Steven Baker found guilty

[cartwright]

kinda like Kerr punching Mitchell in the groin, he knew exactly what he was doing - now that's a dirty act.

 

[JeffDunne]

kinda like Kerr punching Mitchell in the groin, he knew exactly what he was doing - now that's a dirty act.

He's from WA. There's your answer.

Why on earth would you expect this drug cheat to have to play by the same rules as everyone else?

Clearly the (W)AFL don't.

 

[Darkhour]

I don't understand why it's so hard for people to comprehend...

In addition to other defences the defendant may attempt to raise doubts in the prosecution case. The defence will attempt to show up any inconsistencies and shortcomings in the prosecution case. Where all the elements which make up the offence are not proved beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence presented, the defence is entitled to submit that the prosecution has not proved its case. If this is accepted the defendant will be found not guilty. As an example, the prosecution, by means of eye witnesses, identification parades, fingerprint evidence and handwriting evidence, may try to identify the defendant as the person who committed the offence. The defendant may attempt to point out weaknesses in the prosecution's evidence of identification.

They've accepted Bakers version of events.. last time I checked, blocking a player was legal in the game of Aussie Rules. Since they have accepted Bakers version they cannot establish that it was any more then a freak accidental clash and therefor they cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that Bakers actions were intentionally capable of producing the resultant injuries sustained by Farmer in contrast with any other legal block, on or off the ball.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I couldn't care if it was a 1 week ban. It's still a farce.

Judd gets off for eye gouging, Kerr can whack a bloke in the nuts, etc . . . all ON camera.

There was no evidence presented Baker did anything more than get in his way. Not worth a week let alone 2,3,4,5,6 or 7

Getting in somebodys way is illegal if done high and with forceful contact. Baker effectively admitted guilt. We all know Judd and Kerr got away with blue murder, but that does not make Baker any less guilty.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I

They've accepted Bakers version of events.. last time I checked, blocking a player was legal in the game of Aussie Rules. .

It depends on how the block is executed.

 

[Rob]

They've accepted Bakers version of events.. last time I checked, blocking a player was legal in the game of Aussie Rules. Since they have accepted Bakers version they cannot establish that it was any more then a freak accidental clash and therefor they cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that Bakers actions were intentionally capable of producing the resultant injuries sustained by Farmer in contrast with any other legal block, on or off the ball.

You might want to read the rules. Blocking a player 100 metres of the ball is most certainly not legal.
And it was graded reckless, not intentional. He was lucky not to get more weeks.

 

[plough]

Baker himself says that he created illegal contact via a block off the ball, worthy of a free kick by his own admission.

Any resultant injury is therefore his responsibility.

Very poorly advised in respect to his own evidence and I can't see much ground for appeal unless he changes his own evidence.

 

[understudy]

They've accepted Bakers version of events.. last time I checked, blocking a player was legal in the game of Aussie Rules. Since they have accepted Bakers version they cannot establish that it was any more then a freak accidental clash and therefor they cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that Bakers actions were intentionally capable of producing the resultant injuries sustained by Farmer in contrast with any other legal block, on or off the ball.

1. Blocking a player more than 5 metres away from the ball is completely illegal.

2. Blocking a player with high forceful contact is completely illegal.

 

[Ricardo]

All this and that Brisbane player gets one week for a head high bump.

What a disgrace the Tribunal is.

 

[old_clint]

I don't understand why it's so hard for people to comprehend...

In addition to other defences the defendant may attempt to raise doubts in the prosecution case. The defence will attempt to show up any inconsistencies and shortcomings in the prosecution case. Where all the elements which make up the offence are not proved beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence presented, the defence is entitled to submit that the prosecution has not proved its case. If this is accepted the defendant will be found not guilty.

I don't understand why you don't understand that Baker was found guilty on the balance of probability. If Farmer had died from his injuries the reasonable doubt criterion would apply.

 

[Chewy]

The demerit points system is very harsh. It shows no sympathy or leniency at all. Baker had points carrying over from prior convictions. I bet he didn't even think of that when he committed his reckless act behind play. He now has 7 weeks to mull it over.

The Saints fans who are angry with this decision should try to imagine how they would react if it was Robert Harvey, instead of Jeff Farmer who was helped off the field, courtesy of "running into the back of" Josh Carr.

 

[Footylover1]

The demerit points system is very harsh. It shows no sympathy or leniency at all. Baker had points carrying over from prior convictions. I bet he didn't even think of that when he committed his reckless act behind play. He now has 7 weeks to mull it over.

The Saints fans who are angry with this decision should try to imagine how they would react if it was Robert Harvey, instead of Jeff Farmer who was helped off the field, courtesy of "running into the back of" Josh Carr.

They would be filthy if Josh Carr did it to Robert Harvey, hypocrisy at it's best!

 

[The Fireman]

1. Blocking a player more than 5 metres away from the ball is completely illegal.

2. Blocking a player with high forceful contact is completely illegal.

3.Convicting a player without any real evidence is completely ridiculous.


