baker decision? wtf?????

[cellis84]

what on earth is happening to our game?
1st off, headland gets off 4 smashing selwood because he was "provoked", pft, what a joke. now, farmer dobs on baker and he gets 7 wks with no evidence apart from a school teacher. its a joke! thoughts?

i say we join saints fans (never thought id say that!) and defend the little fella!

 

[hoody]

what on earth is happening to our game?
1st off, headland gets off 4 smashing selwood because he was "provoked", pft, what a joke. now, farmer dobs on baker and he gets 7 wks with no evidence apart from a school teacher. its a joke! thoughts?

i say we join saints fans (never thought id say that!) and defend the little fella!

Not for mine, cellis.
I reckon he is a dirty little prick and he has finally been caught up with.

The tribunal jury accepted Baker's account of events, with the player saying he was running in front of Farmer, before stopping and propping causing Farmer to run into the back of him.
But they still found he had engaged in rough conduct, acting recklessly and that he made high contact to Farmer with high impact...............Herald Sun 22/8/07

Without Baker's poor record at the tribunal and his carryover demerit points his suspension would have been for a total of four weeks.
That's the same as Stokesy got for a far less sinister act.
Maybe Baker is lucky that he didn't get ten.

 

[MmkMrMackie]

Yeh, **** him. The dirty little sniper finally got what was coming to him. As for the hit on Farmer itself, couldn't have happened to a nicer bloke IMO.

 

[MmkMrMackie]

what on earth is happening to our game?
1st off, headland gets off 4 smashing selwood because he was "provoked", pft, what a joke. now, farmer dobs on baker and he gets 7 wks with no evidence apart from a school teacher. its a joke! thoughts?

i say we join saints fans (never thought id say that!) and defend the little fella!

School teachers are justices of the peace.

 

[cancat]

what on earth is happening to our game?
1st off, headland gets off 4 smashing selwood because he was "provoked", pft, what a joke. now, farmer dobs on baker and he gets 7 wks with no evidence apart from a school teacher. its a joke! thoughts?

i say we join saints fans (never thought id say that!) and defend the little fella!

Agreed, it's a load of crap. Regardless of how we feel about the players involved the inconsistencies are obvious. Maybe Baker should have claimed some sort of very personal verbal abuse.

 

[scottydeewah]

School teachers are justices of the peace.

Exactly. I completely agree with this decision. Simple as this...he SMASHED a bloke behind play and put him out of the game.

What did you want to happen? This to me is EXACTLY what the tribunal is for, it is the further extreme of what is allowed on the field.

You obviously just dont like farmer because I cant see how you can condone random acts of violence like this. I like my football hard and contested but I don't believe there is a place in footy for thuggery.

 

[Copernicus]

The only thing that I don't like about this decision is the fact they are going off so little evidence. The only people who really know what happened are the fans who saw it. I just think this sets a bad precedent (although I know this isn't a legal court per se) and I wouldn't want to see one of our own players rubbed out with so little concrete evidence against them.

 

[scottydeewah]

The only thing that I don't like about this decision is the fact they are going off so little evidence.

Baker allegedly told the tribunal that he moved off his mark to "block" Farmer. Based on that alone they had enough to put him away for 7 weeks as he just admitted that:

Contact was intentional
It was behind play
Obviously High
Impact Severe

Done.

 

[Munga47]

The only thing that I don't like about this decision is the fact they are going off so little evidence. The only people who really know what happened are the fans who saw it. I just think this sets a bad precedent (although I know this isn't a legal court per se) and I wouldn't want to see one of our own players rubbed out with so little concrete evidence against them.

I agree. I'm not really a fan of either players involved either, but it does baffle me that the tribunal has rubbed a bloke out for 4 weeks (+3 from the past) with little or no evidence of what happened. You would hate for a mysterious home video to turn up now proving Baker innocent! How would the tribunal look then?

 

[DanA]

Baker allegedly told the tribunal that he moved off his mark to "block" Farmer. Based on that alone they had enough to put him away for 7 weeks as he just admitted that:

Contact was intentional
It was behind play
Obviously High
Impact Severe

Done.

Exactly.

It was his own testimony that put him away. Remember his random tackle on Ablett, Ablett was returning to the centre square after Geelong kicks a goal and Baker just tackles him. The guy is a dirty dog. You can't "block" someone in the face 50 meters off the ball.

 

[Prismall32]

I agree. I'm not really a fan of either players involved either, but it does baffle me that the tribunal has rubbed a bloke out for 4 weeks (+3 from the past) with little or no evidence of what happened. You would hate for a mysterious home video to turn up now proving Baker innocent! How would the tribunal look then?

I have little sympathy for Baker who has been getting away with some grubby, underhand stuff behind the play for so long - and Farmer is just as bad - but this is overreaction from the AFL. They have been seen to be soft and indecisive for most of the H & A season - and this is a demonstratively feeble attempt to restore credibility - it has had the opposite effect. I assume it will go to court like Greg Williams' case.

 

[JUBJUB]

i say we join saints fans (never thought id say that!) and defend the little fella!

You'll be on your own with this.
The dirty sniping prick got what was coming to him.If he didn't have such a bad record he would've only got 4.It's his fault it ended up being 7.

 

[bigdroppunt]

i say we join saints fans (never thought id say that!) and defend the little fella!

you ass clown did you forget a certain stkilda player that kept on giving our beloved gary jnr alot of "love taps" behind the play baker is a dirty *^&t and i rekon karma finaly got him. just shows what a poor club stkilda are when the have to resort to those tactics.

