- Banned
- #676
JeffDunne's doing her best. Give her a go.
-
-
If you are seeing this notice, posts and uploads you make now may be lost when we cut over to the upgraded system. This should only last a few hours.
Post feedback, issues, errors and omissions here. Read the OP first, please.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Steven Baker found guilty
- Thread starter Baroclinic instability
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Status
JeffDunne's doing her best. Give her a go.
Baroclinic instability
All Australian
- Mar 14, 2007
- 603
- 0
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Thread starter
- #677
JD and fireman you're starting to sound like us Carlton fans post the salary cap penalties
Conspiracies
Injustice
Constant whinging
Conspiracies
Injustice
Constant whinging
- Banned
- #678
JD and fireman you're starting to sound like us Carlton fans post the salary cap penalties
Conspiracies
Injustice
Constant whinging
Really? You have to be kidding surely, you poor buggers were defending outright cheating, your club was guilty with evidence supplied, all I am saying is that the tribunal seems a little unfair in this case, a player has been convicted of something without any real evidence, a bit different wouldn't you say?
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Is JeffDunne still at it? Man, that guy's been at it all friggin' day!
and you haven't been on here all day?
and you have the nerve to call people hypocrites
I have been busy all day, are the Saints appealing?
Can't be bothered checking through all the posts...
Can't be bothered checking through all the posts...
Stronzo
Hall of Famer
Not appealing just squeeling..
They had a win on the weekend and still can't enjoy it, what a miserable headspace it must be being a saints supporter.
- Banned
- #683
Not appealing?
Idiots.... again the AFL has just layed the smackdown and made an example of the Saints.
They should have appealed that rubbish.... Their own fault for not standing up to it. The afl know now that can just push the Saints into a corner.
Should have been thrown out.
What.. they are appealing?
Good... retract my previous statements.
Good... retract my previous statements.
dont you mean has been convicted of something on his own evidence
-bakers admitted he initiated the collision(at fault)
-broken nose, cut mouth and concussion (head high and high impact)
-video doesn't show them near the ball (behind play)
Video of the actual collision would jsut have been icing on the cake for the tribunal
um the tribunal said on two other occassions if the player is in front of you, you have a duty of care to avoid.
baker said he saw farmer running at him and braced for impact.
basically farmer was looking sideways, and ran slam into a nearly stationary Baker.
baker didn't run to farmer, and didn't move out the way.
st kilda and baker believe they did nothing wrong.
how is it bakers fault if farmer is a dumb ass who doesn't watch where he is running?
obviously the AFL are blaming baker for being stationary and bracing while farmer ran into him.
jeez way to reward the dumbass in farmer.
baker said he saw farmer running at him and braced for impact.
basically farmer was looking sideways, and ran slam into a nearly stationary Baker.
baker didn't run to farmer, and didn't move out the way.
st kilda and baker believe they did nothing wrong.
how is it bakers fault if farmer is a dumb ass who doesn't watch where he is running?
obviously the AFL are blaming baker for being stationary and bracing while farmer ran into him.
jeez way to reward the dumbass in farmer.
Yes, wrongly convicted which is why the club is appealing.
JeffDunne
TheBrownDog
No he didn't. He admitted to stopping in front of him.
Farmer doesn't have a broken nose (another Freo lie) and will play this week
So?
Players collide all the time off the ball.
So you know what happened?
Why on earth weren't you called to give evidence?
Stronzo
Hall of Famer
They also believe in the tooth fairy.
And when they lose, they blame the umpires robbed them. They're a bunch of sooks!
I am convinced you are not playing with a full deck or you are about 13 years old, either way , apologies if I have offended you.
- Banned
- #693
Are you saying Jeffrey lined him up? This just gets betterer and betterer.
- Banned
- #694
OMG, how wrong are you! How bloody long have you been on here? All friggin' day defending Baker I presume? You must have some sort of life!
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
MRobbo
Norm Smith Medallist
St Kilda are only appealing because they believe the decision by the tribunal was wrong.
They have no new evidence.
You can not appeal just becuase you believe the decision is wrong.
The Appeal is a waste of time and will be thrown out in less than 5 minutes.
They have no new evidence.
You can not appeal just becuase you believe the decision is wrong.
The Appeal is a waste of time and will be thrown out in less than 5 minutes.
After hearing what I have heard and the facts I reckon that it was an accidental collision at medium impact.
I don't think Baker would go 1980's on Farmer and just whack him - at the risk of footage and the fact that his club does need him. Losing an important part of your midfield, rotations and stopper for the rest of the season will just about kill the Saints chances.
But even if Baker did whack Farmer - I can't get my head around the proof. You cant just get random people in the crowd. Geez. If it wasn't picked up by footage, Farmer incapable of sufficient or correct evidence or an umpire saw it, it should be thrown out.
They'll win the appeal. It's just ludicrous.
I don't think Baker would go 1980's on Farmer and just whack him - at the risk of footage and the fact that his club does need him. Losing an important part of your midfield, rotations and stopper for the rest of the season will just about kill the Saints chances.
But even if Baker did whack Farmer - I can't get my head around the proof. You cant just get random people in the crowd. Geez. If it wasn't picked up by footage, Farmer incapable of sufficient or correct evidence or an umpire saw it, it should be thrown out.
They'll win the appeal. It's just ludicrous.
the AFL hates being wrong, they were exposed on the ridiculous event that saw baker get two suspended sentences.
the AFL have been exposed so many times and not just st kilda and not just the tribunal that they will make this stick right or wrong.
- Mar 2, 2007
- 43,740
- 64,729
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Cowboys, Packers, Scorchers
You've gotta admire the Saints fans who keep bringing up the the mistreatment of women card. No doubt your moral indignation has led you to campaign your club to get rid of a few choice individuals from your team?
No? Hypocritical much?
Suggest you get your facts right.
"The tribunal jury accepted Baker's account of events, with the player saying he was running in front of Farmer, before stopping and propping causing Farmer to run into the back of him."
Baker initiated the contact so he has a duty of care. Crap rule but its been the same for 20 rounds.
- Status
