Baker Appeal

[Qsaint]

Does the 7 weeks still stand?

Appeal is tonight

 

[bluebrew]

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

Did he say that he ran to impede Farmers run towards his 50 errr yes he did and 50 mts from play as well that's illegal.
spin that anyway you chose.
BAKER hung himself.

 

[The 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.

Giansiracusa was moving when contact occurred. Baker was not.

You simply cannot be guilty of an offence if you aren't moving. A player cannot have a reasonable expectation of an opposition player to do something (like running), he can only have a reasonable expectation that he won't do something (like hit him). In other words, you cannot expect your opponent to keep moving, you can only expect him to not hit you.

The result of the contact was most unfortunate, but it is not reasonably expected. Ben Johnson's actions on Friday night could be reasonably expected to cause Daniel Bell serious damage. Baker just let a bloke who wasn't looking run into him.

On those two key grounds (impact was essentially made by Farmer, and Baker's actions could not be reasonably expected to cause damage) I believe it is matter of fairness that Baker has no case to answer.

 

[Qsaint]

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

The Freo boys said Baker deliberately put an elbow into farmers head, that is what effectively he was charged with.

The tribunal found that was crap, case should have been dropped

 

[Kildonan]

Did he say that he ran to impede Farmers run towards his 50 errr yes he did and 50 mts from play as well that's illegal.
spin that anyway you chose.
BAKER hung himself.

You might feel quite smug about this until the consequences of the AFL's actions are felt by your own club. Let's assume that on just one of the thirty plus times that blocking occurs in any match, an opposition player too focused on going toward the ball to notice one of your players blocking, he runs into him and there is a head clash.

(This is where the problem lies isn't it - who is at fault - a stationary player blocking the straight line path of another player who is moving. The stationary player does not initiate contact - the player that runs into him does - so the duty of care to avoid a head clash is firmly with the mobile person).

Those consequences are minor - albeit significant - but persuing the case by allowing the opposition official to act as a witness, then when that official was shown to have no truthful elements to his testimony that were significant to this case (even though he apparently was given copies of the testimonies of the other witnesses prior to giving his own) is very significant. It stinks of entrapment - Kirkwood's testimony was merely a vehicle used to get the thing to the tribunal, the real purpose was to see if they could get Baker to incriminate himself. Without warning Baker of the consquences of his testimony - he wasn't told that there was no case against him if he lied or simply said "It's all too fuzzy now - I had a head knock myself and my memory is shot". Instead he told the truth (something I admire - mind you).

So for what essentially should have been a free kick against Baker (only) he has been royally bent over by a series of events involving complicitous components of the AFL where the tribunal, it appears were handed a player and a result and told "I don't care how you get there, but find him guilty".

 

[Persevering Saint]

I remember legendary stories of Robbie Muir going to the tribunal after kicking somebody in the face - his defense was, "It was his fault, he headbutted by foot..."

This is not like that.

Gia ran into Kosi, as did Whelan into Ball - these were pro-active, not responsive.

Baker was being responsive - Farmer comes charging past, and being the tagger, he tries to slow him down. There is no legitimate or consistent testimony, from what I understand, by Freo or anybody else that he clotheslined him, or anything of that sort. So as Punter has said, you can't be in trouble if all you're doing is standing there.

Baker told the truth, and good on him. But if what he said truthfully was indictable, I don't care that he was honest, he should be punished. But the point is, what he said ISN'T indictable.

If this doesn't get dropped, then not only watch out doing any shepherding at all, but out the window goes not paying "too high" when somebody ducks into a tackle. This is the same thing, just taken to another level.

 

[astro_toby]

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?!

at least he was in fricking the area of the play - not like that little sniper baker

he hit murphy off the play

he hit johnson off the play

his bad record has came back to haunt him

bet more than a few of you kinda wish he just did those 2 weeks during the middle of the season after the murphy / russell incidents

 

[astro_toby]

If this doesn't get dropped, then not only watch out doing any shepherding at all, but out the window goes not paying "too high" when somebody ducks into a tackle. This is the same thing, just taken to another level.

LMAO - i love how you guys act as "if this doesn't get dropped - watch out"

watch out for what??? Players jumping over themselves to get their nose broken and get KO'd just so an opposition player can get rubbed out AFTER you have played them - it's the most ridiculous theory i have ever heard.

if this does get dropped - then watch out - because players will see it as a green light to body check players 50-100meters off the play - out of video's sight

the outcome of this tribunal will have NO outcome to how the game is played in the future - except if baker will be playing for the saints for 7 weeks.

to the rest of us - it won't change the way things are done one iota.

 

[Persevering Saint]

Of COURSE the tribunal's decisions change the behavior of players! Just take melees as an example - we haven't had a really good 15-player stoush in years, and why? Because the tribunal hammered teams that had them. This is called PRECEDENCE.

Furthermore, the interpretation of the rules often follows the spirit that the tribunal encourages. Since the tribunal has got tougher (and more inconsistent, I might add), look what's happened to rules, like say, oh, I don't know, the hands-in-the-back rule: lo and behold, it's become tougher and more inconsistent... whodathunkit?!

 

[fossman]

Like it or not, as soon as Baker admitted attempting anything off the ball he was gone. The real question is who was the tool that advised Baker to admit anything. He would have been better off claiming that he can't remember what happened due to Farmer giving him a knock in the head. Any old bull would have done.

