Steven Baker found guilty

[Valve Bounce]

Ignoring all the anti Freo /Farmer stuff most people would have to agree that seven weeks is very harsh no matter what anyone has done.

You would have to go a way to convince me that Baker actually meant to inflict so much damage.

I actually feel a bit sorry for him as He will feel that he has let his team down.

I guess the system of carry over points is not correct. To make it worse, the guy could have played dumb and simply say that he was jogging and watching the flight of the ball, then stopped to see where Farmer was when Farmer ran into him. All sorts of stories would have got him off. "He just couldn't understand what happened".

I don't like it when a guy tells the truth and they use that to hang him for 7 weeks; that's a bit stiff.

I think a four week suspension would have been harsh, and more than sufficient.

 

[Chopsticks]

Just to clarify:
1. Chopsticks makes strong claim (that "Victorian clubs are favored by the tribunal"). Provides no evidence at all to back up claim.
2. Schwabie asks Chopsticks for evidence to support claim.
3. Chopsticks fails to provide any evidence.
4. Schwabie provides evidence to contradict Chopsticks' claim.
5. Chopsticks once against makes erroneous claim, again without any evidence.
5. Schwabie once again asks Chopsticks for evidence to support initial claim.
6. Chopsticks again refuses to provide any evidence, but tries to shoot across a few low-quality insults to cover his stupidity.

When you turn 17, you could maybe apply for a job at the AFL, probably the only organization in the country who would accept you.

I bow to your superior intellect.

I shall be your Grasshopper.

 

[JeffDunne]

The assault charge was a tongue in cheak reference to the likely hood of him being let off. In other words there is no way in hell he would be charged with assault but even less likely to be found not guilty.

The court won't decide whether or not he's guilty.

They won't care.

It is the process that will be called into question - not the decision.

Now I know you don't know what you're talking about.

How can a court find him not guilty if he admits his actions were unlawful under AFL rules and resulted in a broken nose and concussion?

Won't even come into it.

They have been successful via the AFL appeals process. A court would need a higher standard of proof that the AFL were in fact wrong in their grading. They wouldn't want to meddle in the AFL affairs unless there was a gross injustice.

lol, you seriously think the court is going to start determining if he was reckless, negligent, etc ?

Ok, I'm convinced. You have no idea what you're talking about.

So the AFL can be sure they are right in their decision making in the unlikely event that a club decides to take this to court.

lol, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

The court won't determine whether their decision was right or wrong. It will determine whether the AFL's process denied Baker his common law rights.

 

[The Fireman]

Wow, look at the size of this thread, it has created a lot of interest, it may have a bit to do with the way the tribunal has handled this.
Either way it is just another example of how poorly the tribunal is being run and it won't be long before most of the posters on this thread will be complaining about the tribunal concerning their own players.
Nothing has changed, Bakers penalty and the tribunals incompetency so looking forward to tomorrow night and the tribunals next stuff up.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Yep and even though I hate Baker as he is a cheap shot merchant, in this case what evidence is there..so he said he made contact..well so what? The freo trainer..yes he is very unbiased isn't he considering Freo are a mathematical chance at the 8. The court would throw the case out in 5 minutes!

 

[JeffDunne]

Man, you are delusional if you think that. This is an AFL board not a Aints board.

I was talking about this thread and your constant (hypocritcal) rants in relation to it.

If you don't want to read what's being said and you're over it, don't open the threasd.

If you're not contributing to the discussion, then please troll elsewhere.

Given you rate your intelligence so highly, I'm surprise I have to spell it out for you.

 

[Schwabie]

I bow to your superior intellect.

I shall be your Grasshopper.

I remain curious, for knowledge sake, at any sort of Victorian bias from the tribunal.

Just list a couple to make my night. You must be able to think of even two instances of bias, given you seemed so equivocal.

 

[sharpie]

I guess the system of carry over points is not correct. To make it worse, the guy could have played dumb and simply say that he was jogging and watching the flight of the ball, then stopped to see where Farmer was when Farmer ran into him. All sorts of stories would have got him off. "He just couldn't understand what happened".

I don't like it when a guy tells the truth and they use that to hang him for 7 weeks; that's a bit stiff.

I think a four week suspension would have been harsh, and more than sufficient.

