baker

[Snoozer]

ah yes, and that is so terribly creative of you. well done there.

netball. no point complaining or being mystified about the likes of waite getting rubbed out if we turn around and cry about someone getting some taps on the hand. we've seen how players have taken to running into contests head first to get a free, maybe now you can watch them take to the field injured in the hopes of getting one. then slap each others backs while we marvel at how tough our players are to play injured.

he punched my hand! waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Agreed. It opens a massive can of worms. What next, players being reported for running too hard because an opponent has hammy tightness? Players suspended for sledging because of an opponents fragile mindset? It has the potential to become ridiculous if it hasn't already. If players take the field, they're fair game. An absolute joke of a decision to suspend Baker on that charge given only a month earlier, Jack Riewoldt was cleared of any wrongdoing.

As for the other three charges, Baker was crucified with these as well, and it highlights the holes in the MRP's crazy and rigid points system. All charges could have been argued that force wasn't sufficient enough to warrant a report... none of them were remotely dangerous, and there would be a list of precedents as long as your arm where players have gotten off scot-free from similar incidents... all perhaps aside from the roundhouse punch.

Regardless of what you think of Baker the footballer or the man, put him in a Navy Blue jumper and you would all be up in arms.

 

[DamianBis]

As for the other three charges, Baker was crucified with these as well, and it highlights the holes in the MRP's crazy and rigid points system. All charges could have been argued that force wasn't sufficient enough to warrant a report... none of them were remotely dangerous, and there would be a list of precedents as long as your arm where players have gotten off scot-free from similar incidents... all perhaps aside from the roundhouse punch.

There lies the problem with the MRP... they look at everything "on its own merits".. Basically meaning they don't set precedent and they can decide to do whatever the **** they want to do any time they want to. it's bloody rediculous.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I would have no problem with anything off the ball being stamped out, as I would prefer to see football players free to play football. I don't blame taggers at all though. Most are under instruction to play the way they play and sacrifice their own games to do so. Tell them not to do it and they won't.

Face to face push and shove and a bit of agro is fine. It's funny, we get rid of hard aggressive attack on the football by rubbing players out if they collect someone in the head on the way through, but leave behind off the ball sniping as fair game.

Hall was sniped a bit and nearly got himself suspended in retaliation, Judd last game was sniped and nearly got suspended, Johnson last week was sniped and did get suspended. In every case, the umpires were remiss in not doing something to diffuse the situation earlier.

I'm not one for soft suspensions for non-deliberate contact or retaliation, not by a long shot, but I have no sympathy for deliberate snipers.

The Baker one is just an anomaly. How often does someone lose the plot four times in a game? If he threw all the punches in one go, their would be one charge with a decent suspension but not as long as he has got. However, it is all about mindset ... he actively decided to attack Johnson outside of the rules on four occasions. Four separate judgment calls.

I see what people are saying about the softness of the hand punch, and contact wise I agree. The fact that Johnson stayed on meaning he is fit to stay on, I also agree with. However, mindset wise, Baker knew he was injured and tried to put him out of the game by attacking that injury. That shows the mindset. I don't agree with trying to put a good player out of a game deliberately. Having said that, I wasn't too phased when the Lions went at Riewoldt a few years back so probably should be okay with this too. I think it is just the prevalence of this behaviour that has me getting a bit sick of it.

Punish deliberate sniping, and find some balance over incidental or accidental contact, both the umpires and the MRP. I can not believe the level of overofficiating during games over trivial crap, while they allow genuine ball players to be accosted without word. If you want to beat Judd, then go harder at the ball, bump him out of the way and get the ball yourself, or bury him in tackle after tackle. No dramas there. Don't hold him off the ball though. That's not brave and it is detrimental to the spectacle.

 

[Chism]

ah yes, and that is so terribly creative of you. well done there.

netball. no point complaining or being mystified about the likes of waite getting rubbed out if we turn around and cry about someone getting some taps on the hand. we've seen how players have taken to running into contests head first to get a free, maybe now you can watch them take to the field injured in the hopes of getting one. then slap each others backs while we marvel at how tough our players are to play injured.

he punched my hand! waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

You have missed the point Dumb.

