Steven Baker found guilty

[Blues_Man]

Re: Baker found guilty, what a disgrace

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

I agree completely ...because when it comes down to it he is quite a good footballer...it's a shame he feels the need to be a dirty little sniper.

The penalty is a tad harsh...but i'm not too fussed because it's Baker.

 

[Hanis]

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.

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".

Fair enough but seriously "Rough Play" for stopping and propping

Is it ILLEGAL to accidently clash heads because this it seems is what has happened (according to a large majority of eye witness accounts at the game)

The AFL have set a disgraceful precedent by saying if you block off the ball and the player you block accidently hurts themselves then you are at fault - notice that I bolded the word accidently

They are making up the rules as they go - it is a travesty and a complete disgrace

 

[greennick]

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

Alternatively, Voss said what he saw ("One ended it") and then decided maybe he shouldn't have said that because he just got his mate in the shit, so he back peddled.

Who knows what went through Voss's head.

You are blatantly talking shit.

 

[Brown Bottle]

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.

​

They were all in play.

 

[Black Ball]

Fair enough but seriously "Rough Play" for stopping and propping

Is it ILLEGAL to accidently clash heads because this it seems is what has happened (according to a large majority of eye witness accounts at the game)

The AFL have set a disgraceful precedent by saying if you block off the ball and the player you block accidently hurts themselves then you are at fault - notice that I bolded the word accidently

They are making up the rules as they go - it is a f@rking travesty and a complete disgrace

So you're suggesting that Farmer ran into the back of Baker's head without seeing him? You must be about as intelligent as Baker

 

[Hanis]

Alternatively, Voss said what he saw ("One ended it") and then decided maybe he shouldn't have said that because he just got his mate in the shit, so he back peddled.

Who knows what went through Voss's head.

You are blatantly talking shit.

Backpeddled????? Did he see it or didn't he????????

No Voss was talking shit and you have said just as much

The tribunal could have called him for evidence yet he was never asked to appear

I wonder why?????

Maybe because he didn't see the incident in the first place

Great footballer!!! Bignoting below average commentator!!!!!

 

[fusion]

Fair enough but seriously "Rough Play" for stopping and propping

Is it ILLEGAL to accidently clash heads because this it seems is what has happened (according to a large majority of eye witness accounts at the game)

The AFL have set a disgraceful precedent by saying if you block off the ball and the player you block accidently hurts themselves then you are at fault - notice that I bolded the word accidently

They are making up the rules as they go - it is a f@rking travesty and a complete disgrace

They really do have to get video of the whole ground in the future. That's because there still is a possibility that the whole thing was an accident. But due to Farmer having blood poring out of his nose, and concussed so he couldn't return to the field PLUS Baker's reputation as a sniper meant that he's probably used up any of the benefit of the doubt in the mind of the tribunal. If it was Brad Johnson or James Hird or any of the other "nice guys" in footy I think the result would have been "insufficient evidence".

I understand your frustration Hanis, but maybe there's more to this story than we really know. Maybe Voss did make an off the record report to the AFL telling them exactly what he saw, or perhaps there is some handheld footage that we don't know about. I think St Kilda should definately appeal the decision - the penalty won't go up if they lose the appeal will it?

 

[Will.B.Worth.Da.Waite]

Re: Baker found guilty, what a disgrace

Guys please don't get angry at me lol because i am remaining impartial to this. But i have a question. Forgetting the crazy fact that Baker was suspended without any video footage or real evidence, do you guys think that he probably did commit a cheap act against Farmer?

Also remember that it was technically 4 weeks - boosted up to 7 because of past events and a bad record

 

[Hanis]

So you're suggesting that Farmer ran into the back of Baker's head without seeing him? You must be about as intelligent as Baker

And your suggesting Farmer is intelligent

ROFL

Thanks for that I haven't had a laugh like that in ages

 

[sainters]

Re: What a Joke!

*Awaits the biased w***ers to give their opinions on what a dog Baker is and he deserved 7 weeks.*

Dog or not, Baker should not have been suspended for this incident.

Pretend for a minute it was a player from your team in this situation...

 

[94_Eagles]

This news would have brought a smile to my face if not for the Kerr news.

 

[Rob]

Re: What a Joke!

7 weeks is a bit harsh, but just because there's no video, doesn't mean there's no evidence.

You think every person convicted of assault is only found guilty if there happens to be video evidence?

 

[j-ham]

Was there any official comment on the situation from the Saints?

 

[Blues_Man]

Re: 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!

Baker the moron that he is dobbed himself in ...he said he tried to 'block' Farmer and Farmer was injured during that "block"

It's a bit hard to argue against the guilty verdict when the defendant dobs himself in

 

[JeffDunne]

Re: What a Joke!

You think every person convicted of assault is only found guilty if there happens to be video evidence?

I'd like to think people are convicted on more 'evidence' than presented by Barry 'I couldn't see it but I saw it' Kirkwood.

