Steven Baker found guilty

[Murray]

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 ????

How many times have you heard this "The head is sacrosanct".
It doesn't matter if it was an accident, there is a duty of care when it comes to the head.

Just ask Byron Pickett and Ben Johnson

 

[Atomboy]

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

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.

well using the rationale of the tribunal:

you're fine to chop someone's arms in a marking contest, but if that chop then results in a broken finger to the guy attempting to mark, then you should be suspended.

can't understand the logic quite honestly.

 

[Atomboy]

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

How many times have you heard this "The head is sacrosanct".
It doesn't matter if it was an accident, there is a duty of care when it comes to the head.

Just ask Byron Pickett and Ben Johnson

How about you ask Luke Ball or Kosi then ?.

They were both accidental contacts and nothing was answerable for ni both cases, and rightly so.

The inconsistency conmpared to this case is astounding.

 

[AFKAJR]

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.

Finally some clarity on the topic!!!!

 

[dan warna]

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

wow that looks like carlton fans when they got sprung cheating on the salary cap!!!

from the social club membership photo album was it

 

[Waverley73]

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

Why? You're not going to feel any better because a debate on BigFooty isn't going to change the decision. He's been rubbed out and you're not happy about it.

 

[kahuna71]

Why? You're not going to feel any better because a debate on BigFooty isn't going to change the decision. He's been rubbed out and you're not happy about it.

if he'd punched his lights out i'd understand, this is just the latest in a long line of mysterious saints v freo affairs.

 

[NeilElvis]

Can someone then explain how Luke Ball can get his head split open, suffer severe concussion & miss three weeks of footy & the offender have no case to answer?

With the exception of the ball being about 15 metres away, the action by Whelan & Baker was EXACTLY the same. Stationary but pushing their weight up towards the opposition player, causing a clash of heads.

Ball was criticised for not having the awareness to see Whelan coming & no case to answer was justified because of this & despite Luke Ball's serious facial injuries. The clear footage of the incident probably helped Whelan as it showed him turn his back & hit Ball in the left side of the face with the BACK OF HIS HEAD. The lack of footage in the Baker incident (due to AFL mismanagement) has prevented Baker from proving that the contact with Farmer was caused in EXACTLY the same way.

In any court in this great country Baker would have no case to answer due to the mixed testimony given by the Freo trainer & Farmer himself & the consistent evidence given by Baker & Ricky Nixon. Saying that the key to the suspension is Farmer getting a broken nose & concussion is absolutely inconsistent with the Whelan/Ball incident (Ball terribly hurt but he contributed to it).

FACT- Tribunal accepts Baker's version (he intiated contact through stopping suddenly & hit Farmer with the back of his head).

FACT- Whelan initiated contact with Ball in a very similar manner.

FACT- Tribunal rejects that Farmer contributed to the collision by not watching his opponent.

FACT- Whelan was cleared as Luke Ball should have expected contact.

I don't subscribe to the Anti-St.Kilda AFL conspiracy going around but it seems to me that Baker was judged guilty & sentenced before any eveidence was heard. Those raising Baker's poor record at the tribunal & stating words to the effect of 'karma got him, he finally got his just desserts'...well Baker was been found guilty EVERY time he has appeared & has taken his medicine EVERY time. He is not a sniper who gets away with things continually.

I hope St.Kilda take this as far as they can & expose the totally ineffective & unjust system that Adrian Anderson has put in place.

 

[Waverley73]

if he'd punched his lights out i'd understand, this is just the latest in a long line of mysterious saints v freo affairs.

Oh. I didn't realise we were going down the conspiracy road - just thought you were annoyed with the severity of the sentence.

 

[AFKAJR]

if he'd punched his lights out i'd understand, this is just the latest in a long line of mysterious saints v freo affairs.

Is that a siren I hear? or is it just some other whining noise?

 

[bourbons]

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.

Really can't be arsed looking through the rule book but it is illegal to shephard or block a player more than 5m off the ball. (Happy to be corrected if someone can be bothered to look).

Probably does happen to a forward every 2 minutes, usually the umps miss it, but I've seen plenty paid, especially this year. They are never reported because 99 times out of 100 there is no consequence that you can see ie. a player knocked out on the ground. If the umpire misses it all you see is the forward with a 3m break on his opponent.

The intentional part is Baker admitting stepping into Farmer's space 50 meters off the ball in the first place. Once he does that, and injuries result, under this tribunal he is in trouble.

 

[JeffDunne]

What next, player's being reported for attempted blocking?

Interesting too just reported on SEN - that lying sack of shit BARRY KIRKWOOD had a copy of Baker's statement BEFORE the hearing.

Fair dinkum, how on earth did he get a copy?

It's pretty clear, this was a setup from the start.

 

[MRobbo]

Just heard Ken Sheldon on SEN.

The appeal will be heard tomorrow night at 5:30pm.

Based on what Ken Sheldon just said they just disagree with the decision and have no new evidence so the appeal will be thrown out in double quick time.

