Equivalence

[The Punter]

Question:

What's the difference between standing still and allowing someone who isn't paying attention to where they are going run into you and king hitting a unsuspecting player behind play and giving him a concussion and a nearly broken jaw just because he was annoying you?

Answer:

According to the AFL - nothing.

Steven Baker - 7 weeks

Barry Hall - 7 weeks

And for those playing at home, Barry Hall's return match is against St Kilda.

 

[35Harvs]

Question:

What's the difference between standing still and allowing someone who isn't paying attention to where they are going run into you and king hitting a unsuspecting player behind play and giving him a concussion and a nearly broken jaw just because he was annoying you?

Answer:

According to the AFL - nothing.

Steven Baker - 7 weeks

Barry Hall - 7 weeks

And for those playing at home, Barry Hall's return match is against St Kilda.

yep! I originally thought 6-8 for Hall, but when putting it into perspective with Bakers, it really isn't enough.

 

[MilneyLoves2Snap]

the difference is the uniform.. Everyone knows the afl likes to look after sydney example - goodes this year and last year, hall when he hit the goose etc.

The afl wants interstate clubs to prosper while it kicks us in the guts. O and what a surprise the afl makes sure barry hall is due back the week sydney play us.. ____ the system... they couldnt have us beating sydney twice in the one season, bad for the game

 

[Squizz]

I think Bakes was carrying points in from the Marc Murphy one, and there is no doubt the AFL/Tribunal was in the mood at the time to clamp down on taggers.

Amazingly (given the Goose one, the Gram one, and the Chris Grant one I saw on Footy Classified) I don't think Hall had any additional points.

He also carries 90 points forward (very close to an extra game).

So I think that it was more like 6 weeks for Baker (plus one for carry over), and 8 for Hall (less one due to not quite enough points). Still not quite right but they are a little different.

Seen the Herald Sun article? Certainly points to an injustice.

 

[goodie23]

The difference is we have black instead of the Sydney Opera House on our jumper

 

[The Punter]

Both Mark Robinson and Patrick Smith have made the comparison, Robinson with Baker/Trent West, and Smith with Hall/Trent West. Either way, the victim who came off in the "least worst" shape from all three incidents was Jeff Farmer. The victim who was carried off on a stretcher was Xavier Clarke.

With regard to points, this is really where the system fails. Apart from any left civil-liberterian type argument about taking prior incidents into account, the system provides widely varying penalties for similar incidents, and similar penalties for widely varying incidents. In short, Hall and Baker received the same penalty. What would be the outcry publicly if a repeat drink-driver who fights his charge got the same penalty as a first-time (caught) person who pleads guilty to manslaughter. There is simply no concept of justice.

Baker did something I have done on a football field only last year. Hall did something I have never done in my life, and would never contemplate doing.

 

[bubblegoose]

I believe that Bakes would have been better off if the incident had been caught on video. At least then BS witnesses & an assumption of guilt wouldn't have any bearing.

 

[bubblegoose]

I believe that Bakes would have been better off if the incident had been caught on video. At least then BS witnesses & an assumption of guilt wouldn't have any bearing.

Not that they did anyway, but even to present themselves as credible

 

[sainter]

I read Robbo's article today and was pleased to see that there were others (non Saints) out there than can see the massive injustice in that decision.

I can only imagine how tough Bakes has done it over the past 6 months, I'm still angry myself.

If ever there's an example of somebody getting rubbed out because of who they are rather than the evidence presented this was it.

Unfortunately we also have to accept that it wasn't handled brilliantly by the club either. They played a role in the excessive sentence that he received.

Can't wait to see him back against Port.

 

[bubblegoose]

Unfortunately we also have to accept that it wasn't handled brilliantly by the club either. They played a role in the excessive sentence that he received.

GRRRRRRRRRR! This always gets my blood absolutely boiling!

It infuriates me that we've been bent over so many times at chook lotto ... oh dear ... I meant the tribunal, & not only there, that it is so far beyond a joke that I stopped crying years ago.

I bloody hope that our new board don't put up with the absolute inconsistency of too many mysterious decisions to mention ...

None of the the financially strong teams would have put up with a fraction of the crap we have.

 

[sauce_head]

GRRRRRRRRRR! This always gets my blood absolutely boiling!

