Steven Baker found guilty

[edgar_davids]

Re: Baker found guilty, what a disgrace

I think he was lucky to get 7 weeks, the AFL has out-lawed all head high contact. The incident occurred more than 5 metres from the ball so it was an illegal block and it was head high, as well as this Michael Voss saw the whole thing.

"Mr Baker ran towards Mr Farmer at a 45-degrees angle and made contact with Mr Farmer," Kirkwood said.
Kirkwood said his view of the point of impact was obscured by Farmer's body, but he believed it was between Baker's left hip and shoulder, including the arm"

7 weeks justified from the above statement. Steven Baker looked very worried at the interval when the camera was right on him.

He has a poor record too - 10 visits to the tribunal for 10 guilty verdicts. Says it all really.

 

[Penski]

Re: What a Joke!

Despite everyone hating baker the fact is no one credible saw the actually point of impact and should thus get off.

How about defining credible?

The bloke that claims he did see it is a Teacher by profession. That's a pretty credible witness right there.

 

[DeeHughMan]

Re: What a Joke!

Kosi - Giansiracusa
Ball - Whelan
Hird - McVeigh
White - King (Was King reported, can't remember but he didn't get seven weeks)
Steve Waugh - Jason Gillespie

Were they all belted or deliberately collided with?

How many weeks did McVeigh get for rearranging Hird's face?
How many weeks did Whealan get for the head clash he initiated with Luke Ball or Giansiracusa for Kosi?

Kosi and Ball did not protect themselves. when the ball was less than 10 metres away so they are not comparable.

players should not do what baker did. farmer had no idea he was coming and the ball was 40m away. then baker lied to the tribunal.

 

[DeeHughMan]

Re: What a Joke!

Despite everyone hating baker the fact is no one credible saw the actually point of impact and should thus get off.

you dont need a witness for a conviction. you just need evidence.

 

[edgar_davids]

Re: Baker found guilty, what a disgrace

Guys, it doesn't matter if there is no video footage. Police deal with robberies, murders and other crimes every day with no video evidence, how do you think they prosecute someone, by gathering evidence from eyewitness accounts.

 

[The Spike]

Re: What a Joke!

The bloke that claims he did see it is a Teacher by profession. That's a pretty credible witness right there.

Credible my ar$e! He is a purple slime trainer! Its tainted evidence. Why don't we call in about 500 saint supporters who were also at the game who saw what happened and have appropriate professions to give 'evidence' as well?

 

[Valve Bounce]

St Kilda really should be careful with how they handle this. It has the potential to derail their already shakey finals chances. Most people outside the Saints would agree that Baker is a dirty player - whose past efforts have come back to haunt him. St Kilda won't do themselves any favours by portraying him to be a "saint".

You want the Saints to portray him as a Magpie?

 

[chapmanmagic35]

Re: What a Joke!

Barry Kirkwood better not be in attendance the next time Freo play St Kilda in Melbourne (probably in a decade's time given the biased (W)AFL draw).

Anyone know what school he works at?

Why? Because he told people what he saw?

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Re: What a Joke!

Kosi - Giansiracusa
Ball - Whelan
Hird - McVeigh
White - King (Was King reported, can't remember but he didn't get seven weeks)
Steve Waugh - Jason Gillespie

Were they all belted or deliberately collided with?

How many weeks did McVeigh get for rearranging Hird's face?
How many weeks did Whealan get for the head clash he initiated with Luke Ball or Giansiracusa for Kosi?

No wonder Baker Lost his case if this is an example of his defense.
Cant recall any of the above being 40 mtrs from the ball

 

[Bollox]

It wasn't Baker at all..........


It was Professor Plum, in the library with the candlestick.

lol

They fine Brown for lying but then they shoot the bloke that admits something that he didnt didnt even need to....and even that wasnt exactly incriminating himself.

Who the hell waould even contemplate telling the truth ?...obviously you shouldnt even tell them you were even on the paddock unless they have proof of it.

All the evidence points to a heavy check off the ball which is hardly anything new or grounds to have the book thrown at you. Farmer could have broken his beak when he hit the ground...he could've hit his head on Bakers shoulder...could've been caused by anything.

It just looks like an emotional ruling based simply on a bloke being injured... no evidence whatsoever this came from a strike of any description...in fact the evidence would suggest a free kick only and Farmer should have been more AWARE...remember the old awareness debate after the Luke Ball whacking by Whelan ?

