Steven Baker found guilty

[ImperialPurple]

You do understand the difference between judging and sentencing . . . don't you?

Of course priors are taken into sentencing - that's the whole point of carry over points.

Got any more bleeding obvious statements for me?

A player was felled behind play, was concussed and bleeding and had to be helped from the field.
The MRP meets on Monday and decides to investigate the incident.
The club's captain goes on TV saying he didn't know what happened, no-one of the players saw it, something obviously happened but it was in the hands of the AFL and he wasn't going to comment any further.
The incident is referred directly to the tribunal, where the charged player admits to causing the injury in the act of blocking the player some distance behind the play.
The act is assessed, the player receives 4 weeks for the act + 3 weeks for his "priors".

 

[jd hot stuff]

SO.....Baker sliped over, while Farmer triped over him..... Amazing ay

 

[King Elvis]

I think regardless of whether there was absolute conclusive evidence, simple fact remails that Farmer was behind play, and after Baker made contact, Farmer went off bleeding. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out that Baker did something untoward.

Biggest dog act is to take someone out behind play and now the gutless little sniper must now pay the price. Based on Johnsons, he should have got 12.

Suprised that he did not get

Load of crap.

Likely scenario is that they were going at each other, and the end result was Farmer getting hurt.

7 Weeks is a joke.

 

[Bombs Away]

The legals should have a field day if taken to court

Q: If Found guilty, and proven that farmer would have kicked 4 goals can the result be reversed...???????

Only joking but seriously what are the consiquences

 

[Will.B.Worth.Da.Waite]

Question - if the tribunal has accepted Baker's story that he simply blocked Farmer, what do people make of Michael Voss' comments on 10 that the two were scuffling a bit and "one ended it"?? Doesn't seem to add up? Either the tribunal believed the wrong story and Baker, his manager and some eye witnesses on BF have been lieing, or Michael Voss lied. Im not judging at all, but either Michael Voss lied on commentary, or Baker and "eye witnesses" have lied

 

[Schwabie]

There is an old saying which they teach you in the first few weeks of criminal law at uni that goes something like “better to free ten guilty men than to jail an innocent man.”

The principle leads to the requirement that in criminal cases, a defendant needs to be proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

That means that occasionally, if the evidence doesn’t fully support a conviction a person who is in all likelihood guilty, is let off.

While certainly not a criminal court, the tribunal should abide by the principle that unless there is sufficient evidence, you cannot convict someone.

The AFL website noted that the tribunal “believed Baker’s version of events” and that he merely stopped in front of Farmer, presumably causing Farmer to smash into Baker’s body. The so-called Fremantle witness didn’t even see the impact, so his evidence is virtually worthless. Therefore, there seems to be little or no evidence at all, except for the circumstantial fact that Farmer was injured and Baker was near by.

The mere fact that Farmer was injured (relatively badly) should not be a determinate of guilt or of the sentence. If that was the case, Tim Notting should have been suspended for 24 weeks for what happened with Caracella. Neil Sachse tragically became a quadriplegic but the Fitzroy player who struck him was (rightfully) not even reported. Similarly, Gia’s elbow made contact with Kosi’s head last year, causing him to miss half a season – that does not make Gia guilty of rough play.

Further, Baker’s poor record (which isn’t really that poor when you take out the wrestling and ‘attempted strike’) should not be considered in determining whether he is guilty of an offense. In only very rare circumstances can the prosecution tell a jury about a defendant’s prior record – that is because it would cause too much bias in the jury’s mind. Simply because someone did something once, doesn’t mean they should automatically be presumed guilty down the track. To do so would destroy the presumption of innocence - the foundation of our legal system.

The tribunal’s decision of 7 weeks for what effectively was a bump is obscenely harsh. Whether or not you like or hate Baker, this is the worst decision handed down by the tribunal since Greg Williams received 10 weeks for touching Andrew Coates.
​

 

[OB1]

Forget about the player involved for a second & realise the impact of this finding. There was no video & there were no reliable witnesses who could say exactly what happened. How the hell can he be convicted?
Yes Baker is a dog player & yes IF there was evidence that he hit Farmer or headbutted or charged or whatever then I would have no problem with a hefty suspension BUT without any evidence I just think he has been found guilty of nothing other than having a bad record. Its not that I have any sympathy for Baker its just that I don't want to see players crucified without proper evidence.