The AFL has a taken a stance on this because Baker deliberatly targeted an injured area of SJ. Now you can argue the point that "If SJ isn't fit or carrying an injury he should not be out there" and this is valid BUT why do you if you are Baker deliberatly seek out a players hand and punch it for no reason??? In a marking situation Yes but not the way the vision showed him striking it. It is clear as day what Baker was trying to do and the AFL were awake to it and dont want the game portrayed like this anymore especially live to air on a Friday night.

The Saints and Baker are lying when they stated they didn't realise SJ had an injury to that hand and that is a load of BS and all and sundry knows this. Bakers defense of the charge that he didnt know SJ had a prior injury to the same hand he was targeting is laughable and a something a 12 year old would use as a defense when caught red handed. Striking this same hand in a spoiling attempt while going for the ball is COMPLETELY different and a poor uneducated comparison on your part from your post earlier, No.9 of this thread.

 

[MrChristo]

[Off the bat, sorry for intruding, but interesting topic]

Striking this same hand in a spoiling attempt while going for the ball is COMPLETELY different and a poor uneducated comparison on your part.

I'm not sure about that...I think it's a poor comparison on Baker's part, maybe?...
...I take your point about the 'image of the game', but every week people get ridden into the ground who have suspect shoulders...just as every week people will get punched in the arm, hand, head in marking contests...
...suspension by stupidity? Possibly...but I don't think anyone can argue the penalties are ****ing harsh!!

Bad record admittedly...but 2 weeks (3 for record) for the upper cut...1 for the stomach punch...1 for the "misconduct" ...

I can not believe the level of overofficiating during games over trivial crap, while they allow genuine ball players to be accosted without word.

That's an extremely valid point (good post ODNB's )...but without wanting to cause a riot here, you do realise you blokes have Joseph and [to a lessor extent] Carrazzo doing exactly the same thing week in, week out?

I only really got involved here because ODNB mentioned Hall...and I think that's a 'funny' point in either extreme!!
On one hand (sorry, no pun! ) Thompson can kidney punch and be an absolute weasel from behind all he likes (agree 1000% with the umpire statement! )...but it's on camera, and I'm not sure how that can possibly be termed any less dirty than a hand punch...
...Pratt throws a stomach punch clearly no softer than Baker's that doesn't even get looked at...

...but on the other hand rolleyes: sorry!!), you've seen him throw possibly the most sickening, deliberate, harm intending punch in AFL history, and "only" get 8.

I'm not sure how Baker can sit at 9 given any previous actions...

...not to mention (and seriously guys, go easy here...just calling the facts!) Johnson getting 4 for a deliberate, yet not necessarily harm intending retaliatory elbow.
4 more than your boy got.

This whole incident has been stupidly hard to fathom.

 

[dumb]

You have missed the point Dumb.

The AFL has a taken a stance on this because Baker deliberatly targeted an injured area of SJ. Now you can argue the point that "If SJ isn't fit or carrying an injury he should not be out there" and this is valid BUT why do you if you are Baker deliberatly seek out a players hand and punch it for no reason??? In a marking situation Yes but not the way the vision showed him striking it. It is clear as day what Baker was trying to do and the AFL were awake to it and dont want the game portrayed like this anymore especially live to air on a Friday night.

therein lies some of the conjecture - what are you trying to do when targeting an injured piece of player?
in terms of hitting the hand, he did that but does anyone know why though, what was his objective?
was it to get him injured more, or was it really about getting under his skin? sir, your tactics really annoy me! desist! for the record i'd have no qualms if baker did it to a carlton player, on the proviso he wasn't coming off the ground. play on.

 

[Chism]

therein lies some of the conjecture - what are you trying to do when targeting an injured piece of player?

Injure him some more so he takes no further part in the game or is clearly unable to play at his best.

what was his objective?

See above.

was it to get him injured more,

IMO Yes. A player sitting on the pine because he is injured cant really do much damage to you in the scheme of a game.

i'd have no qualms if baker did it to a carlton player, on the proviso he wasn't coming off the ground. play on.

I wouldn't be happy about it but that is just me and these stupid acts are cowardly and not something the AFL want to see. FWIW i would not be happy if one of our taggers acted like Baker did and committed the same offences.

 

[Snoozer]

The AFL has a taken a stance on this because Baker deliberatly targeted an injured area of SJ.