PS So many have said that Farmer collided into the back of Baker, an accidental clash of heads ensued, who is lying? Who knows, would have been thrown out in any court.
As I have said, nothing surprises me anymore with this tribunal system, every supporter from every club bags the tribunal throughout every season indicating they battle to get it right and they certainly didn't in this case.

 

[The Fireman]

The demerit points system is very harsh. It shows no sympathy or leniency at all. Baker had points carrying over from prior convictions. I bet he didn't even think of that when he committed his reckless act behind play. He now has 7 weeks to mull it over.

The Saints fans who are angry with this decision should try to imagine how they would react if it was Robert Harvey, instead of Jeff Farmer who was helped off the field, courtesy of "running into the back of" Josh Carr.

I would certainly like to know how it happened before running off at the mouth.

 

[Footylover1]

3.Convicting a player without any real evidence is completely ridiculous.


PS So many have said that Farmer collided into the back of Baker, an accidental clash of heads ensued, who is lying? Who knows, would have been thrown out in any court.
As I have said, nothing surprises me anymore with this tribunal system, every supporter from every club bags the tribunal throughout every season indicating they battle to get it right and they certainly didn't in this case.

In your eyes, you hate to see someone that gets convicted of murder when the body wasn't found. It's the same thing here. The courts can still convict someone of murder without a body, so in this case, the AFL can convict someone without video evidence. Must there be video evidence for charges to be laid? There wasn't video evidence 20 years ago, and players got convicted.

 

[The Fireman]

In your eyes, you hate to see someone that gets convicted of murder when the body wasn't found. It's the same thing here. The courts can still convict someone of murder without a body, so in this case, the AFL can convict someone without video evidence. Must there be video evidence for charges to be laid? There wasn't video evidence 20 years ago, and players got convicted.

And possibly convicted wrongly.

 

[Chewy]

It makes me laugh that people call the tribunal a disgrace whenever someone cops a lengthy suspension. They point to other incidents where the perpetrator got off scott-free and howl at the inconsistency of it all. If anything, they should call the tribunal a disgrace on those other occasions when suspensions are not handed down.

I like to watch the best footballers playing football.
I don't pay to see footballers hurting each other with cheap shots.

Boxing is much better sport than football if you want to see combat.

 

[JeffDunne]

The Saints fans who are angry with this decision should try to imagine how they would react if it was Robert Harvey, instead of Jeff Farmer who was helped off the field, courtesy of "running into the back of" Josh Carr.

Farmer not only assulted Robert Harvey last year, but they accepted Framer's claim that it was Harvey that attacked him!

350+ games of experience wasn't enough to convince them that the wife beater was lying through his teeth.

You were saying?

 

[Footylover1]

And possibly convicted wrongly.

oh right! So, you believe there has to be a body for a murderer to be convicted and video evidence for a player to be charge.

I wonder what you'll say if Josh Carr did the same thing to Robert Harvey, and there's no video evidence of it. Would you say the same thing, that Carr should get off? Probably not, hypocrisy at it's best!

 

[Footylover1]

It makes me laugh that people call the tribunal a disgrace whenever someone cops a lengthy suspension. They point to other incidents where the perpetrator got off scott-free and howl at the inconsistency of it all. If anything, they should call the tribunal a disgrace on those other occasions when suspensions are not handed down.

I like to watch the best footballers playing football.
I don't pay to see footballers hurting each other with cheap shots.

Boxing is much better sport than football if you want to see combat.

They should call the tribunal a disgrace when Judd and Lynch gets off for serious offences and Kerr gets a light sentence. But they're Aint's supporters they're sooks and hypocrites.

 

[Magnum]

If Judd did this in the same circumstances he would have got off.

 

[The Fireman]

oh right! So, you believe there has to be a body for a murderer to be convicted and video evidence for a player to be charge.

Do believe that in the past an innocent person may have been hung due to lack of evidence?

I wonder what you'll say if Josh Carr did the same thing to Robert Harvey, and there's no video evidence of it. Would you say the same thing, that Carr should get off? Probably not, hypocrisy at it's best!

I have already responded to your stupid scenario

 

[mr_cellotape]

3.Convicting a player without any real evidence is completely ridiculous.

What more do you need beyond the defendants' own admission?

The moral of this story is, don't go to the tribunal and put yourself in.

 

[Footylover1]

If Judd did this in the same circumstances he would have got off.

No shit! Not only that, Judd would have texted his opponent and ask him to lie for him. That's what Baker should have done, the Judd defence.

 

[bourbons]

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

Says it all really. Seems a harsh decision, but stupid to put yourself in that situation in the first place. Also can't really argue about the +3 weeks for bad record to take it to 7, Baker's got a reputation for a reason.

Really, he was gone as soon as he admitted to an illegal act 50 meters off the ball, in the AFLs world he then becomes responsible for every consequence of that action.