I like your thinking in some respects

Seeing as he didn't get the chance to plead guilty and get a discount - he should have got the discount anyway due to the fact he told the truth and the jury accepted his evidence.

so assuming her got 700 pts total - take of 25% for "guilty" verdict

leaves him with 5 weeks

 

[morgoth]

Told you JD, St Kilda stuffed up big time, should have said Farmer ran into him and he would have been OK (after all there was no footage), once he admitted instigating the contact he was guilty and then the points system kicks in, 7 is the result.

The tribunnal was smart enough to only use his evidence in finding him guilty so their was no room to appeal. What was Baker going to say at the appeal that could get him off the hook when he admitted he did it.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

 

[Tony_Clifton]

A nice switcharoo on your part Jeff but
will you go to court based on this:

(from sportal)

The Saints' legal counsel Philip Priest argued that Baker had been disadvantaged at his original hearing by what he described as the 'changing nature' of the case.

This centred on the argument put by Andrew Tinney, the counsel assisting the Tribunal, that it didn't matter whether the tribunal agreed with Farmer's version of events or Baker's because the contact amounted to rough conduct because it was unnecessary and occurred so far off the ball.

Mr Priest conceded that he should have responded at the time to Mr Tinney's summation, but stressed that "a rational tribunal could not have convicted on the evidence in this case".

"We're left to guess the basis on which the Tribunal reached its decision," he said.

Baker got poor counselling from his own legal people which resulted in him essentially hanging himself with his own words. What are they going to argue, inadequate counsel?

 

[Chopsticks]

Wow, look at the size of this thread, it has created a lot of interest, it may have a bit to do with the way the tribunal has handled this.
Either way it is just another example of how poorly the tribunal is being run and it won't be long before most of the posters on this thread will be complaining about the tribunal concerning their own players.
Nothing has changed, Bakers penalty and the tribunals incompetency so looking forward to tomorrow night and the tribunals next stuff up.

What did you think of the decision when Baker was reported twice for striking against Carlton? You know the game, the one that left him with all those annoying carryover points.

Pesky system hey? At first you think you beat it and then BANG, it bites you on the arse.

 

[Chopsticks]

I remain curious, for knowledge sake, at any sort of Victorian bias from the tribunal.

Just list a couple to make my night. You must be able to think of even two instances of bias, given you seemed so equivocal.

Suggest you read all Mrs Dunne's posts and then you'll see some context.

- another picture for you Master.

 

[The Fireman]

What did you think of the decision when Baker was reported twice for striking against Carlton? You know the game, the one that left him with all those annoying carryover points.

Pesky system hey? At first you think you beat it and then BANG, it bites you on the arse.

I think the tribunal beat itself this time.

 

[The Fireman]

Suggest you read all Mrs Dunne's posts and then you'll see some context.

- another picture for you Master.

I must admit to having a bit of a chuckle at watching the freo people following this and hoping for Bakers head and I understand , that's all you have left.

 

[morgoth]

Tribunnal got it 100% right, after all Baker admitted he performed an illegal block. Under the new duty of care rule, he is responsible for the outcome of any action that results in injury to the head. The fact's are it was an illegal action and not nessecary and he should have thought of the outcome of his actions.

With his record and being behind play he then had to get a massive penalty. Might want to change your legal people.

 

[MeeSo]

JD what are they actually going to argue in court? You seem to rate your legal knowledge so what's the argument they 're going to put forward?

 

[JeffDunne]

A nice switcharoo on your part Jeff but
will you go to court based on this:

(from sportal)

The Saints' legal counsel Philip Priest argued that Baker had been disadvantaged at his original hearing by what he described as the 'changing nature' of the case.

This centred on the argument put by Andrew Tinney, the counsel assisting the Tribunal, that it didn't matter whether the tribunal agreed with Farmer's version of events or Baker's because the contact amounted to rough conduct because it was unnecessary and occurred so far off the ball.

Mr Priest conceded that he should have responded at the time to Mr Tinney's summation, but stressed that "a rational tribunal could not have convicted on the evidence in this case".

"We're left to guess the basis on which the Tribunal reached its decision," he said.

Baker got poor counselling from his own legal people which resulted in him essentially hanging himself with his own words. What are they going to argue, inadequate counsel?

Not sure what you mean by the first comment.

As for getting poor counsel, that may be true. It wouldn't be the first time.

