So let me get this straight. A player with a good record who did exactly the same thing and pleaded guilty would have got 2 weeks (425*.75*.75=239) ?
Seems about right.
Seems about right.
-
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
The tribunal have stated that they believe Baker's version of the events whereby he blocked Farmer off the ball trying to keep goal side of him
So Farmer runs into Baker they hit heads and Farmer breaks his nose and Baker gets 7 weeks
Yet if I am driving my car and I break without warning which I have every right to do and someone rear ends me - it is my fault
There is no doubt whatsoever that Baker has been absolutely rear ended!!!!!!
Absolutely disgraceful decision
The AFL is a complete and utter joke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Driving your car and blocking someone in AFL 50m behind play are to totally different things and you know it.
I mentioned in another thread the only way Baker was going to get weeks was if during cross examination he admitted to doing something.....he did!!
He admitted to stopping and blocking Farmer 50m behind play.
Was Farmer expecting contact...probably not.
Was it high contact, high impact...yep!!
Did Baker have history.....yep!! Lots of history.
If there was video footage it probably looked similar to Sav Rocca getting polaxed over in the states last week, guy caught him under the jaw with his helmet and turned him into a human helicopter.
Farmer was smashed in the head 50m behind play and Baker admitted to doing it. Was it an unfortunate accident....no one exept Saints fans believe that and neither did the tribunal.
End of story.
P.S. Can I donate money to the Saints for a community service bonus for Baker???
Nah coz hed be drunk and throw him on a taxi
"whatever"?
LOL, it's lame people like you that's turning this game into a farce.
Purple Rabble.
Sniper's gone, Saints soon to follow.
Rabble of a club.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
I think the tribunal didn't really care what Baker did or how he did it - the end result was an injured Farmer. However, to inflict those rather serious injuries, merrely propping might not be enough; Baker would have had to jerk his head back sharply to make contact, or reach back with his elbow.
It will be very interesting what St Kilda intends to do from here on.
It will be very interesting what St Kilda intends to do from here on.
YOTC
Brownlow Medallist
- May 17, 2004
- 10,454
- 3,912
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Good bloke
7 weeks is tough but it does seem karma has finally caught up with the little sniper.
I'm curious - how did the tribunal justify the verdict when there were no credible witnesses or footage?
I'm curious - how did the tribunal justify the verdict when there were no credible witnesses or footage?
Yeah, it seems the best the Saints can hope for is a couple of weeks reduction, and that's pretty unlikely.
Don't tell JD that, apparently Bakers record of disgusting sniping should be completely ignored.
Hows it karma, he reported 10 times and suspended 10 times
- Apr 13, 2005
- 4,881
- 6,900
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Absolutely disgusting decision. Steven Baker given 7 weeks for "stopping."
Since when was it against the rules to stop running? Farmer runs into Baker's back and breaks his nose. If Farmer was actually paying attention to where he was running then Bakes would be playing on Friday.
Farmer's injuries are a result of his own stupidity, not a Baker "cheap shot."
But I suppose this is the guy who was given two weeks for an "attempted jumper punch", while Kerr gets one week for punching a guy in the nuts.
Also amazing when Baker was suspended for kicking while Allessio was standing on his ankle. What would anyone else do with 100kg of weight directed into sharp studs on top of their ankle do?
Since when was it against the rules to stop running? Farmer runs into Baker's back and breaks his nose. If Farmer was actually paying attention to where he was running then Bakes would be playing on Friday.
Farmer's injuries are a result of his own stupidity, not a Baker "cheap shot."
But I suppose this is the guy who was given two weeks for an "attempted jumper punch", while Kerr gets one week for punching a guy in the nuts.
Also amazing when Baker was suspended for kicking while Allessio was standing on his ankle. What would anyone else do with 100kg of weight directed into sharp studs on top of their ankle do?
- Apr 13, 2005
- 4,881
- 6,900
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
His record of disgusting sniping?
The strike on Kane Johnson was shocking, but apart from that, when has he actually done anything to warrant suspension?
YOTC
Brownlow Medallist
They said they believed Bakers story about Blocking Farmer as they were running back to the Fremantle Goal. Now we have to hear exactly what Baker said to determine why they gave him a 4 week suspension.
YOTC
Brownlow Medallist
Hahaha funny funny stuff.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be aware of your surroundings at all times. But Baker admitted to instigating the contact, 50m off the ball totally not in play. It was unnecessary and stupid and he caused pretty bad injury. It's his own fault and he has to wear the consequences.
Agreed. I don't see how a Saints fan can say it wasn't worth a 2 week penalty for a player with a good record or 3 weeks for a player with no record. It's worth 2-3 weeks and the other 4-5 are Baker's own fault.
JeffDunne
TheBrownDog
Ummm . . . hate to break this to you . . . but priors aren't taken into account when judging a case.
not interested in reading the tripe from other fans, I guess WC will be happy that their winy little bro's from the west cried again, what a complete crock.
Wrong decision, can't believe this, 7 weeks is just plain wrong.
If your going to start punishing players based on their reputations, it's time to punish,
J Carr, B Hall, Farmer, headland, M Carr etc all dirty low dogs, yet get away with behind the play crap week in week out.
If your going to start punishing players based on their reputations, it's time to punish,
J Carr, B Hall, Farmer, headland, M Carr etc all dirty low dogs, yet get away with behind the play crap week in week out.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- May 26, 2003
- 25,400
- 21,630
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- SFFC, Aussie Women's Cricket, HNK
Good record - only a couple of weeks. Bad record = 7 weeks.
Good point.
It all adds up to 7 weeks... Seems an awful lot, but if he had a clean record, then it would have only been 2 weeks, as mentioned above.
YOTC
Brownlow Medallist
They are having a lot of trouble. The problem is the radio keeps saying a 7 week suspension.
It's a 4 week suspension plus 3 weeks for prior dog acts.
- Apr 13, 2005
- 4,881
- 6,900
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Going to answer the question? The "strike" on Murphy ths year was pissweak. If you watch any center square stoppage you will see taggers whacking/niggling their opponent in the guts. For some reason they decided to pick that one out and suspend Baker for it.
i agree with everything you said.Thats the problem though mate, if he came straight at me I'd at least have a chance - this little prick would come at you from the side or from behind.
He is a low dog who has finally got what he deserves.
4 weeks, plus 3 - tells you all you need to know.
Cop it sweet.
Follow football much?
Baker's previous poor record at the tribunal increased the severity of his penalty, without which he would have received a four-match ban.
Direct from the report on the AFL site.
Keep clutching that hat though, they're all out to get you.
- Banned
- #300
In what way????
So if am driving in front of you and I brake thereby stopping your progress for whatever reason and you smash into the back of me just like Farmer did to Baker - it is my fault
Baker had every right whatsoever to put on the brakes - the fact that Farmer did not realise he had slowed down or stopped is not Baker's fault
Just like when a player runs into an umpire - the player who crashes into the ump should be more aware.
but hey you're probably the type of d1ck whereby if you crash into me would turn around and tell the cops that I reversed into you.
Johson nearly kills someone and gets 6
Baker puts on the brakes and gets 4
- Status
