Steven Baker found guilty

[sedders]

You obviously don't know Ripper very well...

yes ripper's need for baker to play on judd is stronger than his care for farmer. its sad but true

 

[JeffDunne]

Which part of this whole process could St Kilda challenge?

Can I tell you in the morning?

I've got one foot out the door.

 

[Tony_Clifton]

JeffDunne posted this at Saitsational:
SS Hall of Fame


Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Posts: 2358

Posted: Thu 23 Aug 2007 9:59pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting.

I received this today from someone whose opinion I generally respect (don't tell him that) and has no reason I can see to make this up.

I;ve removed the name for obvious reasons.

-----------------------------------------------------------
******* who represents ******* at the tribunal works with me. That is my source. Baker is known to stop in front of opponents and throw his head back. Numerous players are happy he's been dealt with. Luke Hodge is one in particular who has spoken to *******.
-----------------------------------------------------------

To be honest, Jeff goes on to dispute the credibility of this

 

[ekzistenz]

I've highlighted all the points questionable and unproven in this case.

• Whether the degree of force applied by the person bumping was excessive for the situation.

I'd call a broken nose excessive force, especially in an off the ball incident.

• Whether the player being bumped was actively involved in the passage of play.

They were off the ball, so it would seem that they weren't actively involved in the play.

• The distance the player applying the bump has run to make contact.
• Whether the player being bumped is in a position to protect himself or is in a vulnerable position.
• Whether an elbow is part of the contact.
• Whether the player bumping jumps or leaves the ground to bump.

These could definitely be questioned.

The onus is placed on a player who elects to bump to do so legitimately. He has a duty to avoid significant contact to an opponent’s head or neck where reasonably possible.

And here's the kicker. It was Baker's duty of care to avoid contact with the face.

Personally, I thought there was no way Baker would get done, because no camera's picked it up and there were no unbias witnesses. It seems in part that Baker's own evidence screwed him.

 

[Hawk-in-syd]

I'm struggling to knock off work before midnight if that's what you mean.

I understand what duty of care means, I just don't understand the AFL's application of it.



I've highlighted all the points questionable and unproven in this case.

Simply put the AFL's view of duty of care is, if you are going to bump someone its your responsibility not to hit them in the head or neck. The highlighted points are only used to determine if Baker had another option than to bump. baker obviously didn't have to stop infront of farmer so they are mute.
After reading the booklet I can't see how after Bakers admisison they could have found any different. Maybe you could have argued the impact was lower than "severe" but with the damage done that would have been hard.

PS I know why your still at work. Your on the bl**dy internet.

 

[JeffDunne]

To be honest, Jeff goes on to dispute the credibility of this

Why on earth did you post that here?

I mean really.

 

[Ripper]

You obviously don't know Ripper very well...

Just calling it how I see it like I always do.

yes ripper's need for baker to play on judd is stronger than his care for farmer. its sad but true

I don't follow . What does this have to do with Judd?

Do you not think that seven weeks is harsh in anyones language?

I would have expected two or three but seven is one third of a season.

 

[Tony_Clifton]

Why on earth did you post that here?

It is interesting and relevant. Why, have you got a problem with what you write on a public forum?

 

[JeffDunne]

It is interesting and relevant. Why, have you got a problem with what you write on a public forum?

No and I don't see how it's relelvant. I have no idea if it's true and Hodge apparantly said the complete opposite on TFS tonight (which I didn't see)

Anyhow, I'm out of here until tomorrow . . . I mean later today.

 

[skipper kelly]

whats happening JD.

 

[sedders]

Just calling it how I see it like I always do.



I don't follow . What does this have to do with Judd?

Do you not think that seven weeks is harsh in anyones language?

I would have expected two or three but seven is one third of a season.

Have u heard of the points system? is would have been 3 weeks if it were 99% of the other players

 

[greennick]

Just calling it how I see it like I always do.

Haha, you do always call it how you see it, shame it is normally through those purple coloured glasses of yours...

 

[Ripper]

Have u heard of the points system? is would have been 3 weeks if it were 99% of the other players

I have already addressed that earlier.

 

[sedders]

I have already addressed that earlier.

cant say i'm highly motivated to go look for something you claim to have addressed earlier

 

[Adz]

This is a win for footy loving people!