Bizzarreeeeeee ....u can almost see Vlad in the morning meeting today.

Investigations Officer
" Andrew...we got a positive result...the tribunal last night gave a bloke 7 weeks for something...there was no evidence and we dont know what happened but a guy had a broken nose "

Vlad
" Ring Anderson and tell him to FIND someone FAST that's willing to swear he saw a punch. We cant have our tribunal looking like idiots if they appeal and he gets off "


Judd has all the evidence in the world against him to suggest he gouged Brown...Brown lies so he gets off. There's NO evidence against Baker and he at least admits it was him and they give him 7 weeks ?

Spin that wheeeel

 

[chapmanmagic35]

Re: What a Joke!

Kosi - Giansiracusa
Ball - Whelan
Hird - McVeigh
White - King (Was King reported, can't remember but he didn't get seven weeks)
Steve Waugh - Jason Gillespie

Were they all belted or deliberately collided with?

How many weeks did McVeigh get for rearranging Hird's face?
How many weeks did Whealan get for the head clash he initiated with Luke Ball or Giansiracusa for Kosi?

What the hell is your point?

 

[JeffDunne]

Re: What a Joke!

Why? Because he told people what he saw?

Why? I'd just like to explain to the lying sack of shit what a strike actually looks like.

He straight out lied to get a player rubbed out. You don't get much lower than that.

 

[cartwright]

lol

They fine Brown for lying but then they shoot the bloke that admits something that he didnt didnt even need to....and even that wasnt exactly incriminating himself.

Who the hell waould even contemplate telling the truth ?...obviously you shouldnt even tell them you were even on the paddock unless they have proof of it.

All the evidence points to a heavy check off the ball which is hardly anything new or grounds to have the book thrown at you. Farmer could have broken his beak when he hit the ground...he could've hit his head on Bakers shoulder...could've been caused by anything.

It just looks like an emotional ruling based simply on a bloke being injured... no evidence whatsoever this came from a strike of any description...in fact the evidence would suggest a free kick only and Farmer should have been more AWARE...remember the old awareness debate after the Luke Ball whacking by Whelan ?

Bizzarreeeeeee ....u can almost see Vlad in the morning meeting today.

Investigations Officer
" Andrew...we got a positive result...the tribunal last night gave a bloke 7 weeks for something...there was no evidence and we dont know what happened but a guy had a broken nose "

Vlad
" Ring Anderson and tell him to FIND someone FAST that's willing to swear he saw a punch. We cant have our tribunal looking like idiots if they appeal and he gets off "


Judd has all the evidence in the world against him to suggest he gouged Brown...Brown lies so he gets off. There's NO evidence against Baker and he at least admits it was him and they give him 7 weeks ?

Spin that wheeeel

This is exactly what I was thinking last night - rules for some.
It was clear as day that Judd gouged Brown, but he gets off because Brown didn't dob him in

NO footage of Baker, but he gets 7 weeks.
if Farmer's nose wasn't broken it would have been a non-issue....

 

[Freo Shark]

Re: Baker found guilty, what a disgrace

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.

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!

Grow a brain you fool!! shouldnt you be doing your homework ? It has nothing to do with Freo except being a Freo player. All our trainer said is what he saw, nothing malicious in that ! The club has said nothing, Farmer as well.

Baker only got 4wks, the rest was for previous indescretions, harsh perhaps but with the AFL sanitising the game and throwing out harsh suspensions (our johnson got 4wks; Ben Johnson 6wks) for something that last year wouldnt have got more than a free kick what do you expect. The AFL needs to maintain the precedent.

The whole tribunal system needs reviewing and getting balance and reality and precedence back into it.

 

[Melbdave81]

This is exactly what I was thinking last night - rules for some.
It was clear as day that Judd gouged Brown, but he gets off because Brown didn't dob him in

NO footage of Baker, but he gets 7 weeks.
if Farmer's nose wasn't broken it would have been a non-issue....

In the end, Baker has been a thug since he has come into the league and has got what he deserved. This has nothing to do with Judd or anyone else.

The thug has been caught out and the competition will be better off without for the next 7 weeks

 

[rog1995]

Re: Baker found guilty, what a disgrace

he deserved it he is a thug
suffer baker you dog! have a nice holiday

 

[Darkhour]

Freo are indirectly becoming my least liked club... only for the fact that we seem to come out screwed over by the AFL each time we play them..

