Steven Baker found guilty

[Hawk-in-syd]

How about the fact it was an accidental head clash. Is that not a defence?

Last year it would have been, but because of the Kosi/gia collision the AFL changed the rules this year and brought in the duty of care rubbish. Would have been better to leave it as it was but the AFL it its wisdom changed the rules to protect a guy with a disability.

 

[bubblegoose]

Quote:
Originally Posted by morgoth
JD

If the player is injured as a result of the action it is reckless and that is the problem in Bakers case. It is the same as it being made clear to players that smashing a player in a tackle when his arms are pinned is reckless.

Yes the game is soft, by then again when Rocca got outed for a perfect hip and shoulder where contact to the head was caused by the player slipping and Rocca being taller, it was pretty obvious that anything that results in injury to the head that is 'outside' the rules (Rocca did hit high) will result in suspension.

Shepherding off the ball is illegal, once he admitted that he was gone.

This post sums it up perfectly

Interesting that it has not been responded to yet by JD and other sainters who are up in arms about this.

OK, I'll tell you what issue specifically I have with the above. Going by this Gia should have been suspended for the reckless head clash with Kosi - who's injuries were far worse. Everyone that lined up Luke Ball & broke his nose should have been suspended too - we could all write up a massive list for incidents from each team. The overall inconsistencies are what really infuriates me.

 

[dan warna]

You're a disgrace.

the disgrace is a coward who beats women.

 

[bubblegoose]

Woe is me, there were whispers in the sky.

Woe is me, the game goes on until the umpire hears the siren.

Woe is me, Baker is an altar boy.

Does your husband have to put up with all this. Whiny little biatch.

hahahaha goodone twitlips!

 

[Footylover1]

hahahaha goodone twitlips!

hehe@twitlips

 

[dan warna]

Woe is me, there were whispers in the sky.

Woe is me, the game goes on until the umpire hears the siren.

Woe is me, Baker is an altar boy.

Does your husband have to put up with all this. Whiny little biatch.

does farmer missus have to put up with another beating?

dont you like women who can stand up for themselves?

as for altar boy, I believe baker was an altar boy as a youth.

 

[Hawk-in-syd]

BINGO!

I doubt whether Baker will get off given that he admitted to a shepherd 30-50m off the ball. I am sure he did not realise that this was in fact illegal when he admitted to it. He has spent so much time bending the rules, the distinction between what is illegal and what is legal must be so blurred in his head...

I can understand Baker not knowing the rules, but the person that typed his statement should have known. Thats why I can't understand the Saints supporters being pissed at the AFL. It's the stkilda administration that stuffed this up not the AFL.

 

[JeffDunne]

Baker knew it was a free kick. He said so at the tribunal.

I'm no fan of current admin, but I don't see how they can be blamed for telling what actually happened when the lying sack of shit Barry Kirkwood went there with a fabricated story.

Clearly St Kilda didn't believe that having someone run into you was a reportable offence. Please feel free to show though how this wasn't a reasonable expectation (i.e. other cases).

 

[Murray]

Quote:
Originally Posted by morgoth
JD

If the player is injured as a result of the action it is reckless and that is the problem in Bakers case. It is the same as it being made clear to players that smashing a player in a tackle when his arms are pinned is reckless.

Yes the game is soft, by then again when Rocca got outed for a perfect hip and shoulder where contact to the head was caused by the player slipping and Rocca being taller, it was pretty obvious that anything that results in injury to the head that is 'outside' the rules (Rocca did hit high) will result in suspension.

Shepherding off the ball is illegal, once he admitted that he was gone.



OK, I'll tell you what issue specifically I have with the above. Going by this Gia should have been suspended for the reckless head clash with Kosi - who's injuries were far worse. Everyone that lined up Luke Ball & broke his nose should have been suspended too - we could all write up a massive list for incidents from each team. The overall inconsistencies are what really infuriates me.

You just don't seem to listen that well.

The interpretation was changed because of the Kosi incident.

Just let me know if you can't understand that and I will get my crayons out

 

[Waverley73]

Geez, you go away for a few hours and then come back and this thread is still bubbling along...

7 weeks. Thats the first 4/5 games of next year - not a good start Sainters.

 

[Hawk-in-syd]

OK, I'll tell you what issue specifically I have with the above. Going by this Gia should have been suspended for the reckless head clash with Kosi - who's injuries were far worse. Everyone that lined up Luke Ball & broke his nose should have been suspended too - we could all write up a massive list for incidents from each team. The overall inconsistencies are what really infuriates me.

The AFL changed the rules this year, ironicly because of the gia/kosi collision so you should blame stkilda for playing a guy with a disability that forced the AFL to change the rules that got Baker charged. Kinda funny really.

 

[bourbons]

Geez, you go away for a few hours and then come back and this thread is still bubbling along...

I know, pretty much same arguments too.. its unreal

 

[Hawk-in-syd]

Baker knew it was a free kick. He said so at the tribunal.

I'm no fan of current admin, but I don't see how they can be blamed for telling what actually happened when the lying sack of shit Barry Kirkwood went there with a fabricated story.

