- Banned
- #501
I'm not surprised he's not annoyed.
-
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
I'm not surprised he's not annoyed.
He admitted blocking. Blocking is not considered a reportable incident, you can have a free kick against you but it is not reportable.
He probably did it but no one knows for sure so how can he be rubbed out. The AFL is suspended somone and yet they are incompitant in dealing with matter like this. I reckon with $600mil in tv rights they should be able to afford more cameras so we never have this kind of thing again. There is atleast 1 every year that causes controversay like this. I think want to see people who belt people behind play get off but surely its up to them to prove his guilty rather than him have to prove his innocence.
I hate things going to court but if the saints went down that path they would have my support. hopefully it would force the afl into taken action and putting in a few more bloody cameras
Arguing what? My point is a player was convicted of something with out any evidence, what is your point?
Therein lies your problem. Baker did something he shouldn't of and now your club has to pay for it (by not being able to play one of your best 22). 'Doing his job' hey? Thats a ridiculous thing to say mate.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Re: Baker deserves 12 weeks or should be let off- Blocking is suspendable ?
You'll be bleating louder than anyone if happens to one of your players mate.
You'll be bleating louder than anyone if happens to one of your players mate.
What do taggers do? I can say the same thing about you mate.
Re: Baker deserves 12 weeks or should be let off- Blocking is suspendable ?
I would have thought that was the best way to do it.
I would have thought that was the best way to do it.
kahuna71
Club Legend
Unless you knock out Kosi, then it's play on...don't even try and talk about any form of consistency with the tribunal, the system is a joke and we are right to feel ripped off. Again.
The problem is the consistency of these decisions. Fraser gets suspended for a tummy tap. Barry Hall gets nothing for the same thing on Goose. Lenny Hayes gets slung into the fence, breaks his hand and there is no case to answer. Alessio stomps on Baker's ankle when he's lying on the ground, Baker kicks his leg to get the monster off and Bakes gets done for kicking!
It's a ****ing joke.
Most of us have been hit hard off the ball and never saw it coming....when u arnt expecting a hit it can knock u senseless but if u ARE expecting it u usually just absorb it ok even if it hits u high.
This much i still cant accept and seems funny to me....
Lets say you want to sheppard for your ball carrier and line up a guy chasing him...and u leave the ground and catch him flush in the head with your bump at FULL PACE.
Doesnt that seem reckless too ? The AFL talk about a DUTY OF CARE to others yet the blame for the Gia hit on Kosi was placed sqaurely at Kosi for not being aware....but he got lined up with what was a MASSIVE head high hip and shoulder.
Why isnt it considered reckless when its within 5m of the ball ?....i.e. why is it deemed ok to hit a bloke thats watching the ball carrier with a huge hit to the scone simply coz its within 5m of the ball ?
I dont recall Gia being suspended for reckless head high contact with a hip and shoulder to the head. Called IN PLAY wasnt it ?...which means its ok ?
Its the inconsistency and silliness of this sort of stuff that pi$$es ppl off. A 5m rule around the ball shouldnt mean u can be belted unconcious legally ...you are still UNAWARE and its dangerous.
This much i still cant accept and seems funny to me....
Lets say you want to sheppard for your ball carrier and line up a guy chasing him...and u leave the ground and catch him flush in the head with your bump at FULL PACE.
Doesnt that seem reckless too ? The AFL talk about a DUTY OF CARE to others yet the blame for the Gia hit on Kosi was placed sqaurely at Kosi for not being aware....but he got lined up with what was a MASSIVE head high hip and shoulder.
Why isnt it considered reckless when its within 5m of the ball ?....i.e. why is it deemed ok to hit a bloke thats watching the ball carrier with a huge hit to the scone simply coz its within 5m of the ball ?
I dont recall Gia being suspended for reckless head high contact with a hip and shoulder to the head. Called IN PLAY wasnt it ?...which means its ok ?
Its the inconsistency and silliness of this sort of stuff that pi$$es ppl off. A 5m rule around the ball shouldnt mean u can be belted unconcious legally ...you are still UNAWARE and its dangerous.
- Banned
- #511
Re: Baker deserves 12 weeks or should be let off- Blocking is suspendable ?
Well yes it is, but as a result you cop 7 weeks.
