Steven Baker found guilty

[MeeSo]

Baker's got away with plenty over the years so he gets no sympathy from me.

If he wants to play like a dirty little prick then he runs the risk of getting penalized. Simple really.

 

[Waverley73]

St Kilda have decided to waste the $5000 and appeal the decision, it will be heard tonight.

Before St Kilda supporters jump up and down for joy NO appeal has ever been successful.

Will he get more than the 7 if the appeal fails?

 

[bourbons]

How in god's name is blocking a "dirty act".

Its not, its just illegal coz it was so far off the ball.

Baker admitted to it, and it is accepted that said illegal act directly or indirectly resulted *somehow* in Farmer's injuries.

The way it has been dealt with at the tribunal this year (this 'duty of care' crap), the *somehow* part doesn't matter.

Like I said, I don't really agree with it either but you can't be suprised about the decision.

The other side of it is Baker has a rep for a reason, without having seen the incident I really doubt it would have been necessary to lay a block with that much force so far off the ball. Have seen him take numerous cheap shots before, if I was him I wouldn't even put myself in a situation like that 2 weeks out from finals. Just not smart.

 

[MRobbo]

Will he get more than the 7 if the appeal fails?

I don't think so

 

[understudy]

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.

Notice how the Saints fans dont address this point. The funniest part about his sentence and the whining is he did himself in, convicted on his own account of events.

Hes a few sandwiches short of a picnic and is his club and their supporters.

 

[kahuna71]

Referencing a perfectly legal bump doesn't strengthen your argument in any way.



What do you propose? Get rid of the bump all together?

Prove to us all that Baker's action was illegal.

 

[JeffDunne]

Notice how the Saints fans dont address this point. The funniest part about his sentence and the whining is he did himself in, convicted on his own account of events.

Hes a few sandwiches short of a picnic and is his club and their supporters.

He admitted to running into the path of a player and stopping.

Happens a 100+ times in every game.

What's so silly about admitting to something that happens so often?

 

[PHX]

Will he get more than the 7 if the appeal fails?

Dont think so because he didnt get the 25% guilty reduction in the first place.


Have they officially called an appeal yet?

 

[Bollox]

You are wrong to say that was a hip and shoulder to the head. Giansiracusa left the ground to deliver the hip and shoulder, but it was an accidental clash of heads that caused the damage. Giansiracusa was stunned himself after this bump and was "out" on the ground for a few seconds.

Yes i understand that...but the sideline point is why that sort of hit isnt considered "reckless" simply coz its within a stab pass of the ball ?

Its the duty of care thing...they talk about it a lot but selectively implement it. Being an accident isnt usually much of an excuse at the tribunal.

Fact is he left the ground at full pace with the intention of hitting him HARD and he caught him head high away from the ball....the bloke was watching the ball carrier and not expecting it yet got called a goose for it. Its just as dangerous as 100m away from the ball if they are watching somewhere else. The 5m rule just legalises it it seems.

Duty of care just gets rolled out when its convenient it seems.

Anyway...not important.

 

[AFKAJR]

What?? I said 'your team' (i.e. St Kilda). Re-read my post mate.

Done. Lesson learnt & apologies

 

[BEEG]

I was surprised that someone but a callongwood player got more then 6weeks didnt think it would ever happen.

 

[Waverley73]

Done. Lesson learnt & apologies

No dramas mate. I'm hoping we've got 5 to go & finish with 20 wins on the trot.

 

[Waverley73]

Dont think so because he didnt get the 25% guilty reduction in the first place.


Have they officially called an appeal yet?

I have no idea - I just saw the bloke post it on here before.

 

[Chewy]

Not one for sweeping generalisations are you?

If players were hung on what people thought of them then Farmer would be banned for life.

You are the master of twisting people's words.

I did not say, "I hate Baker, therefore he deserved to be suspended."

When I said, "He got what was coming to him" I meant that in this instance, he was up to his usual niggling tricks, but this time it backfired. Farmer got hurt, Stevie said, "Oops!" and the tribunal said, "7 weeks"

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?

No. Not always. The AFL have the right to refer matter directly to the tribunal and not afford the accused the benefits of an early plea.