It infuriates me that we've been bent over so many times at chook lotto ... oh dear ... I meant the tribunal, & not only there, that it is so far beyond a joke that I stopped crying years ago.

I bloody hope that our new board don't put up with the absolute inconsistency of too many mysterious decisions to mention ...

None of the the financially strong teams would have put up with a fraction of the crap we have.

Yes they were waek on this and a number of issues. My only gripe with them in fact.

 

[ChrisFooty]

The Steven Baker suspension was a complete joke. Embarrassment really.

 

[Rough_Edges]

Baker: 4 weeks up to 7
Hall: 10 weeks down to 7


no doubt, if Sydney wern't the AFL's love child, Hall would've had point carrying over as well, but......

 

[Grimfang]

This info is second-hand but, apparently, Adrian Anderson was on SEN at around 7pm and admitted that Clarke did receive high contact and was more than 5 metres off the ball, but because he wasn't knocked out, apparently it is OK. There is no such thing as the 5 metre rule in relation to reports, only in determining whether or not a free kick is paid?!?!

If that's true, how frigging incompetent is this idiot?

I can't wait for the G-Train to use this precedent on Friday night to clean up a few unsuspecting defenders, apparently completely legally.

What's the point of putting out an information pack called "Laws of the Game 2008" if you use interpretations that are the polar opposite of the said laws?

 

[Rough_Edges]

Remember when Scarlett got off elbowing riewoldt a few years back with "Insuffcient Video Effidence"

And lenny got done for "Attempted striking"

Gehrig got 2 weeks for a love tap. Less the Gamble giving Dal a jab to the jaw.


It's a farce.

 

[bubblegoose]

What's the point of putting out an information pack called "Laws of the Game 2008" if you use interpretations that are the polar opposite of the said laws?

The laws are only applicable when AFL preferred teams benefit. & if that doesn't work the AFL will just change them anyway *cough*sirengate*cough*

 

[35Harvs]

Baker: 4 weeks up to 7
Hall: 10 weeks down to 7

this is what I don't get, why was the guilty plea 25% reduction allowed? it's not like he could have claimed he didn't do it???

This info is second-hand but, apparently, Adrian Anderson was on SEN at around 7pm and admitted that Clarke did receive high contact and was more than 5 metres off the ball, but because he wasn't knocked out, apparently it is OK. There is no such thing as the 5 metre rule in relation to reports, only in determining whether or not a free kick is paid?!?!

If that's true, how frigging incompetent is this idiot?

I can't wait for the G-Train to use this precedent on Friday night to clean up a few unsuspecting defenders, apparently completely legally.

What's the point of putting out an information pack called "Laws of the Game 2008" if you use interpretations that are the polar opposite of the said laws?

really? I agree, lets play Gtrain & give him full licence to clean up anyoen whereever on the ball, make sure you don't knock him out though, but send them off for at least 2 qtrs, apparently its in the laws of the game!

Remember when Scarlett got off elbowing riewoldt a few years back with "Insuffcient Video Effidence"

And lenny got done for "Attempted striking"

Gehrig got 2 weeks for a love tap. Less the Gamble giving Dal a jab to the jaw.


It's a farce.

just highlights the complete inconsistency with this system. Insufficient video evidence clearly wasn't applied with baker.

 

[Squizz]

At the end of the day, we have players who seem to have to get stabbed to get a free (Roo and Kosi) and blokes the umps love to ping - Fraser, Milne, Max, Bakes, Blakey, and even Gilbo.

We can't get even - will only end in tears.

 

[Persevering Saint]

This from the Hun today:

Rules and penalties take king-hit

Mark Robinson | April 16, 2008 12:00am



ON SUNDAY, Geelong ruckman Trent West collected St Kilda's Xavier Clarke, who was not looking, and Clarke was carried off the ground on a stretcher.