 

[a.f.k.a.y.o.p.]

you ass clown did you forget a certain stkilda player that kept on giving our beloved gary jnr alot of "love taps" behind the play baker is a dirty *^&t and i rekon karma finaly got him. just shows what a poor club stkilda are when the have to resort to those tactics.

Exaclty.
F*** him.
Just shows what happens when you play like a dog.

That being said, and my emotional response out of the way, we do have a certain prinicple in this land called Innocent until proven Guilty...........not the other way around. So although I thiink he desrves it at least for past indiscretions, and more, its pretty thin. And great to see Farmer on the receiving end..........

 

[haywood jablome]

Baker is a cheap thug, the ******** deserves it... Can't win by playing footy so he tries knocking people out.

 

[bigdroppunt]

Exaclty.
F*** him.
Just shows what happens when you play like a dog.

That being said, and my emotional response out of the way, we do have a certain prinicple in this land called Innocent until proven Guilty...........not the other way around. So although I thiink he desrves it at least for past indiscretions, and more, its pretty thin. And great to see Farmer on the receiving end..........

BHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! GOLD

 

[Obeanie1]

Before this thread turns into 30 pages of crap like the other one everyone just take a deep breath and understand this.

Baker in his testomony CONFESSED to BLOCKING Farmer 50 METERS away from the ball.

Bakers CONFESSION is why he got 4 weeks.

The guy stuffed up in what he said at the tribunal. He was found guilty of rough conduct behind play due to his CONFESSION.

So stop comparing this to all the other incidents, blaming Freo, blaming lack of footage or blaming the tribunal etc.

You can be found guilty of anything if you CONFESS!!

Can anyone see a common theme here in this post!!!???

Gee!!!! Can we get on with the rest of the season now.

 

[CF]

Baker got what he deserved. I remember how he clock gazza when we played the saints. His constant use of dirty tactics tarnishes his record for me.

You can stop and prop and have a guy run into you and hurt them unintentionally, but the tribunal decided on the testimonies given that Bakers actions was intentional. So I can have no sympathy for him considering he seriously hurt Farmer in the process and Farmer couldn't play again that day.

 

[Skeppersap]

I just do not understand the argument. As has already been said in this thread:

Intentional (he admitted it)
High contact (obvious)
High Impact (obvious).

He deserves to go. Now the only argument is the penalty. you have to go by the gradings, which are clear cut. He gets 4 weeks.

Now, the difference is his record. If Gaz Jr had have done this, the penalty would have become 2 weeks due to his good record. Because Baker has a tribuneral list as long as my arm (not his, he is only 5 foot tall), his penalty was changed from 4 weeks to 7.

Therefore: 2 weeks for the incident, 5 weeks for being a cowardly behind the play sniper. Very clear cut and by the book!

So to the OP, take your argument elsewhere, he got what he deserved.

If St Kilda lose the appeal, he should get worse! Not sure what happens if they lose though.

 

[CF]

If I understand this correctly the penalty was extended because of his poor tribunal record. He had points hanging over him. If someone like Gazza went up on this they would have been suspended for a lesser time because his tribunal record is good.

 

[Skeppersap]

If I understand this correctly the penalty was extended because of his poor tribunal record. He had points hanging over him. If someone like Gazza went up on this they would have been suspended for a lesser time because his tribunal record is good.

Kinda what I was getting at 4 minutes earlier mate, but its always nice to have sentences phrased in different ways.

High 5!

 

[hbk_aus]

Karma....

 

[Rustybugles]

Before this thread turns into 30 pages of crap like the other one everyone just take a deep breath and understand this.

Baker in his testomony CONFESSED to BLOCKING Farmer 50 METERS away from the ball.

Bakers CONFESSION is why he got 4 weeks.

The guy stuffed up in what he said at the tribunal. He was found guilty of rough conduct behind play due to his CONFESSION.

So stop comparing this to all the other incidents, blaming Freo, blaming lack of footage or blaming the tribunal etc.
You can be found guilty of anything if you CONFESS!!

Can anyone see a common theme here in this post!!!???

Gee!!!! Can we get on with the rest of the season now.

This is misleading if you are implying that he should have denied it - there were enough AFL officials to confirm that Baker was the player nearest to Farmer when he suddenly and mysteriously suffered concussion. The difficulty for the AFL now is admissable evidence from whom! Remember it is not a court of law.
Anyway - who are you to be closing down discussion on this board?

 

[a.f.k.a.y.o.p.]

This is misleading if you are implying that he should have denied it - there were enough AFL officials to confirm that Baker was the player nearest to Farmer when he suddenly and mysteriously suffered concussion. The difficulty for the AFL now is admissable evidence from whom! Remember it is not a court of law.
Anyway - who are you to be closing down discussion on this board?

Anyway - since when has it been against the rules to intentionally blcok someones path..........i thought it was part and parcel of a contact sport?
Just to continue this debate, he admitted blocking him - not clocking him.......
and again, to re-iterate, i still think its a good result - cant stand the hyperactive dwarf.......just viewing objectively!!

 

[hbk_aus]

Anyway - since when has it been against the rules to intentionally blcok someones path..........i thought it was part and parcel of a contact sport?
Just to continue this debate, he admitted blocking him - not clocking him.......
and again, to re-iterate, i still think its a good result - cant stand the hyperactive dwarf.......just viewing objectively!!

My view is that he recklessly bumped somebody hard and high, and well off the ball, and caused a game-ending injury. Going by previous cases (Stokesy, Johnson) i think 4 weeks was about right, plus the 3 weeks for previous weak sniping cheap shots on record...(plus the ones that he never got caught doing).