Once again this is another issue that I blame on the AFL. We have seen players convicted using footage from 1 single camera at 1 end of the ground (the footage that clubs apparently have to request beforhand & pay for) so how can they say they would need 50 cameras to cover the ground? 1 camera behind each goal & 1 on each wing. We don't need close ups of every blade of grass, just a total coverage of the playing surface. It can't be that hard & would eliminate the speculation from incidents like this.

 

[Waverley73]

The tribunal’s decision of 7 weeks for what effectively was a bump is obscenely harsh. Whether or not you like or hate Baker, this is the worst decision handed down by the tribunal since Greg Williams received 10 weeks for touching Andrew Coates.

The decision was 4 weeks. It ended up 7 because he's been a goose previously as well.

 

[Saints Premiers 2006]

Forget about the player involved for a second & realise the impact of this finding. There was no video & there were no reliable witnesses who could say exactly what happened. How the hell can he be convicted?
Yes Baker is a dog player & yes IF there was evidence that he hit Farmer or headbutted or charged or whatever then I would have no problem with a hefty suspension BUT without any evidence I just think he has been found guilty of nothing other than having a bad record. Its not that I have any sympathy for Baker its just that I don't want to see players crucified without proper evidence.

Once again this is another issue that I blame on the AFL. We have seen players convicted using footage from 1 single camera at 1 end of the ground (the footage that clubs apparently have to request beforhand & pay for) so how can they say they would need 50 cameras to cover the ground? 1 camera behind each goal & 1 on each wing. We don't need close ups of every blade of grass, just a total coverage of the playing surface. It can't be that hard & would eliminate the speculation from incidents like this.

agreed entirely

and its not as if saints fans think baker is god either...we all know he is a cheap shot merchant

 

[Saints Premiers 2006]

The decision was 4 weeks. It ended up 7 because he's been a goose previously as well.

but baker only had 150 carry over points...so that would mean a max 6 week penalty instead of 7

so inconsistant its not funny

 

[Hanis]

Do you understand this??? There are no cars, white lines, give way signs, trafic lights etc on the footy field.

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

In the AFL you are in trouble if you make forceful contact if it is not reasonable for the player to expect contact. ie Was the ball within 5 meteres???

NO THE BALL WAS 50m away.

It is my understanding from the media report is that Baker admitted to stopping to BLOCK Farmer....50m away from the ball.

Baker didn't stop to ties a shoe lace, stop to catch his breath, stop to ask Farmer where he was going on holiday post season, he stopped to make contact. Everyone knows Farmer is a little worm and Baker is a STOPPER, they were niggling all night and Baker did what he's paid to do, he STOPPED Farmer.

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

 

[Kegs44]

Re: Baker found guilty, what a disgrace

Altho i agree that its a joke if theres no video footage i am glad hes gone, I cant stand him, i just think wat he does on field is weak. He needs players behind the ball, and tackles players to the ground after a goal has been given (Gary Ablett junior). I know u guys are going to hate me, but i hate him. He culd be a very good tagger without doing wat he does. Scragging someone while tagging and annoying the shit out of them is very different to wat he does.
Rant over, i am ready to cop abuse from all u saints supporters

 

[jd hot stuff]

Attention every one,....GET OVER IT...we all no that between the afl, tribunal and umpires the game will never ever be consistant

 

[Reveler]

Re: Baker found guilty, what a disgrace

good decision by the tribunal!

 

[King Elvis]

St Kilda need to appeal this, and then take it to court if neccessary.

****ing pathetic decision.

 

[Hanis]

Question - if the tribunal has accepted Baker's story that he simply blocked Farmer, what do people make of Michael Voss' comments on 10 that the two were scuffling a bit and "one ended it"?? Doesn't seem to add up? Either the tribunal believed the wrong story and Baker, his manager and some eye witnesses on BF have been lieing, or Michael Voss lied. Im not judging at all, but either Michael Voss lied on commentary, or Baker and "eye witnesses" have lied

I think it was fairly obvious that Voss was big noting and made a huge and very wrong assumption that Baker hit Farmer. He said as much when he back tracked saying he did not actually see it later in the game.