West was not cited.
Late last year, St Kilda hard man Steven Baker collected Fremantle's Jeff Farmer, who was not looking, and Farmer walked off the ground assisted by trainers.
Baker received seven matches - four for the incident plus a loading of three - and won't be available until Round 6 this year.
In my opinion, it remains the greatest tribunal injustice of recent time.
In both cases, the ball was more than 5m from the incident and, in both cases, the contact was initiated by a player intent on blocking or shepherding.
The AFL rule regarding this is Rule 15.4.5 (e) and is explained as when "a player makes prohibitive contact with an opposition player, if he pushes, bumps, holds, or blocks an opposition player when the football is further than five metres away from the opposition player or is out of play".
That Baker still awaits his 2008 debut angers him and the St Kilda Football Club.
Those close to the backman/tagger say he remains in disbelief, even bitter, about a clash that left Farmer with a broken nose, and himself with an "egg" on the back his head.
In essence, Baker was suspended for "blocking".
What helped West was TV footage of the incident. What helped hang Baker was that there was no TV footage of the incident.
We can guess what West would have said if he was reported and had to give evidence.
"I saw Clarke jogging after Josh Hunt, so I decided to run at Clarke and put on a block, because that's what 'Bomber' wants us to do.
Not just in the backline, but all over the ground when an opposition player is making a run to get the ball."
In his evidence, which reportedly didn't help Baker, Baker said he and Farmer were running together near the edge of the centre square.
"I stopped in my path and Jeffrey kept running and I blocked his path just to stop him getting into the forward 50," Baker said. "I felt contact on the back and the back of my head . . . I'm a backman, that's what I do."
Baker seven, West zip.
The match review panel and tribunal continue to mystify us. Geelong's Ryan Gamble punched Nick Dal Santo in the jaw. It was a softish king-hit.
He cops one week.
In 2003 Collingwood's Brodie Holland whacked Sydney's Paul Williams flush in the face after arguing provocation. He got two weeks.
And last night we had Barry Hall. He was suspended for his act of violence and also suspended because of society's conscience. But does Hall's seven weeks mean what he did was seven times worse than what Gamble did?
The same for West and Baker. Was Baker's hit on Farmer, even without TV, seven times worse than what West did?
It is bewildering to say the least.

 

[The Punter]

Don't get me started on what they are doing to poor Max Hudghton. He's been playing the same way for 11 seasons before this one, with his only intent the ball, and punching it away. He doesn't grab or anything like that, but will reach around opponents to punch the ball away.

And now it's illegal. Are they really trying to push him into retirement?

 

[MilneyLoves2Snap]

Forget it lads, the system is always going to sink the boot into us. They have tried to kill the saints for 100 years and we are still here. Hope everyone here can get down to the game tonight and help us get over the dons. They usually out number us in support even at our home games, so get down

 

[bubblegoose]

Forget it lads, the system is always going to sink the boot into us. They have tried to kill the saints for 100 years and we are still here. Hope everyone here can get down to the game tonight and help us get over the dons. They usually out number us in support even at our home games, so get down

No fear ML2S! I'm about 500m away from my seat as we speak - or as I type

 

[Red Gum]

I think Bakes was carrying points in from the Marc Murphy one, and there is no doubt the AFL/Tribunal was in the mood at the time to clamp down on taggers.

Amazingly (given the Goose one, the Gram one, and the Chris Grant one I saw on Footy Classified) I don't think Hall had any additional points.

He also carries 90 points forward (very close to an extra game).

So I think that it was more like 6 weeks for Baker (plus one for carry over), and 8 for Hall (less one due to not quite enough points). Still not quite right but they are a little different.

Seen the Herald Sun article? Certainly points to an injustice.

Yeah Bakes definitely had carry over. Wasn't it that extraordinary situation of Baker getting two charges in one game and getting reprimands for each with carry-over from both being >100points. Baker got 5 weeks + 2 for carry over points. Hall got 10 - 25% guilty plea etc...

I don't disagree the comparison looks bad but the problem is the vagaries of the system and the use of a points tally and percentage breakdowns. Hall shouldn't have had access to the 25% reduction for pleading guilty as the case was referred automatically and his guilt was not in doubt.

 

[hamG]

The mis-weighting of most of the incidents being discussed in this thread are a product of the points system - prior offenses & carryover points, especially Baker. As a fella said without history he would have gotten 4 weeks.

Gamble only getting 1 was pretty lucky, but thats the way their system works. I always believed West's block was fine, there was absolutely no malice and the bump was pretty reserved. Clarke was stunned but he came back on the field pretty quickly didn't he?

Edit: Thought I heard Baker would have gotten 4, maybe it was 5.