Choices, I guess
Well yes it is, but as a result you cop 7 weeks.
Choices, I guess
What do taggers do? Do you mean what should taggers do? I'm pretty sure knocking someone off their feet 100 metres off the ball and injuring a player to the extent he can play no further part in the play is not part of what a taggers job is.
FACT: Baker broke the rules and got caught.
FACT: You can't deal with it because he plays for your team.
DeeHughMan
Team Captain
Re: Baker deserves 12 weeks or should be let off- Blocking is suspendable ?
agreed its not a block if they end up on the ground concussed with a broken nose. players block 100 times a game yet only baker who plays the game fairly and has a great record 'blocks' in such a way.
we can call it a 'baker block'
agreed its not a block if they end up on the ground concussed with a broken nose. players block 100 times a game yet only baker who plays the game fairly and has a great record 'blocks' in such a way.
we can call it a 'baker block'
Referencing a perfectly legal bump doesn't strengthen your argument in any way.
What do you propose? Get rid of the bump all together?
- Banned
- #516
That's pretty funny actually, but it actually has little relevance to example I gave you.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?
Harvey was not concussed in that incident which you've described.
I gave a hypothetical situation to illustrate how team bias will affect the way people will react.
Saints fans are up in arms, protesting the harshness of the suspension and questioning the lack of evidence. Nearly everyone else shrugs and thinks Baker got what was coming to him. Maybe they've expressed some surprise at the length of suspension, but that's the system for you. The 7 weeks was also for Baker's "priors".
- Banned
- #517
Refreshing to read an intelligent Swans supporters post.
Why is it refreshing? oh wait, he's defending Baker!
Re: Baker deserves 12 weeks or should be let off- Blocking is suspendable ?
Well it just means that all accidental contact resulting in an injury needs to be suspended then.
Should Quinten Lynch have been suspended for snapping Goose Maguire's leg in half ?. Of course he shouldn't, even though it was a horrific injury.
It's either a free kick for blocking illegally off the ball, or Baker illegally knocked his head off and deserves to be outed for a significant part of the season.
Why should you be suspended for an obvious free kick that results in injury ????
Well it just means that all accidental contact resulting in an injury needs to be suspended then.
Should Quinten Lynch have been suspended for snapping Goose Maguire's leg in half ?. Of course he shouldn't, even though it was a horrific injury.
It's either a free kick for blocking illegally off the ball, or Baker illegally knocked his head off and deserves to be outed for a significant part of the season.
Why should you be suspended for an obvious free kick that results in injury ????
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
How do you know the injuries weren't accidental?
FACT. You are struggling mate.
No, I'm not struggling at all. The fact is we wont play your team again this year so it doesn't effect me at all. Your team probably only has 2 more games, possibly 3 to go for the season. Who is struggling mate?
He's been rubbed out so who do you think will replace him? We're back in the real world now - deal with it.
Re: Baker deserves 12 weeks or should be let off- Blocking is suspendable ?
Agree. Once the tribunal came back with a guilty verdict the suspension had to be at least 8 or 9 before taking into account his priors.
Agree. Once the tribunal came back with a guilty verdict the suspension had to be at least 8 or 9 before taking into account his priors.
and....how do you know it wasn't accidental?
JeffDunne
TheBrownDog
Not one for sweeping generalisations are you?
If players were hung on what people thought of them then Farmer would be banned for life.
As for the issue of priors, why does Johnson get his 8 weeks reduced to 6 for an early plea but Baker isn't afforded the same opportunity? The hearing last night was to 1) determine what happened, 2) determine the charge & 3) issue the sentence.
Had the investigation been handled by the MRP, then surely Baker would have had the opportunity to lodge an early plea?
Refreshing to read an intelligent Swans supporters post.
We're ALL smart up here...we just dont like StKilda thats all
Ahhh and for some reason everyone is assuming the guilt of Baker...
What happens.. heaven forbid... if it WAS an accidental clash...
Everyone is jumping on the bandwagon to assume guilt but no third party is jumping in to defend him by presuming innocence until proven guilty which no-one can.
Your all bias with previous knowledge and that is why your all wrong and the tribunal is wrong... I've never said he didn't do anything wrong but you cant use biased views to form a presumption of guilt..
- Status