It was a shocking call by Voss and shows just how average he is behind the mike - he thought he would get in first and be the first to say he actually saw what happened - when in reality he saw jackshite

Voss blatantly lied

 

[Saints Premiers 2006]

Re: Baker found guilty, what a disgrace

Altho i agree that its a joke if theres no video footage i am glad hes gone, I cant stand him, i just think wat he does on field is weak. He needs players behind the ball, and tackles players to the ground after a goal has been given (Gary Ablett junior). I know u guys are going to hate me, but i hate him. He culd be a very good tagger without doing wat he does. Scragging someone while tagging and annoying the shit out of them is very different to wat he does.
Rant over, i am ready to cop abuse from all u saints supporters

he is a very good tagger but takes it too far

the amount of times he goes in for cheap shots is gettin beyond a joke and his record speaks for himself (not only done for cheap shots etc)

sad but true espeically coming from a saints fan

 

[Schwabie]

Can anyone who has been around a while recall any instance of a player being suspended (for even one week) when:
- there are no umpire eye witnesses (for example, not one of the umpires saw the incident); and
- there is no video footage of the incident?

I cannot recall any such instances, but perhaps I have forgotten about something.

 

[Butane]

*cough Tony Liberatore cough*

Umpires or camera's didn't see the Knights incident either.

 

[greennick]

Haha, 7 weeks, SNAP!! How do you like them eggs Baker? Harsh, but fair (never thought I would use that word when discussing Baker/Farmer, haha).

 

[Los_Expertos]

What a great result......football is the winner IMO!

A pea heart like Baker with a previous bad record and points hanging over his head decides to belt another player 50 metres away from the ball!

This crap went out of football years ago Baker you moron......perhaps NOW you will learn!

Blame the player Saints fans, not the tribunal........he is the one who put himself in this position!

 

[fusion]

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!!!!!!

I am a bit surprised that they had enough evidence to make a decision without having the video footage. However a few points:

He's only got FOUR weeks for the incident. The other three are purely because of his terrible record, and he deserves those extra weeks, just as much as "clean" players deserve a discount in the penalty.

Hanis - It's still ILLEGAL in the game to simply stop in front of an opponent when the ball isn't within 5 metres. Usually it results in a free kick for shepherding. If I stop and stick out my elbow, and someone runs into it, then surely some of the fault is with me, particularly in "duty of care" and for causing an incident to be more severe than necessary. I'm not suggesting Baker used his elbow, just illustrating a point.

Also it's clear you are a frustrated St Kilda fan Hanis (and I would be very upset if a North player got a lengthy suspension, even if the player was clearly guilty), but another way looking at what Voss said is that maybe he DID see what happened, but then thought he'd better keep quiet. After all, he's already in trouble himself for hitting people on camera, and may have realised that he better uphold the "players code" of silence.

I have no idea what Baker really did, as there will be conflicting reports, but if he did say he stopped in front of Farmer, and Farmer has ended up with a broken nose and concussion, then it's not that hard for a "rough play" charge to stick. If they'd reported him for striking or charging then he may have got off, as they would have to be surer that there was actually a strike or charge, rather than the vague "rough conduct".

 

[beaver's army]

only downside i see to this is not being able to see one of our players smash him in the last round but this is worth it.

 

[Los_Expertos]

The biggest oxymoron

You're right, only tough, courageous and hard at it players king hit others behind the play!

Gotta love that courage Stevie!

 

[Darkhour]

What a Joke!

If St Kilda take it to court, it'd be thrown out because of lack of evidence....

They've taken Baker's evidence of events and he blocked his man.. he still gets done.. geesh.. are we going to have reports every week now?..

If Baker is guilty of more, theres no evidence to support so. Thrown out.

If Baker blocked his man he said, unfortunately for Farmer there was a freak incidence of contact.. These things happen.. just take a look at Luke Ball.. How many times has he been rubbed out in play and no-one has gone in the book for it..

What a Joke!