Baker found guilty, what a disgrace

[BrianSpeaking]

The AFL has done it again, how could he be found guilty? Will the Saints appeal and even take it to court?

 

[jbazzle]

the MRP and tribunal are forever finding new ways to out do themselves in stupidity. this is up there with the worst.

 

[Kildonan]

I am livid.

This whole farce began with a trial by media - with Michael Voss as a major contributor to this.

Cameron Schwab was quoted in the papers yesterday as saying that he knew of no Fremantle official who had seen the incident. Then suddenly, out of the blue, this trainer (Barry Kirkwood .... a school teacher apparently based in Melbourne) has supposedly told Fremantle management, specifically Robert Shaw, that he saw the whole incident immediately after the game !!!

Piecing together what I believe has happened from the tidbits available is that Farmer was moving towards the ball which was still distant, Baker ran to interfere with his direct motion and Farmer has run into him. There was a clash of heads as well as other body parts. Baker continued his movement forward and soon was distant from the still groggy Farmer.

The evidence given by Baker supports this series of events, the evidence given by Farmer also supports this series of events. Apart from Barry Kirkwood, the only other witness I know who gave evidence was Ricky Nixon - who also supported the series of events I posited.

Apparently the evidence given by Kirkwood was that he basically saw nothing except Bakes running 45 degrees towards Farmer before the clash - the other contributions he made were discredited by still or video evidence put forward by the St Kilda football club. He also admitted to not actually witnessing the clash itself.

The scary thing is that there are suggestions that this (biased) witness was given transcripts of the evidence provided by Baker and Farmer before giving his own (error ridden) evidence !!

This tribunal has usurped justice and has made a very dangerous precedent in accepting the evidence of a partially discredited (biased) club official.

 

[VEEBEE]

The AFL has done it again, how could he be found guilty? Will the Saints appeal and even take it to court?

the saints must appeal this decision.no video evidence, and it comes down to my word against yours.utter crap this decision,from what is a lottery of a judiciary.

 

[jko'neal]

To all Saints fans, IMO the Baker decision is total joke and a blight on the game. Hope your club hangs on one mother of an appeal.

 

[bringbackschwarter5]

Does Baker have any tattoos that you are aware of, it's been a pretty good defence in the past

 

[Punter!]

7 weeks for letting someone run into the back of you?!

And only 6 for nearly breaking someone's neck..

With these sorts of laughable tribunal decisions and ridiculous rule changes, I am now officially embarassed to follow the AFL!!

 

[mikben]

Does Baker have any tattoos that you are aware of, it's been a pretty good defence in the past

That's hillarious

 

[Kildonan]

I made this up, but this is how you get to 7 games.

Steven Baker, St Kilda, has been charged with engaging in rough conduct against Jeff Farmer, Fremantle, during the third quarter of the Round Twenty match between St Kilda and Fremantle, played at Telstra Dome on Saturday August 18, 2007.


The incident was assessed as reckless conduct (two points), high impact (three points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of seven activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Four offence, drawing 450 demerit points and a four-match sanction. He has an existing poor record of four matches suspended within the last three years, which increases his penalty by 40 per cent to 630 demerit points. He has also 155 residual points carried over from within the last 12 months, increasing the penalty to 785 points and a seven-match sanction.



I don't think anybody disputed it was a shepherd gone wrong, it can't be accidental since a shepherd that far off the ball is illegal every time, therefore it's reportable.

Given the evidence presented, it's a farce.

The AFL acting because they don't want to look like fools. Their incompetence is why we don't have footage.

Public outrage at the consequences is easier to act on than dealing with public outrage for the AFL not doing anything.

The tribunal have stated that they believe Baker's version of the events whereby he blocked Farmer off the ball trying to keep goal side of him

So Farmer runs into Baker they hit heads and Farmer breaks his nose and Baker gets 7 weeks

Yet if I am driving my car and I break without warning which I have every right to do and someone rear ends me - it is my fault

There is no doubt whatsoever that Baker has been absolutely rear ended!!!!!!

Absolutely disgraceful decision

The AFL is a complete and utter joke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Absolutely disgusting decision. Steven Baker given 7 weeks for "stopping."

