker caught him unaware - and unfortunately if he meant it or not - he hit him in the head and has caused a lot of damage to farmer.

 

[Qsaint]

how where they "found" to be lying if their was no visuals? because it didn't match up with Baker's account??

no matter whose account was used of what happened - he would have still been found guilty, as it was against the rules - he had duty of care NOT to make contact to Farmers head, 100m2 off the play. if the try hard didn't wanna be a smart ass 100m2 up the field he wouldn't have been rubbed out, and been in this situation - he was trying to be tough and sheppard farmer - to act tough - and know he will miss 7 weeks.

and besides, he got 2 weeks, the other 5 is because of how bad his record is already - he is a serial pest

The tribunal found their evidence unreliable and the trainer contradicted himself several times. They were BULLSHITING WHINGING FREO XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

[Harvey's Crew]

thats ridiculous - why would a player want to knock themselves out and break their nose - just to get a defender rubbed out?

Baker caught him unaware - and unfortunately if he meant it or not - he hit him in the head and has caused a lot of damage to farmer.

I know its ridculous, that's why I stated it and felt sorry for Baker. If what Baker says is true, (that Farmer ran into him) then he shouldn't be held responsible for that)... Why did Baker get 7 weeks and Giansiracusa got none for his hit against Kosi? It was a hit to the head...

 

[nick_savo]

Does the 7 weeks still stand?

 

[Punter!]

when you lay a sheppard ( a defensive blocking movement to stop the run of an opposition player) on someone - which is pretty much exactly what baker said he did, YOU who is making the action - it is your responsibility to make sure you don't make head contact - as it is about to that player to have A DUTY OF CARE - this was made a rule after the KOSSIE stuff last year, the same stuff you all screamed about last year.

well done, you won - you got the rules changed - unfortunately this time round your Bake's is Gia, and the law has changed.

Ok smartarse - Round 1 2007 Luke Ball & Matthew Whelan. Please explain why whelan didn't get suspended or even reported for making head contact in a shephard?!

 

[Trebor57]

Ok smartarse - Round 1 2007 Luke Ball & Matthew Whelan. Please explain why whelan didn't get suspended or even reported for making head contact in a shephard?!

I don't know this incident but wasn't Rocca reported for a head high shepherd?

 

[mookieb]

So given Bakers past you actually believe that Farmers broken nose and concussion were an innocent accident 100m off the ball in a shepherd gone wrong?

 

[sainter]

Ok smartarse - Round 1 2007 Luke Ball & Matthew Whelan. Please explain why whelan didn't get suspended or even reported for making head contact in a shephard?!

I'd like an answer to that as well.

 

[sainter]

So given Bakers past you actually believe that Farmers broken nose and concussion were an innocent accident 100m off the ball in a shepherd gone wrong?

This has nothing to do with his past history. We are talking about this incident.