Baker facing 2 weeks suspension

[Kildonan]

Baker faces two weeks on the sidelines over two separate incidents during Friday night's match against Carlton.
If he takes an early plea on both accounts, he will be suspended for one match for each charge.

He has been charged with striking Marc Murphy in the first quarter and with rough conduct against Jordan Russell in the final term.

I believe he will take the early plea and cop it on the chin.

 

[St DAC]

Other way around - Murphy last quarter, Russell first.

Should contest both; no additional penalty if we lose. Murphy took a dive for a free, Russell was a bump to the chest that slid up. Besides, on recent form, taking it to the tribunal is a guaranteed win!

 

[Qsaint]

I believe he will take the early plea and cop it on the chin.

Yes, I think he could get 4+ otherwise? Not sure but it seems the best action

 

[bubblegoose]

Besides, on recent form, taking it to the tribunal is a guaranteed win!

St DAC my man, that is, unless he wears the red, white & black.

 

[Qsaint]

Baker is going to contest, risks 3 HS

 

[Big Ted]

If he fails, we still only gets 2 weeks. No additional penalty or down gradings here ...

 

[goodie23]

Actually the two offences added together means 3 weeks. It'd be the height of absurdity if he does get 3 weeks, but unfortunately absurdity is the tribunal's specialty. The current system doesn't work, the AFL should just go back to the old way (it wasn't perfect, but it's far better than what's currently happening)

 

[Ritchie8]

Well you can slap people across the face now....

 

[Bourky23]

he better get off.. nothing in other incident

 

[BlueDW]

The Murph case was not reportable, however he should get suspended for a double forearm to the head of Russell. Regardless of whether it started at the chest, he had a duty of care. Having said that, with the tribunal this year he will probably get off. Interesting player Baker, has a history of hunting heads doesnt he, anyone remember Kane Johnson from a couple of years ago, about time the umpires woke up to the little creep!!!

 

[sainter]

He's been found guilty of both charges but was spared a third week on the sidelines.

Baker suspended for two weeks

ST KILDA’S Steven Baker has been suspended for two matches by the AFL Tribunal after being found guilty of rough conduct and striking.

Baker received a one-match ban for each of the two charges, but the punishment could have been worse.

Baker was spared a third week on the sidelines after AFL Tribunal chairman David Jones ruled the points he gained from his suspension for rough conduct would not be carried over to striking case, where he was also found guilty.

Baker - who now carries 155 points towards his future record - will miss the Saints' clashes with Sydney this weekend and Hawthorn next week.

Link

 

[PHX]

Harsh harsh harsh.

Dealt the raw end yet again sainters.

 

[goodie23]

Absolutely ridiculous. If the tribunal was even mildly consistent I might accept this decision, but it's now gone beyond absurd.

Last week the tribunal's criticised for being too soft (and does anyone think it was a coincidence that two interstate players got off lightly?), so they do a knee-jerk reaction this week, which happens to fall on a known offender and Victorian in Bakes.

Replacing the system with a spinning wheel would be more consistent

 

[bubblegoose]

Absolutely ridiculous. If the tribunal was even mildly consistent I might accept this decision, but it's now gone beyond absurd.

Last week the tribunal's criticised for being too soft (and does anyone think it was a coincidence that two interstate players got off lightly?), so they do a knee-jerk reaction this week, which happens to fall on a known offender and Victorian in Bakes.

Replacing the system with a spinning wheel would be more consistent

No goodie23, the tribunal is very consistent in using saints players as an example for the rest. Which they then don't enforce after the Saint has done their time! see: "attempted striking"

A question. What is the worst case if this is taken to appeal?

 

[Monika72]

If Baker played for Sydney or West Coast he would have played this week. You only get off if you play for a good interstate team who can afford a good defence team.

 

[ChrisFooty]

If Baker played for Sydney or West Coast he would have played this week. You only get off if you play for a good interstate team who can afford a good defence team.

I think thats a little silly. He hasn't had a clean record, so points can carry quite easily. Way this system works. So the G-train didn't get cited for his antics during the first 2 seconds of the game? Thats good if he hasn't, because that would be really soft.

 

[goodie23]

I think thats a little silly. He hasn't had a clean record, so points can carry quite easily. Way this system works. So the G-train didn't get cited for his antics during the first 2 seconds of the game? Thats good if he hasn't, because that would be really soft.

But the system doesn't work, hence all the criticism.

 

[sainter]

The AFL seem to think he should have been suspended for 3 weeks once he went to the tribunal and challenged the match review panels finding. The loophole will now be closed.

I wouldn't say it's great news because I'm not sure the two incidents he was involved in were worth a week but losing Bakes for 2 weeks rather than 3 weeks is something. He's so important to our structure.