But I can see your point.

The problem is that the MRP presupposes guilt when they cite players on video evidence.
The Baker matter was referred to tribunal in order to determine if he was guilty.

The simple solution is that next time, Baker should hit someone in range of the cameras, then he'll be allowed to enter an early guilty plea and receive a discount. Bad luck for playing up 100m behind play.

 

[bourbons]

Prove to us all that Baker's action was illegal.

The fact it was so far off the ball makes it illegal.

Yes, it happens 100 times a game (again though, I'm not convinced it would happen 100 times a game with that much force or so far off the ball).

The others are not reported because 99 times out of that 100 there's no consequence. The problem occurs when someone sustains injuries like Farmer - the 'duty of care' rubbish.

 

[kahuna71]

The fact it was so far off the ball makes it illegal.

Yes, it happens 100 times a game (again though, I'm not convinced it would happen 100 times a game with that much force or so far off the ball).

The others are not reported because 99 times out of that 100 there's no consequence. The problem occurs when someone sustains injuries like Farmer - the 'duty of care' rubbish.

Define 'it'

 

[worthy]

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 ????

I see what you're trying to do.

There's blocking and then there's blocking resulting in someone being concussed, do it within the rules and you'll be fine, if not you take your chances.

 

[Chewy]

He admitted to running into the path of a player and stopping.
Happens a 100+ times in every game.
What's so silly about admitting to something that happens so often?

Did Baker simply stop and Farmer ran into him?
That would've constituted an accidental collision.

Or (as I suspect) did Baker uncoil as he stopped and throw his weight back and up into Farmer?

We see this type of thing 100+ times in every game. Usually no one gets hurt, just annoyed.
But in this case, Baker's opponent was sent into la-la land.

Which do you reckon?


Edit: this is the real crux of the argument, right here, all bullshit aside.
St Kilda fans say that Baker did nothing but stop in front of Farmer.
But you can initiate contact with someone running into you, in the manner I've described above.

 

[bourbons]

Define 'it'

Baker stepping into the path of his opponent to block while 50 meters off the ball.

 

[Blues_Man]

Re: 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.

 

[JeffDunne]

Did Baker simply stop and Farmer ran into him?
That would've constituted an accidental collision.

Or (as I suspect) did Baker uncoil as he stopped and throw his weight back and up into Farmer?

We see this type of thing 100+ times in every game. Usually no one gets hurt, just annoyed.
But in this case, Baker's opponent was sent into la-la land.

Which do you reckon?

The tribunal accepted Baker's statement.

i.e. he ran into his path and stopped.

If Baker did as you 'suspect' then they wouldn't have accepted his explanation (which was consistent with other evidence).

 

[kahuna71]

Baker stepping into the path of his opponent to block while 50 meters off the ball.

now show me the rule where this is illegal or the first time a player has ever blocked 50m off the ball. It happens to every forward player every 2 minutes. If you can clear that hurdle, prove to me that the damage done to Farmer was intentional. Then you can have your 7 weeks.

I was there and saw it. Farmer wasn't looking and ran into the back of Baker, who had stopped. Being the same height he must have smacked full tilt into the back of his head, which would break your nose. How the **** is that worth 7 weeks?

 

[understudy]

i.e. he ran into his path and stopped.

Deliberately ran in front of him and stopped, resulting in Farmers broken nose, concussion and inability to play out the remainder of the game.

Uduly rough play, guilty.

Move on.

 

[bourbons]

The tribunal accepted Baker's statement.

i.e. he ran into his path and stopped.

If Baker did as you 'suspect' then they wouldn't have accepted his explanation (which was consistent with other evidence).

Come on, what AFL player takes an opponent's space and just stands there, arms hanging limply at their sides?

Of course he would have exerted some force towards Farmer, maybe would have thrown his arms up in a shepherding motion too. Lets try to discuss just a little realistically.

 

[kahuna71]

Come on, what AFL player takes an opponent's space and just stands there, arms hanging limply at their sides?

Of course he would have exerted some force towards Farmer, maybe would have thrown his arms up in a shepherding motion too. Lets try to discuss just a little realistically.

Fine, where's the proof? Let's try and discuss a little factually.