Since when was it against the rules to stop running? Farmer runs into Baker's back and breaks his nose. If Farmer was actually paying attention to where he was running then Bakes would be playing on Friday.

Farmer's injuries are a result of his own stupidity, not a Baker "cheap shot."

But I suppose this is the guy who was given two weeks for an "attempted jumper punch", while Kerr gets one week for punching a guy in the nuts.

Also amazing when Baker was suspended for kicking while Allessio was standing on his ankle. What would anyone else do with 100kg of weight directed into sharp studs on top of their ankle do?

Wrong decision, can't believe this, 7 weeks is just plain wrong.

If your going to start punishing players based on their reputations, it's time to punish,

J Carr, B Hall, Farmer, headland, M Carr etc all dirty low dogs, yet get away with behind the play crap week in week out.

7 weeks?? geelongs year just keeps getting luckier!!!

they lose this GF now they should close kardinia up for good.

Are the AFL trying to Help geelong or is it west coast? or do they just hate stkilda???

thats ridiculous
no visual
2 witness' stating he didnt do it,
baker not admitting to intentionally hitting him
there is a bump on the BACK of bakers head
not even Farmer said he knew it was Baker!!!

7 weeks?????

THE TRIBUNAL HAVE LOST ALL RESPECT SURELY????

even if you hate baker you must find this scary and a terrible decision!!

If i were a saints fan i would be fuming. It will be interesting to see how this one pans out in the next couple of days.

I am fuming

Good to see the AFL are consistent with their investigations......

Did they find out who broke Sandilands jaw behind play earlier this year?

I didnt hear anything about a witchhunt for the one responsible for that......

This Farmer-Baker case is purely trial by media & the fact that its Steven Baker!!! Absolute BS

Obviously the person who broke Sandilands jaw must havent been Baker, Gehrig, Brodie Holland, Jonathan Brown or any of the 'scapegoats' the AFL Tribunal treats harshly!!!

I bet if it was a Farmer-Judd incident, Farmer would be charged with headbutting the back of Judds head... Its BS....

 

[PHX]

Crazy.

Cant stand for it. Seven weeks is an utter joke considering there is no vision to show the circumstances what-so-ever.

Appeal and good luck.

 

[Arsene Wenger]

Absolue joke guys - I feel for fans and more particularly Steve Baker himself

Its a joke and as suggested has set a ridiculous precedent

 

[Kildonan]

I hope St Kilda appeal this, not because I care about Baker in any way but it does set a highly suspect precedent as far as the issue of evidence goes.

The only good thing that might come out of this is that it forces Baker to completely rethink his entire attitude towards playing football. It's clear the tribunal has had a gut-full of him.

There is an old saying which they teach you in the first few weeks of criminal law at uni that goes something like “better to free ten guilty men than to jail an innocent man.”

The principle leads to the requirement that in criminal cases, a defendant needs to be proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

That means that occasionally, if the evidence doesn’t fully support a conviction a person who is in all likelihood guilty, is let off.

While certainly not a criminal court, the tribunal should abide by the principle that unless there is sufficient evidence, you cannot convict someone.

The AFL website noted that the tribunal “believed Baker’s version of events” and that he merely stopped in front of Farmer, presumably causing Farmer to smash into Baker’s body. The so-called Fremantle witness didn’t even see the impact, so his evidence is virtually worthless. Therefore, there seems to be little or no evidence at all, except for the circumstantial fact that Farmer was injured and Baker was near by.

The mere fact that Farmer was injured (relatively badly) should not be a determinate of guilt or of the sentence. If that was the case, Tim Notting should have been suspended for 24 weeks for what happened with Caracella. Neil Sachse tragically became a quadriplegic but the Fitzroy player who struck him was (rightfully) not even reported. Similarly, Gia’s elbow made contact with Kosi’s head last year, causing him to miss half a season – that does not make Gia guilty of rough play.

Further, Baker’s poor record (which isn’t really that poor when you take out the wrestling and ‘attempted strike’) should not be considered in determining whether he is guilty of an offense. In only very rare circumstances can the prosecution tell a jury about a defendant’s prior record – that is because it would cause too much bias in the jury’s mind. Simply because someone did something once, doesn’t mean they should automatically be presumed guilty down the track. To do so would destroy the presumption of innocence - the foundation of our legal system.