 

[HoldenMCaulfield]

Like it or not, as soon as Baker admitted attempting anything off the ball he was gone. The real question is who was the tool that advised Baker to admit anything. He would have been better off claiming that he can't remember what happened due to Farmer giving him a knock in the head. Any old bull would have done.

You are not saying that he should have lied, are you ?

We now know that this could trigger a fine (and suspension if such lie prevented a suspension in the first place, I assume) - EVEN if you lie to protect Chris Judd !

 

[The Cork Soaker]

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,22291597%5E19742,00.html

Follow the link. It pretty much follows on from previous thread (fossman) and sums up the situation. Poor legal advice can get you into a pickle ask Shapelle Corby.
All Baker had to say was he was standing there and all of a sudden bang he got hit from behind, he looked around and saw Farmer holding his nose. End of story he gets off with no conflicting evidence.
Sucked in I reckon, they're a pair of grubs anyway.

 

[bubblegoose]

OMG! Just heard on SEN the character evidence letter that Jeff Farmer wanted to submit to the appeal's board. Very Impressive.

Inadmissible though due to recent rule changes where no additional evidence can be given to the appeal's board.

I'm expecting no reduction on the penalty, increase maybe.

 

[bubblegoose]

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,22291597%5E19742,00.html

Follow the link. It pretty much follows on from previous thread (fossman) and sums up the situation. Poor legal advice can get you into a pickle ask Shapelle Corby.
All Baker had to say was he was standing there and all of a sudden bang he got hit from behind, he looked around and saw Farmer holding his nose. End of story he gets off with no conflicting evidence.
Sucked in I reckon, they're a pair of grubs anyway.

Whoever would have guessed that one day we'd be graced with a geelong supporter suggesting a Saints player should not have told the truth.

He must have been soaking too many corks ...

 

[ChrisL#12]

at least he was in fricking the area of the play - not like that little sniper baker

he hit murphy off the play

he hit johnson off the play

his bad record has came back to haunt him

bet more than a few of you kinda wish he just did those 2 weeks during the middle of the season after the murphy / russell incidents

I would advise any smug Richmond supporters to worry about their own team who are the worst excuse for a club since Fitzroy circa 1995-96. Even without Baker we will smash you in round 22, then let's see how many of you pricks come on to our board carrying on like Mother Theresa!

 

[Barwick17]

Baker did not deserve 7 weeks but when the appeal was dropped they showed vision of a similar tactic against Daniel Kerr where Kerr runs behind Baker and with no warning Baker stops and pushes back into him. This is not shepherding (ball nowhere), this is illegal
No its not worth 7 weeks but he is endangering players safety with this tactic and its illegal and should be.
Look at the vid.
Harsh penalty but he was not shepherding or blocking as stated, stop looking through one eye

 

[DBLUES]

He deserved every single week he got. He is a little p@#ck and because of his lack of ability constantly snipes players behind play. When you guys played us earlier in the year I have never been so close to jumping the fence after his treatment of a skillful ball player in Murphy. He is an insult to an AFL jumper. He belongs in a country league. I hope you guys go all the way this year and he joins Hamill on the sidelines.

Infracted for trolling on a club board

 

[Juddism]

Baker did not deserve 7 weeks but when the appeal was dropped they showed vision of a similar tactic against Daniel Kerr where Kerr runs behind Baker and with no warning Baker stops and pushes back into him. This is not shepherding (ball nowhere), this is illegal
No its not worth 7 weeks but he is endangering players safety with this tactic and its illegal and should be.
Look at the vid.
Harsh penalty but he was not shepherding or blocking as stated, stop looking through one eye

any link to that Kerr video?

 

[astro_toby]

He deserved every single week he got. He is a little p@#ck and because of his lack of ability constantly snipes players behind play. When you guys played us earlier in the year I have never been so close to jumping the fence after his treatment of a skillful ball player in Murphy. He is an insult to an AFL jumper. He belongs in a country league. I hope you guys go all the way this year and he joins Hamill on the sidelines.

hear hear - sorry but his a good player when he isn't being such a little shithead - but his histroy of whacking people behind the play caught up with him tonight

 

[astro_toby]

I would advise any smug Richmond supporters to worry about their own team who are the worst excuse for a club since Fitzroy circa 1995-96. Even without Baker we will smash you in round 22, then let's see how many of you pricks come on to our board carrying on like Mother Theresa!

or since st.kilda in 90 of there 100+ years.

Infracted for trolling on a club board

 

[St DAC]

or since st.kilda in 90 of there 100+ years.

Infracted for trolling on a club board

It's "their" you moron ... Jeez, if you are gunna troll at least learn to spell first ...

 

[StMojo]

Farmer what a great letter writin by a Champ--------> now for the Graham the loser does he have any idea of the real world obviuosly not as he was busy trying to bring Baker down after the AFL already stole 4 points off him kicking after siren against FREO too!!!!!!!!!!

CANT WE REVERSE ALL JOKE DECISIONS MADE BY UMPIRES WHAT A LOAD OF C$%P

Now for Rod who likes to hold on to the Cash and not help out our poor buddy STEVIEB he gets an absolute joke of a decision and we dont take it to court we needed him to kick some EAGLE !!!!!!!!!!