Doesn't change anything in relation to the tribunal's conduct. That would be the basis of any legal challenge and not whether he received adequate council.

 

[JeffDunne]

Tribunnal got it 100% right, after all Baker admitted he performed an illegal block. Under the new duty of care rule, he is responsible for the outcome of any action that results in injury to the head. The fact's are it was an illegal action and not nessecary and he should have thought of the outcome of his actions.

With his record and being behind play he then had to get a massive penalty. Might want to change your legal people.

Please explain that one to me.

In particluar, the legal definition of the term.

Did you see the thread I posted about kicking the ball out of the air and duty of care? I'd like to see your considered response to that.

 

[Schwabie]

Tribunnal got it 100% right, after all Baker admitted he performed an illegal block. Under the new duty of care rule, he is responsible for the outcome of any action that results in injury to the head. The fact's are it was an illegal action and not nessecary and he should have thought of the outcome of his actions.

With his record and being behind play he then had to get a massive penalty. Might want to change your legal people.

Might want to change your spell check.

 

[morgoth]

What legal argument are you going to have JD?

The tirbunnal ignored the other evidence and found him guilty by his own admission. You reckon a court would see it differently? Same system that charges a speeding driver with culpable driver if they cause an accident.

Everyone speeds, just like everyone blocks, if you speed and cause as accident you are in deep shit, if not you get a fine (free), the AFL has applied the same logic to an illegal block. By his own admission, he did it.

The fact an appeal process was available means he has had his appropriate legal rights, you have nothing to appeal to the courts over, simple as that. Anderson knows nothing about footy but he knows about the law.

 

[Chopsticks]

I must admit to having a bit of a chuckle at watching the freo people following this and hoping for Bakers head and I understand , that's all you have left.

We've got Melbourne this week and Port Adelaide the following week.

 

[Schwabie]

A nice switcharoo on your part Jeff but
will you go to court based on this:

(from sportal)

The Saints' legal counsel Philip Priest argued that Baker had been disadvantaged at his original hearing by what he described as the 'changing nature' of the case.

This centred on the argument put by Andrew Tinney, the counsel assisting the Tribunal, that it didn't matter whether the tribunal agreed with Farmer's version of events or Baker's because the contact amounted to rough conduct because it was unnecessary and occurred so far off the ball.

Mr Priest conceded that he should have responded at the time to Mr Tinney's summation, but stressed that "a rational tribunal could not have convicted on the evidence in this case".

"We're left to guess the basis on which the Tribunal reached its decision," he said.

Baker got poor counselling from his own legal people which resulted in him essentially hanging himself with his own words. What are they going to argue, inadequate counsel?

Inadequate counsel is actually a very valid point of appeal.

As they say, "if you are on trial for murder, either get the best lawyer in town, or the worst."

St.Kilda should have hired David Grace QC - he managed to snare Frementle the win last year in SirenGate so is clearly a gifted advocate.

 

[morgoth]

JD

The rule re duty of care came in at the end of the 2006 season, there is no point comparing acts from before the 07 season. If someone takes a kick at the ball and causes injury then they should have the same principle applied.

Hell Rocca got done for a legit hip and shoulder simply cos of the duty of care principle. He did nothing wrong, the ump did not even pay a free but he should have forseen his action could have caused injury and pulled out.

Shit rule IMO, but it is the rule.

 

[Schwabie]

What legal argument are you going to have JD?

The tirbunnal ignored the other evidence and found him guilty by his own admission. You reckon a court would see it differently? Same system that charges a speeding driver with culpable driver if they cause an accident.

Everyone speeds, just like everyone blocks, if you speed and cause as accident you are in deep shit, if not you get a fine (free), the AFL has applied the same logic to an illegal block. By his own admission, he did it.

The fact an appeal process was available means he has had his appropriate legal rights, you have nothing to appeal to the courts over, simple as that. Anderson knows nothing about footy but he knows about the law.

Adrian Anderson was a defamation lawyer at Corrs - now considered a mid-tier firm.

Hardly makes him qualified to create what is effectively a criminal law system for the largest sporting competition in the country.

That has been borne out by the shambles of a system now in place.

 

[The Fireman]

We've got Melbourne this week and Port Adelaide the following week.

And? Go fishing mate, it's all over.