The tribunal’s decision of 7 weeks for what effectively was a bump is obscenely harsh. Whether or not you like or hate Baker, this is the worst decision handed down by the tribunal since Greg Williams received 10 weeks for touching Andrew Coates.
​

Nice post

Forget about the player involved for a second & realise the impact of this finding. There was no video & there were no reliable witnesses who could say exactly what happened. How the hell can he be convicted?
Yes Baker is a dog player & yes IF there was evidence that he hit Farmer or headbutted or charged or whatever then I would have no problem with a hefty suspension BUT without any evidence I just think he has been found guilty of nothing other than having a bad record. Its not that I have any sympathy for Baker its just that I don't want to see players crucified without proper evidence.

Once again this is another issue that I blame on the AFL. We have seen players convicted using footage from 1 single camera at 1 end of the ground (the footage that clubs apparently have to request beforhand & pay for) so how can they say they would need 50 cameras to cover the ground? 1 camera behind each goal & 1 on each wing. We don't need close ups of every blade of grass, just a total coverage of the playing surface. It can't be that hard & would eliminate the speculation from incidents like this.

St Kilda need to appeal this, and then take it to court if neccessary.

****ing pathetic decision.

I think it was fairly obvious that Voss was big noting and made a huge and very wrong assumption that Baker hit Farmer. He said as much when he back tracked saying he did not actually see it later in the game.

It was a shocking call by Voss and shows just how average he is behind the mike - he thought he would get in first and be the first to say he actually saw what happened - when in reality he saw jackshite

Voss blatantly lied

 

[Papa Juggs]

To all Saints fans, IMO the Baker decision is total joke and a blight on the game. Hope your club hangs on one mother of an appeal.

Thanks for the support. If there's no vision there's no case. The precident was already set. Guilty or not it needs to be filmed.

 

[cellis84]

oh boys and girls, i am not a happy camper right now!!!!!! i cant say i have ever felt sorry 4 st.kilda, but jeez, this is the worst ever, maybe a close 2nd 2 headland and selwood. but guys, what a joke!!!!!! i am fuming and im a geelong supporter!

tell ya what, i reckon freo r the root of all thats evil. look at what that toolhead headland did earlier in the yr getting off coz sum1 fired him up with a bit of banter that has bn going on 4 yrs....... he then gets angry and smashes selwoods face in and gets away with it coz selwood rubbed him up the wrong way!!!!! i mean come on! now, farmer the dodgy sniper, could easily have done the right thing and agreed with baker and it would have bn the end of it.

but no, of course we cant do that freo, that would b the right thing 2 do, oh no. lets make the frickin league the laughing stock of the country and try 2 revoloutionise the game somehow. change the way things r done. dob on ur fellow player, kick up a stink about things that have been going on since the day dot.

the league is a joke and so is the fremantle football club 4 going along with this bloody sideshow! never thought id say it but christ i feel very sorry 4 u saints fans, i really do. appeal it 2 the bloody supreme court, get dennis denuto from the castle 2 help u out or something! but whatever u do, good luck with it and hopefully justice will b done.

 

[cellis84]

have a look at what the monkeys over on the heave ho board are saying about this case guys........what a bunch of cronies. this is war!!!!! and for once, im fighting 4 st.kilda! lets get em!!!!! haha no, really, what is wrong with them? go and talk some sense into them boys and girls? ill fight alongside you!

 

[ChrisL#12]

This better be a precedent from now on. If the next player up on charges based on hear-say and innuendo gets cleared, the Tribunal should be shot one by one. What a joke. No footage, still gets 7 weeks. This decision baffles me and I'm sure every other saints supporter. A biased witness and Voss, who had claimed he saw it, then claimed he didn't, gives evidence. What a disgrace. It's like if Batman were up on charges and the Joker was called to give evidence, it's a completely biased testimony with regards to the Freo guy. How can they even take his account of what happened with a grain of salt. Someone obviously had to be made accountable for it no-matter-what and the AFL are afraid of Michael Voss. Farmer would get way worse than that in jail, so he should be happy, because that's exactly where he belongs. At least Baker (allegedly) leaves his indiscretions on the footy field, unlike that muppet Farmer who is a menace to society.

