Steven Baker found guilty

[Footylover1]

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


I have already responded to your stupid scenario

I doubt you would believe Carr would be convicted wrongly.

 

[ThomasR]

I have little doubt we'll appeal this one. 7 weeks is a lengthy suspension given the lack of concrete evidence.

If it was just a clash of heads, as Baker is saying, then I wonder if this incident would have even been brought up had Farmer escaped unharmed?

 

[The Fireman]

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.

Would you have been sooking if Hall had missed out on the GF?
Hypocrite

 

[Footylover1]

Would you have been sooking if Hall had missed out on the GF?
Hypocrite

Typical, of Aints supporters when they're going down in the argument, bring out the old classic Hall case.

 

[Waverley73]

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

This appears to be the answer. He admitted it, the tribunal then applied the laws of the game. There's no use citing other cases where a player either got off or only got a light sentence - if they didn't give Baker what he deserved (his 4 weeks plus the 3 because he was a goose previously) then they would just be perpetuating their bad decisions. They have been inconsistant but in this instance they got it right.

 

[The Fireman]

I doubt you would believe Carr would be convicted wrongly.

Doubt what you like, I have found you guilty of ignorance.

 

[Darkhour]

blocking off the ball is legal in the sense that you cant get reported for it.. the rest of my argument remains the same in reference to above.

an example.. a man punches a another man causing eventually his death. a medium impact punch to his head and a kick to the head. The prosecution wanted manslaughter. The defense argued that the defendant had no reasonable knowledge of the victims alcohol content and medical knowledge that his actions would cause death. (the victims alcohol content caused his muscles to relax causing the resultant whiplash effect from the punch, not the kick, to snap his necks spinal cord). He got off completely from even manslaughter. The jury could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he knew his actions would result in death....

long story short.. Baker would not know and thats assuming that his actions were intentionally reckless more so than any other play in blocking in football.
The tribunal system factors in the resultant injuries which is a joke.. we wouldn't even be looking at this if Farmer had got up and continued playing..

You cannot prove than Baker did anything even reckless then block a player. The assumption that he was reckless cannot be proven versus a freak accidental clash.

 

[Footylover1]

This appears to be the answer. He admitted it, the tribunal then applied the laws of the game. There's no use citing other cases where a player either got off or only got a light sentence - if they didn't give Baker what he deserved (his 4 weeks plus the 3 because he was a goose previously) then they would just be perpetuating their bad decisions. They have been inconsistant but in this instance they got it right.

If Baker admitted it, then he should be found guilty. Why are Aint's supporters so upset about it? He deserved what he got!

 

[Chewy]

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

No you wouldn't. If Josh Carr was responsible for Robert Harvey getting carted off the field, you would there with the lynch mob, outside the change rooms after the game. Or you would be on here, calling him every name under the sun.

There is no point carrying on about this and pointing to the lack of evidence. This isn't a court of law and neither is Baker going to prison. It's the AFL. The games judiciary have meted out their justice.

Perhaps Baker did not intend to KO his opponent, but which player ever does?
From all accounts, he initiated contact by backing into Farmer as Farmer ran towards him. His actions led to the player being concussed..

The system of set penalties has seen that Baker serve a 7 match suspension.

I'm not really sure what you're all complaining about.

 

[Footylover1]

Doubt what you like, I have found you guilty of ignorance.

No, you're the one that's ignorant here. You come online defending the indefensible. Like one poster said, Baker admitted that he done it. You can't find someone innocent when they bloody admitted doing it.

 

[Waverley73]

If Baker admitted it, then he should be found guilty. Why are Aint's supporters so upset about it? He deserved what he got!

They're just upset that the tribunal didn't get this one wrong like they have in the past with other cases. I'd be a bit annoyed if Mooney or Milburn got pinged for the same thing but I'd be more annoyed at the player for doing it than at the tribunal for doing what they should of (giving the appropriate suspension).

The Saints supporters should be angry at Baker, not the tribunal.

 

[Footylover1]

They're just upset that the tribunal didn't get this one wrong like they have in the past with other cases. I'd be a bit annoyed if Mooney or Milburn got pinged for the same thing but I'd be more annoyed at the player for doing it than at the tribunal for doing what they should of (giving the appropriate suspension).

The Saints supporters should be angry at Baker, not the tribunal.

That's exactly right mate! It's a very undisciplined thing to do something like that and it might cost the team their finals spot. Baker needs a good long talking to by the coach.

 

[The Fireman]

Typical, of Aints supporters when they're going down in the argument, bring out the old classic Hall case.

Typical of an ignorant person to think someone is losing an argument when they produce an analogy.

 

[Asgardian]

I have no sympathy for the culprit in a behind the play incident

 

[Atomboy]

Baker deserves 12 weeks or should be let off- Blocking is suspendable ?

If the AFL tribunal truely believes that Baker took a guy out 50 metres off the play with a head high hit, he should be outed for 12 weeks pure and simple. I would fully support that.

In this case they've just guessed at what happened with no supporting evidence and have split the difference.

In either case he has got massively less than what he should for a dirty hit, or is being crucified for damage relating to an accidental contact due to a block.

If you are going to make blocking off the ball a suspendable offence rather than a free kick then alot of clubs are going to be in serious trouble.

 

[Chewy]

blocking off the ball is legal in the sense that you cant get reported for it..

Rubbish! As these events have clearly shown, if someone gets concussed as a result of a "block", then you can be cited.

As I said in my post to Fireman, this is not a court of law and Baker is not getting sent to prison. These court of law analogies are absurd. It's a game, remember. And the game's authorites have said to little Stevie, "You're not allowed to play for 7 matches, you naughty boy"

 

[Footylover1]

Typical of an ignorant person to think someone is losing an argument when they produce an analogy.

At least I don't go around defending the indefensible. That's the ignorant part of it all.

 

[Waverley73]

Typical of an ignorant person to think someone is losing an argument when they produce an analogy.

Are you annoyed at Baker at all?

 

[The Fireman]

No you wouldn't. If Josh Carr was responsible for Robert Harvey getting carted off the field, you would there with the lynch mob, outside the change rooms after the game. Or you would be on here, calling him every name under the sun.

I suppose you would as well , but I'll repeat , I would want to know what happened.

 

[JeffDunne]

I have no sympathy for the culprit in a behind the play incident

Sandilands had his jaw broken in a behind the play incident.

Just because it's off the ball and someone gets hurt it doesn't always mean something untoward happened.

The game and the rulings are soft because of people like you can't stand the sight of blood.

 

[The Fireman]

Are you annoyed at Baker at all?

No way, why would I be, he was his doing his job of impeding Farmer, unfortunately Farmer was injured and we don't know how.

 

[Footylover1]

Are you annoyed at Baker at all?

I doubt he is.

 

[Chewy]

I suppose you would as well , but I'll repeat , I would want to know what happened.

So what's your point?

Are you arguing for the sake of arguing, or is this blind defence of a player simply because he wears red, white and black.

 

[mattdavies_03]

Re: Baker deserves 12 weeks or should be let off- Blocking is suspendable ?

I think we need a Steven Baker board for all of the Saints supporters to go and have a whinge on

 

[The Fireman]

At least I don't go around defending the indefensible. That's the ignorant part of it all.

case closed.