 

[dockertor]

This is exactly what I was thinking last night - rules for some.
It was clear as day that Judd gouged Brown, but he gets off because Brown didn't dob him in

NO footage of Baker, but he gets 7 weeks.
if Farmer's nose wasn't broken it would have been a non-issue....

This part is true. The facts are, as according to baker and the tribunal accepted his version, he instigated contact off the ball, that contact was deemed unnecessary as it was 50 metres off the ball. Farmer was injured because of the contact, it is incumbent upon baker in this situation to ensure that didn’t happen hence it’s negligent.
The points have been added up earlier in the thread 4 weeks is reasonable, no discount and extra weeks due to bakers poor record. If baker had made the contact and not injured Farmer no charge would have been laid

 

[dont bowl there]

It's pretty clear, this was a setup from the start.

And we would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for you meddling Saints fans!

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

I think the appeal will be based on a Trainer who,s not an AFL official giving evidence.

 

[kahuna71]

Oh. I didn't realise we were going down the conspiracy road - just thought you were annoyed with the severity of the sentence.

conspiracy theory my arse, I don't subscribe to that at all. What supporters from every club want are tribunal decisons based on fact and that make sense. This makes no sense except in the ****ed up world of the those who hear cases on the afl tribunal.

based on the decisions you see that is obviously too much to ask.

 

[MRobbo]

I think the appeal will be based on a Trainer who,s not an AFL official giving evidence.

The trainer is a club official which makes him an AFL official.

 

[bourbons]

Can someone then explain how Luke Ball can get his head split open, suffer severe concussion & miss three weeks of footy & the offender have no case to answer?

With the exception of the ball being about 15 metres away, the action by Whelan & Baker was EXACTLY the same. Stationary but pushing their weight up towards the opposition player, causing a clash of heads.

Ball was criticised for not having the awareness to see Whelan coming & no case to answer was justified because of this & despite Luke Ball's serious facial injuries. The clear footage of the incident probably helped Whelan as it showed him turn his back & hit Ball in the left side of the face with the BACK OF HIS HEAD. The lack of footage in the Baker incident (due to AFL mismanagement) has prevented Baker from proving that the contact with Farmer was caused in EXACTLY the same way.

In any court in this great country Baker would have no case to answer due to the mixed testimony given by the Freo trainer & Farmer himself & the consistent evidence given by Baker & Ricky Nixon. Saying that the key to the suspension is Farmer getting a broken nose & concussion is absolutely inconsistent with the Whelan/Ball incident (Ball terribly hurt but he contributed to it).

FACT- Tribunal accepts Baker's version (he intiated contact through stopping suddenly & hit Farmer with the back of his head).

FACT- Whelan initiated contact with Ball in a very similar manner.

FACT- Tribunal rejects that Farmer contributed to the collision by not watching his opponent.

FACT- Whelan was cleared as Luke Ball should have expected contact.

I don't subscribe to the Anti-St.Kilda AFL conspiracy going around but it seems to me that Baker was judged guilty & sentenced before any eveidence was heard. Those raising Baker's poor record at the tribunal & stating words to the effect of 'karma got him, he finally got his just desserts'...well Baker was been found guilty EVERY time he has appeared & has taken his medicine EVERY time. He is not a sniper who gets away with things continually.

I hope St.Kilda take this as far as they can & expose the totally ineffective & unjust system that Adrian Anderson has put in place.

The difference is Ball's was judged to be in play, so he should have reasonably expected contact. Farmer's was judged to be off the play.

Not saying I agree with these assessments and expectations, just that thats why these cases were judged differently.

 

[Waverley73]

if he'd punched his lights out i'd understand, this is just the latest in a long line of mysterious saints v freo affairs.

conspiracy theory my arse, I don't subscribe to that at all. What supporters from every club want are tribunal decisons based on fact and that make sense. This makes no sense except in the ****ed up world of the those who hear cases on the afl tribunal.

based on the decisions you see that is obviously too much to ask.

All sounds a bit conspiracy related to me mate. 'Mysterious'...'Affairs'...not the usual tribunal bashing talk there.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

The trainer is a club official which makes him an AFL official.

Nope he,s a Voulenteer

 

[kahuna71]

All sounds a bit conspiracy related to me mate. 'Mysterious'...'Affairs'...not the usual tribunal bashing talk there.

everytime we play freo something weird happens - I'm not trying to point a finger as to why. It just does.

 

[Waverley73]

everytime we play freo something weird happens - I'm not trying to point a finger as to why. It just does.

OK. If you're not talking conspiracy are you alluding to some foul play or just karma? Maybe the planets or something?

 

[kahuna71]

OK. If you're not talking conspiracy are you alluding to some foul play or just karma? Maybe the planets or something?

nuh, just weird random stuff each time we play.

 

[dont bowl there]

everytime we play freo something weird happens - I'm not trying to point a finger as to why. It just does.

This time you won...that is weird!