No. They have chosen to take a stand because it's Baker. If it was the AFL's prerogative to stamp it out, Mal Michael would have been suspended. Jack Riewoldt.

Now you can argue the point that "If SJ isn't fit or carrying an injury he should not be out there" and this is valid BUT why do you if you are Baker deliberatly seek out a players hand and punch it for no reason???

He's seeking to gain an advantage. Against the rules, no. Outside the spirit of the game - probably. If this sort of stuff starts getting blokes rubbed out, where does it stop? Blokes suspended for bumping because a guy has weak shoulders? Seriously, this ridiculous path is the one we're headed down when you don't draw the line somewhere. I'm a firm believer that if you're on the field, you're 100%. No questions asked.

In a marking situation Yes but not the way the vision showed him striking it. It is clear as day what Baker was trying to do and the AFL were awake to it and dont want the game portrayed like this anymore especially live to air on a Friday night.

Who is culpable here? Baker or CH7? Baker sure as hell isn't responsible for it getting replayed on national TV thousands of times. Shouldn't CH7 have some kind of responsibility here for the image of the game? If the AFL are so concerned about the image, and they stamp out every ounce of false bravado/intimidation... what next? Spitting? Nose picking? Swearing? All unsavoury acts. I can see it now, Channel 7 will be jizzing themselves, sprawling through the match tapes to find anything that is even remotely controversial, replay it four-thousand times until the AFL moves to stamp it out.
Bruce: Gee, Gibbs really let rip there, didn't he?
Dennis: That loogie has travelled the best part of four or five meters... in plain view of young Billy sitting in the front row, too. Gee, not a great example we want to set for our young players.
Bruce: How many weeks for that, Den?
Dennis: Well, maybe three with an early plea.
Bruce: (jizzing wildly into Dennis' hair) Let's have a look at that on the down-the-ground microscope-cam... And the reverse angle replay. Doesn't look good for Gibbs.
Ox: Hang on. What's that in the background?... Judd is up his nose to the second knuckle! Let's see it from another angle. And another. And another.
Bruce: Well spotted, Ox. (jizz)
Ox: Sure to come under scrutiny for that, Bruce. High contact, medium impact, behind play and intentional... and if he's drawn blood well he can expect at least a reprimand with a guilty plea.

Don't you see? It sets a precedent for ridiculousness.

The Saints and Baker are lying when they stated they didn't realise SJ had an injury to that hand and that is a load of BS and all and sundry knows this. Bakers defense of the charge that he didnt know SJ had a prior injury to the same hand he was targeting is laughable and a something a 12 year old would use as a defense when caught red handed.

Agreed.

Striking this same hand in a spoiling attempt while going for the ball is COMPLETELY different and a poor uneducated comparison on your part from your post earlier, No.9 of this thread.

No, it isn't. Your deliberately trying to injure the hand, and masking your real intent by doing it while the ball is there. No difference at all. It's still intentional, but, as you state, completely legal. The can of worms opens further.

 

[Dustyjackman]

For me, it all boils down to dough.
I don't want to pay my money to see creative, talented footballers taken out of the game by far less talented players using pretty ordinary negating tactics.

I pay my dough to see Judd run, baulk, twist, turn then deliver the ball onto the chest of one of our forwards.
I pay my dough to see Ablett create something brilliant out of nothing.
I pay my dough to watch Buddy do something spectacular.
I pay my dough to watch Stevie J pull a goal out of nowhere using a bit of elusive magic.

But, I don't want to pay my dough to see any of these players and others of the same ilk taken out of the game the way Baker chooses to try and do so.

The MRP was quick, and rightly so, to get rid of that tunneling tactic a couple of seasons ago, and now the MRP is doing the right thing in ironing out this sort of garbage.
The AFL is getting it right. And, that is money well spent.

 

[MrChristo]

For me, it all boils down to dough.
I don't want to pay my money to see creative, talented footballers taken out of the game by far less talented players using pretty ordinary negating tactics.

I pay my dough to see Judd run, baulk, twist, turn then deliver the ball onto the chest of one of our forwards.
I pay my dough to see Ablett create something brilliant out of nothing.
I pay my dough to watch Buddy do something spectacular.
I pay my dough to watch Stevie J pull a goal out of nowhere using a bit of elusive magic.