 

[JeffDunne]

I'd call a broken nose excessive force, especially in an off the ball incident.

If you believe the story the tribunal accepted, the force was due to the momentum of the player with the bloodied nose.

For the 100th time - HE DOESN"T HAVE A BROKEN NOSE!!

They were off the ball, so it would seem that they weren't actively involved in the play.

We've scrapped the "in play" definition because it's too subjective. Watch the footage again and you'll see Baker was within seconds of the incident near the ball. No doubt is was away from the ball, but it's a stretch based on their own previous interpretations that this not in play.

And here's the kicker. It was Baker's duty of care to avoid contact with the face.

Nonsense. How could you possibly forsee a head clash by stopping front of someone. Do you understand the legal onus of 'duty of care'.

If not, don't use the term.

Personally, I thought there was no way Baker would get done, because no camera's picked it up and there were no unbias witnesses. It seems in part that Baker's own evidence screwed him.

So you agree it was a B/S call?

whats happening JD.

G'day skip.

Nothing new. St Kilda getting bent over by a corrupt organisation.

This is a win for footy loving people!

It's a win for ********s that can't handle a mans game.

I'm not suprised you're delighted.

 

[MRobbo]

St Kilda and Steven Baker can only blame themselves after the evidence they gave on Tuesday night.


It will be very interesting to see the reactions of saints fans at the dome tonight.

 

[NEON]

[YOUTUBE]ejbz4RVh0oU[/YOUTUBE]

 

[claf-43]

This is a win for footy loving people!

Damn right

I hate scragging taggers

 

[thepower]

from afar what i can gather is that the afl is against the st's.

furthermore, i cant believe they didnt take ricky nixon's eye witness account seriously enough to exhonerate baker.

lastly, why is it that only saints fans are defending baker?

FWIW i have nothing against baker, a tough player who leaves it all out on the field. we had someone like that in j carr.

 

[cartwright]

St Kilda and Steven Baker can only blame themselves after the evidence they gave on Tuesday night.


It will be very interesting to see the reactions of saints fans at the dome tonight.

unfortunatley this is correct. nice lesson for the kiddies, lie & you'll get off. Tell the truth, and you're out for 7 weeks.

Whilst I think it was a stupid act to do 100m off the ball, not worth 7 weeks regardless of priors.

 

[Digby_from_Dingley]

Baker vs Buckenara

with all the talk about the precedent set by the AFL tribunal in the Baker case with regard to lack of evidence, it reminded me of a similar case involving Gary Buckenara.

I think it was against Melbourne or Richmond. His opponent was knocked out, noboddy saw it. He admitted to swinging his arm back to break a hold as he went to lead as he would 50-60 times a game. On the basis of his own evidence he was suspended for 3 weeks.

Anyone remember it? Have I got it right?

 

[the-shamus-the]

from afar what i can gather is that the afl is against the st's.

furthermore, i cant believe they didnt take ricky nixon's eye witness account seriously enough to exhonerate baker.

lastly, why is it that only saints fans are defending baker?

FWIW i have nothing against baker, a tough player who leaves it all out on the field. we had someone like that in j carr.

Finally nice to see a neutral supporter with some common sense...

 

[Lach72]

I heard on 6PR on the way to work that St Kilda have dropped the matter and it is now finished...

 

[dockertor]

If you believe the story the tribunal accepted, the force was due to the momentum of the player with the bloodied nose.

Baker deliberately instigated contact, What part of that is hard to understand?

For the 100th time - HE DOESN"T HAVE A BROKEN NOSE!!

His face was smashed to a pulp, enough contact to be considered excessive.

We've scrapped the "in play" definition because it's too subjective. Watch the footage again and you'll see Baker was within seconds of the incident near the ball. No doubt is was away from the ball, but it's a stretch based on their own previous interpretations that this not in play.

You cannot be seriously arguing it was any where near play. That’s the reason there were no cameras any where near the incident. They where on the play.

Nonsense. How could you possibly forsee a head clash by stopping front of someone. Do you understand the legal onus of 'duty of care'.

When you hit someone off the ball who doesn’t see it coming the onus id on you to ensure you don’t hit them head high. Why is this so hard for you to accept?



So you agree it was a B/S call?


No 4 weeks is about right

.

I cant believe the denial of saint supporters over this