 

[beaver's army]

The sniper got what he had coming to him. stop ****ing whinging.

 

[saintsownthedome]

The sniper got what he had coming to him. stop ****ing whinging.

He's got a four week suspension (plus three weeks loading) for what the tribunal has pretty much accepted as a 'block' from in front.

Hardly what I'd call sniping, but never let the facts get in the way of you coming onto another teams board and doing what makes you feel tough.

Now go to bed before Mummy finds out you're up past 10pm little boy. There's a good lad.

 

[Philhawk]

I'm not a fan of Baker's - but I think he's been dead set ripped off.

 

[zuzu_1976]

The bloke is nothing but a dirty dog - deserves every week of this suspension.

Hard man my ar$e - weak as pi$$.

 

[sainter]

This is the Saints board.

If you want to turn this into an anti-St Kilda/Baker rant you will receive an infraction as others already have. That's not us being sensitive, it's simply a matter of our supporters being given a place to discuss Saints related issues without opposition supporters. That is what the main board is for.

Post on the main board and Bay 13 to your hearts content but not here please.

 

[sainter]

Personally I'm just flabbergasted with the decision. I've only just got home from work so I've spent the last 30 minutes catching up with what the decision and I just can't believe it. From what I've read, the tribunal have actually accepted the version of events that they received from Bakes. His evidence was backed up by Ricky Nixon. Farmer had a different version of events and it was seemingly backed up by a Fremantle official who apparently didn't even see the point of contact. Something doesn't add up in all of this.

 

[Saintaboyz]

The facts appear to be :
* Baker says that he is blocking his opponent from running into the f50
* Farmer cannot remember anything
* Fremantle runner sees the view - however, not the actual impact
* Ricky Nixon backs Bakers version of events

How can 7 weeks come from this so called 'evidence'???

The tribunal has outdone itself this time and St Kilda should take them to court to fight it.

Lets look back at the preliminary final of 2005 - Barry Hall belts Matt McGuire - but there is no footage - Goose is throwing up due to the fist to the stomach - but Hall gets off.... Yeah Right !!!

 

[joeblow2]

It seems to me that the last couple of years have followed a simple formula: St. Kilda defendent: GUILTY, opposition player hits St. Kilda player: NOT GUILTY. Looking forward to following Melbourne Storm next year.

 

[The Punter]

It is a disgraceful miscarriage of justice. Despite all of us despising lawyers getting involved in football (remember we didn't take the AFL to court last year over Sirengate and it cost us Top 4), there is no doubt that St Kilda should go straight to the Supreme Court on Friday if they get no satisfaction from the Appeals Board.

As I understand it the Appeals Board can only rule on new evidence. As the problem here was not missing evidence but an incorrect ruling on evidence at hand, then I will not be surprised if the Appeals Board throws it out. Onto the courts it is then.

As for the "incident" itself, I did something like this a few weeks ago playing Amateur reserves football. An opponent was running back to half back towards me, so I decided to hold my ground and allow him to run into me to halt his progress. He wasn't happy (he belted me in the throat), but I certainly don't consider my actions illegal and would certainly considering doing it again. I quite often try to impede an opponents progress and stop him getting where he wants to go.

Baker's instructions were to stay goalside of Farmer, which is pretty smart (and elementary) backline play. He did that, and now if we miss finals he won't play until late April or early May next year.

I remember Leigh Matthews talking about the tribunal once (I think it was on 100 years of Australian Football) and stating he got off belting someone in a Grand Final because they charged him with hitting someone with his left hand, and Matthews had in fact done it with his right hand. Matthews said "Justice needed to be seen to be done".

In this case it is quite apparent there has been no assumption of innocence, and the eventual penalty massively outweighs the crime, if indeed there was a offence committed.

Baker is a tough footballer without doubt. But he has made the maximum effort for his football club and their supporters. Compare Baker to Ben Cousins, a man who has betrayed the trust and support given him by his club and supporters. Cousins received no AFL suspension.

I hope to see Baker out on the field in St Kilda colours as soon as possible, and I hope justice is served.