 

[Wonder Years]

Re: What a Joke!

They are just trying to make a stand leading into the finals but clearly he should have only been given a couple. They don't need video and Baker is pretty bad behind play at times but so are all good tagers!

 

[Austin_McCrabbs]

Couldn't have happened to a nicer parasite.

 

[greennick]

Backpeddled????? Did he see it or didn't he????????

No Voss was talking shit and you have said just as much

The tribunal could have called him for evidence yet he was never asked to appear

I wonder why?????

Maybe because he didn't see the incident in the first place

Great footballer!!! Bignoting below average commentator!!!!!

I am saying there are two reasons that he may have changed his tune. Remembering that Baker is supposedly a mate of his, it would make sense that he realised he just got his mate in trouble and that is why he suddenly didn't see shit. I am not neccessarily saying that is the way it happened. It is just an alternative scenario that makes even more sense than yours. But hey, I'm sure you can read Voss's mind better than me.

 

[Hanis]

They really do have to get video of the whole ground in the future. That's because there still is a possibility that the whole thing was an accident.

Absolutely

But due to Farmer having blood poring out of his nose, and concussed so he couldn't return to the field PLUS Baker's reputation as a sniper meant that he's probably used up any of the benefit of the doubt in the mind of the tribunal. If it was Brad Johnson or James Hird or any of the other "nice guys" in footy I think the result would have been "insufficient evidence".

That's the problem the benefit of the doubt should lie with Baker considering there is extremely little evidence whatsoever that he hit Farmer across the face in a purposeful manner. The incident nothing warranted more than a few kick - the fact that Farmer was hurt was just plain unlucky (according to many supporter accounts from both sides - see Saintsational and Dockerland)

I understand your frustration Hanis, but maybe there's more to this story than we really know. Maybe Voss did make an off the record report to the AFL telling them exactly what he saw, or perhaps there is some handheld footage that we don't know about. I think St Kilda should definately appeal the decision - the penalty won't go up if they lose the appeal will it?

Any footage would have been admissible and would have come to light.

The only notable news to come out of all this is that the AFL and tribunal have once again shown the general public their pure incompetence and laughable shortcomings.

And for a football hungry and crazy public the problems that have been surfacing over the last few years within the AFL is cause for major concern

The AFL need to pull their finger damn quickly or else they will lose many diehard supporters

The game has been changed for the worse and manyhere would agree with me

 

[purpleheart7]

Well i'm surprised with the verdict, but in the end happy. Can everyone just forget about it being Farmer for a minute, could you imagine if Robert Harvey/James Hird/Glenn Archer *insert adored player here* was taken down like that behind play??? People would find the 7 weeks to be a fitting verdict for such an act or maybe even call for more. I don't like seeing anyone in that state regardless of who is on the receiving end. People are on here saying karma caught up with Farmer, well it seems it may have caught up with Baker

 

[Father Jack]

Re: What a Joke!

Baker the moron that he is dobbed himself in ...he said he tried to 'block' Farmer and Farmer was injured during that "block"

It's a bit hard to argue against the guilty verdict when the defendant dobs himself in

Didn't quite think his story through, did he? He admits "blocking" someone way off the ball with enough force to knock him out and reckons he is in the clear. Well worth four weeks, plus his deplorable record bites him on the arse bigtime.

 

[Brilliant]

Re: What a Joke!

Did someone from the crowd jump the fence and bash him?

How the hell did players ever get found guilty in the old days, you know, before we had footage of every incident.

He should of got a dozen

 

[JeffDunne]

Can everyone just forget about it being Farmer for a minute,

Why should we?

This is the same low-life scum who accused Robert Harvey of attacking him in an attempt to get his charge down graded.

Surprise, surprise . . . the (W)AFL fell for it.

I mean Robert Harvey's 350+ game record is full of incidents of him attacking players.

Farmer is low life lying scum. Why should we forget it was him?

 

[Rob]

Re: What a Joke!

I'd like to think people are convicted on more 'evidence' than presented by Barry 'I couldn't see it but I saw it' Kirkwood.

Are you seriously suggesting he didn't belt him off the ball?

 

[Freo Blood]

Re: Baker found guilty, what a disgrace

Did Voss lie or tell the truth in his first comment after the clash? I think it much more likely truth first followed by a change of story to not dob a player or get dragged into the circus he knew this would become.

The mere fact that Ricky Nixon was the most credible/impartial witness Baker could come up with speaks volumes about Bakers likely actions. No self respecting person was willing to lie on his behalf except Nixon (who probably had his nose in a wine glass and doing a deal at the time).

I don't believe Farmer couldn't remember the incident. Baker owes him for keeping the players code and not telling the tribunal what really happened. Could of been looking at 7+3

Baker = dog
Saints fans = squealers
Loser in all this = Freo (who had a very important spark to the team wiped from the field just as he was starting to get going)