I think someone should get to the root of the problem and find out if Butters shagged Vlad's wife or something...?

 

[Obeanie1]

So there are no boundary lines , goal lines and centre square lines



Yes he stopped Farmer yet Baker gets 7 because they accidently clash heads and Farmer comes off second best

In AFL there are hundreds of blocks off the ball every friggin week - Sandilands had his jaw broken earlier in the season - did the AFL investigate that???? Luke Ball clashed with Whelan earlier in season and has to get 14 stitches into his head and misses 2 matches - Whelan gets jack - Giansiracusa smashes Kosi factures his skull ansd the AFL agree that it was a accidental clash of heads - Gia gets zip Kosi gets half a season on the sidelines - Off the ball or on the ball it shouldn't matter for the fact it was an accidental clash of noggins - it warranted nothing more than a free kick

Now do you comprehende

Hey I'm sorry you are correct about one thing, there is white lines out there.

As to all the other rubbish you are writting you are remaining one eyed!!

The Wheelan and Gia incidents you brought up, both occassions the ball was within 5 meters and it was reasonable that both players expected contact.

The Sandilands incident it was found (Freo runner said) Sandiland tripped over his own shoe laces and fell into Seaby's back / shoulder. Seaby didn't BLOCK.

You Saint mob just don't get it do you, Baker admitted to purposely BLOCKING therefore instigated the contact. The Freo runners testomony didn't suspend Baker BAKERS ADMISSION to what he did got him 4 weeks. Can any of you budding lawyers understand this concept???? A case can be proven not with air tight direct evidence (video) but with an admission of guilt.

Baker stuffed up in his testomony admitting he purposely BLOCKED Farmer 50m behind play. No appeal can turn that around.

Now get over it.

 

[MRobbo]

As just mentioned on SEN

If it had been a clean player it would have only been a 2 week penalty(239 points).

Baker has been up a lot before so had 40% loading added on becuase he had been found guilty 4 times previously and 122 points to add on that is why it ended up with a 7 week penalty(722 points).

Big Difference

 

[JeffDunne]

I couldn't care if it was a 1 week ban. It's still a farce.

Judd gets off for eye gouging, Kerr can whack a bloke in the nuts, etc . . . all ON camera.

There was no evidence presented Baker did anything more than get in his way. Not worth a week let alone 2,3,4,5,6 or 7

 

[understudy]

I couldn't care if it was a 1 week ban. It's still a farce.

Judd gets off for eye gouging, Kerr can whack a bloke in the nuts, etc . . . all ON camera.

There was no evidence presented Baker did anything more than get in his way. Not worth a week let alone 2,3,4,5,6 or 7

Unduly rough play, guilty.

Suck it up.

 

[haywood jablome]

Baker is a thug, he deserves it... Its been well known for ages the cheap shots he gets in, suck shit to him.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

I couldn't care if it was a 1 week ban. It's still a farce.

Judd gets off for eye gouging, Kerr can whack a bloke in the nuts, etc . . . all ON camera.

There was no evidence presented Baker did anything more than get in his way. Not worth a week let alone 2,3,4,5,6 or 7

Apart from Baker dobbing himself in

 

[Goosecat]

Whilst you could argue a guy like Farmer deserves everything he gets if the truth be told the player getting what they deserve is Baker. Everyone with half a grain of honesty knows he's a dirty player and like everything and everyone else in life our personal reputations and character preceed any actions we take.

Like certain players before him ( Libba, Francis ) a reasonably talented player has chosen to go down a professional path that will leave a disparaging, sour taste to his career legacy. He continues to ensure he will be remembered as the dirty ******er he is and get treated accordingly. That's his choice and he has no-one to blame but himself

The game and the publics expectations have moved beyond the dirty scragging, off the ball tactics and the A.F.L has got this one right. The game cannot continue to show footage to parents and kids of players receiving concussion and facial damage off the ball without repercussions.
There is no better to way to guarantee parents wanting to look after their kids steer them clear of A.F.L footy.

The sooner these types of players are driven out of the game the better.

 

[dart]

Just shows to go you shouldn't get your manager to to discuss the 'deal' with the tribunal on your behalf, they offered 5 but apparently Ricky played hardball and got him an extra 2.