Clearly St Kilda didn't believe that having someone run into you was a reportable offence. Please feel free to show though how this wasn't a reasonable expectation (i.e. other cases).

At the start of the year the AFL rules video cited the gia/kosi collision as a reportable offence this year. Add to that the behind play and you get 4 weeks. I would have thought someone at stkilda would have watched it?

 

[MRobbo]

After what Ken Sheldon said today. The Appeal is a waste of time.

He said that St Kilda are appealing becuase they disagreed with the decision.

The tribunal said it accepted Steven Baker's evidence and still found him guilty they can not appeal just becuase they disagree with the decision.

They need new evidence and they don't seem to have it.

This would be the same as as a player not agreeing with umpires decision and giving away a 50m penalty.

It will be a very quick night tomorrow night.

 

[Cruiserweight Champ]

Quote:
Originally Posted by morgoth
JD

If the player is injured as a result of the action it is reckless and that is the problem in Bakers case. It is the same as it being made clear to players that smashing a player in a tackle when his arms are pinned is reckless.

Yes the game is soft, by then again when Rocca got outed for a perfect hip and shoulder where contact to the head was caused by the player slipping and Rocca being taller, it was pretty obvious that anything that results in injury to the head that is 'outside' the rules (Rocca did hit high) will result in suspension.

Shepherding off the ball is illegal, once he admitted that he was gone.



OK, I'll tell you what issue specifically I have with the above. Going by this Gia should have been suspended for the reckless head clash with Kosi - who's injuries were far worse. Everyone that lined up Luke Ball & broke his nose should have been suspended too - we could all write up a massive list for incidents from each team. The overall inconsistencies are what really infuriates me.

When are u saints supporters gonna get over it?...first of all Gia cleaned him up fair and square, there was no head high contact, secondly, what knocked him out was when his head hit the ground.....maybe if the big fella had a better sense of awareness he wouldnt get hit as often as he does.

 

[Mullo]

I know, pretty much same arguments too.. its unreal

Ah you Carlton mob are still burnt over Goddard...every carlton supporter is anti st kilda lol...

keep it up tankers

 

[Mullo]

At the start of the year the AFL rules video cited the gia/kosi collision as a reportable offence this year. Add to that the behind play and you get 4 weeks. I would have thought someone at stkilda would have watched it?

Baker simply stopped running, thats all he did... cant go for that

how many times to you see player trying to get in the way of a forward to stop their run.. its the same thing

 

[The Punter]

When are u saints supporters gonna get over it?...first of all Gia cleaned him up fair and square, there was no head high contact, secondly, what knocked him out was when his head hit the ground.....maybe if the big fella had a better sense of awareness he wouldnt get hit as often as he does.

Obviously you haven't watched the footage of the incident closely enough. Kosi was clearly out before he hit the ground. Having said that Gia did nothing wrong in my book and was correctly not reported.

How can you report a bloke for running then stopping? That is what Baker said he did, and the tribunal accepted. It is like penalising a brick wall for someone running into it. The wall wasn't moving, and neither was Baker.

 

[bourbons]

Ah you Carlton mob are still burnt over Goddard...every carlton supporter is anti st kilda lol...

keep it up tankers

haha, way to play the ball there champ. Nothing left to say on the actual topic?

 

[Hawk-in-syd]

Baker simply stopped running, thats all he did... cant go for that

how many times to you see player trying to get in the way of a forward to stop their run.. its the same thing

Yea it's similar but the
-admitted he caused the collision
-the collision was head high
-the collision was behind the play
so its reportable.

 

[atomic beefcake]

Striking?

Do you know anything about what was presented last night?

The striking case I referred to was the infamous king hit when Baker claimed to be suffering from concussion so couldn't remember what he had done.

I must understand it more than you since I actually agree with the outcome.

 

[worthy]

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

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.

Chopping someones arms in play and breaking their finger would (and rightly so) be viewed differently to chopping someones arms behind play and breaking their finger.
In play = no case to answer.
Behind play = Trouble.

 

[jbazzle]

When are u saints supporters gonna get over it?...first of all Gia cleaned him up fair and square, there was no head high contact, secondly, what knocked him out was when his head hit the ground.....maybe if the big fella had a better sense of awareness he wouldnt get hit as often as he does.

do you actually think he fractured his skull when his head hit the turf?

 

[celtic_pride]

Ah you Carlton mob are still burnt over Goddard...every carlton supporter is anti st kilda lol...

keep it up tankers

LOL yeah we're still so bitter about missing Goddard !!!

Kade Simpson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Goddard

 

[sydjackson]

I agree, I had a chuckle when Freo fans were defending Jeff when he kneed that player in the head, perfect video evidence , they still defended him but this is bit different isn't it. We don't know what happened in this instance, there was a block , the rest is very vague. Biased? Every fan should be concerned that the tribunal can shelf a player with little or no evidence.

How do you know there was a block? You say "We don't know what happened in this instance" but then immediately state "there was a block". How do you go from we don't know to (I know) there was a block? Are you taking Baker's word for it? If so, how do you know it wasn't a block with raised elbow, or short-arm jolt?

And who cares? Isn't the penalty not so much worked out by how he hit him, but more about the outcome, and the fact that whatever it was it was behind play?