But, I don't want to pay my dough to see any of these players and others of the same ilk taken out of the game the way Baker chooses to try and do so.

The MRP was quick, and rightly so, to get rid of that tunneling tactic a couple of seasons ago, and now the MRP is doing the right thing in ironing out this sort of garbage.
The AFL is getting it right. And, that is money well spent.

Surely you pay your money to see your team win a Premiership?...

...win games at least.

If Joseph keep Ablett to 15 touches in a Carlton victory it's money well spent??

 

[Sin City]

If Joseph keep Ablett to 15 touches in a Carlton victory it's money well spent??

Joseph doesn't stoop to the levels Baker does and he doesn't need to.

 

[MrChristo]

Based on a hand punch?!

...based on one game.

Come on mate, a tagger is a tagger is a tagger. We all know what happens on the field every game.

I can't believe the over-reaction to this. I really can't.

Time to exit stage left before getting thrown!

[Still no response to the Judd/S-J comparison I see ]

 

[Sin City]

Joseph hasn't punched anyone in the face, hasn't been suspended since he's been at Carlton either. Can't compare him in any way to Baker.

 

[MrChristo]

Seriously mate...point missed by THIS far...

...if Baker got 3 weeks for a "punch in the face" no-one would have cared less.

EDIT: It was hardly the premise of the post anyway...

...your point seems to be to keep 'pretty', 'attacking' footballers on the ground...

...would love to hear (but already know) what coaches think about it.

[Or guess what, there'd be no such thing as taggers. ]

 

[Aphrodite]

Based on a hand punch?!

...based on one game.

Come on mate, a tagger is a tagger is a tagger. We all know what happens on the field every game.

I can't believe the over-reaction to this. I really can't.

Time to exit stage left before getting thrown!

[Still no response to the Judd/S-J comparison I see ]

Libba board

 

[Aphrodite]

Surely you pay your money to see your team win a Premiership?...
...win games at least.

If Joseph keep Ablett to 15 touches in a Carlton victory it's money well spent??

Looks like you have been wasting yours

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

That's an extremely valid point (good post ODNB's )...but without wanting to cause a riot here, you do realise you blokes have Joseph and [to a lessor extent] Carrazzo doing exactly the same thing week in, week out?

I do realise we have close checking taggers. I haven't seen them do quite the same thing as Baker, but if it was highlighted I would be disappointed. I want them to stick close, I want them to bump and shepherd, and I want them to go in harder, and I want them to tackle hard. That's it. Leave the other crap out that ruins the spectacle.

...but on the other hand rolleyes: sorry!!), you've seen him throw possibly the most sickening, deliberate, harm intending punch in AFL history, and "only" get 8.

Yes, but he didn't do it on four separate occasions within the one game.

I'm not sure how Baker can sit at 9 given any previous actions...[/quote]

Let's use an analogy. Which one seems worse to you.

1. Person B annoys Person A in a bar, Person A snaps, turns out and lands a huge punch that knocks Person A unconscious. Walks away.

2. Person A has been annoying Person B all night long. Person B expresses his frustration. Person A then lands a jab to the jaw of Person B. Person B goes about his business, person A continues to niggle him, Person B objects, Person A lands another punch to the face of Person B. Now this happens four times during the night, and on one other occasion Person B gives some back.

3. In one incident, Person A lands four jabs to the face of Person B, none of which serious injure him.

I believe scenario 2 is far worse, because he has come back for more and made four separate decisions to upset this bloke. The other two scenarios can be written off as a one off response to frustration, despite the damage caused in the first example.

If Baker did all that he was reported for in the one action, it would be one report and one charge of striking. 2-3 weeks tops.

...not to mention (and seriously guys, go easy here...just calling the facts!) Johnson getting 4 for a deliberate, yet not necessarily harm intending retaliatory elbow.
4 more than your boy got.

I think the provocation should have been taken into account and would be fine with him getting off. However, he was on his feet, and had a full backswing with the elbow. The intent to hit him somewhere was clear.

With Judd, his fist connects with Pav's arm as though he is trying to break the hold Pav has around his waste, a split second before the elbow made contact with the face. There is doubt over intent and the force is much less as the elbow does not travel with the same speed and with the same backswing.