Remove this Banner Ad

Steven Baker found guilty

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Saints Premiers 2006 said:
but freo fans are all still bitter about johnson getting done early in the year when he nailed an opposition player ON CAMERA

where is the footage of baker nailing farmer??

so with that in mind we do have a reason to be angry at the system that has duly let us down

the way fremantly has whinged through a trainer by giving evidence to the tribunal is not a way to get respect from within the football community

it only strengthens all other teams' and supporters' beliefs that fremantle are a joke of a football club
Click to expand...

Actually the trainer said he saw the lead up to the incident and the afl then called him and jeff in for evidence (not their choice). Jeff's evidence said basically that he had no idea who hit him or what happened after and the trainer said he didn't see the impact.

Baker got suspended on his own words. If the tribunal had believed jeff who said he didn't know who hit him baker probably would have been better off. Not sure how you can blame freo for what came out of bakers mouth, especially when the tribunal in essence ignored jeff and the trainers evidence anyway.

Personally i don't care what baker got im just happy jeff is ok. But from my understanding no matter what, if he was found guilty of anything he would have automatically got 3 weeks just from what was hanging over his head from the past (again not sure how freo is at fault here, when in reality baker only got 4 weeks for this incident)
 
stickman11 said:
Farmer got what he deserved. Had it comming for sometime.
Click to expand...

Is That right?? The gang mentality of the streets. Have you stopped to think if these type of thuggery acts were committed off the footy field, they would be facing criminal assault, with no video evidence either. Reading some of these posts one wonders who are the deviants and thugs. Thuggery has no place on or off the field, end of story.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Strange how the AFL/tribunal system works, as a matter in point, Daniel Chick has not played since the derby as the result of a fractured Larynx resulting from a Solomon elbow to the throat. solomon is also a dirty low down sniper, his actions resulted in injury that prevents a player from playing but from memory he wasn't even cited, despite seven or eight differnet camera angles of the incident. A seriuos injury resulting from an illegal act.......

Amazing how Freo weren't in a hurry to get one of their trainers to dob that little episode in. Freo are quite happy to have the Carrs, Solomon and guys like Cook and hell even Farmer go around dishing it out, but invariably whinge the loudest when one of their own cops it.

Freo fans can give it all they want on here but simply the only thing they've won from this little episode is wearing the humiliation of a team that went through all it's officials as soon as possible to run to the AFL with a case. Piss weak
 
Kempie said:
I guess we'll see at the end of the season, when he gets delisted for being ineducable. ;)
Click to expand...

stevie would rather be struck down by lightening than play at another club. hes got pride, thats y hes so valuable.
 
I wonder if there is a chance the AFL might stop the appeal before it starts tonight.

Reading between the lines St Kilda has no new evidence all they are complaining about why he is guilty and that is no reason for the appeal.

The tribunal took in Baker's evidence and ruled on that so St Kilda really have no chane and they have wasted $5000 and the appeals boards time.

With a 5:30 start except this over before 6:00
 
lovesmahfooty said:
Strange how the AFL/tribunal system works, as a matter in point, Daniel Chick has not played since the derby as the result of a fractured Larynx resulting from a Solomon elbow to the throat. solomon is also a dirty low down sniper, his actions resulted in injury that prevents a player from playing but from memory he wasn't even cited, despite seven or eight differnet camera angles of the incident. A seriuos injury resulting from an illegal act.......
Click to expand...

This is an interesting point. Rick Lewis in today's Hun stated that what Baker did was an illegal act. I'm not sure he means it was reportable, but it was illegal - at least a free kick.

While I don't necessarily agree with his interpretation of the rules, I do support the idea of being reported for a free kick that causes injury.

Example - in 2005, the Doggies played St Kilda at the G. Midway through the first quarter, Nick Riewoldt marks the ball, and is thrown to the ground by his opponent Ryan Hardgrave. Riewoldt sustained an injured shoulder. Hardgrave was paid a 50 metre penalty against him, but played the next week. Riewoldt missed the next three matches.

In my opinion, Hardgrave committed a illegal act causing injury. A fair penalty would be that Hardgrave couldn't play until Riewoldt did. Under this interpretation, Hardgrave would get three weeks, Baker possibly one week if Farmer misses this week. Just a suggestion though.

I have a few requests though - Could everyone stop talking about Farmer, or Gehrig, or Milne, or Montagna, and events that have occurred involving these people off field? This clearly isn't about that, and it debases the entire discussion.
 
NeilElvis said:
..well Baker was been found guilty EVERY time he has appeared & has taken his medicine EVERY time.
Click to expand...

Didn't he get away with a reduced sentence following two reports on the same game?
I thought that was partly why he had the extra "medicine" this time as the last dose proved ineffectual.
 
JeffDunne said:
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?
Click to expand...

100 children will play footy in the lounge room this afternoon.
Only one will smash the TV.
Can he use the other 99 as a defence.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

sarbear said:
Actually the trainer said he saw the lead up to the incident and the afl then called him and jeff in for evidence (not their choice). Jeff's evidence said basically that he had no idea who hit him or what happened after and the trainer said he didn't see the impact.

Baker got suspended on his own words. If the tribunal had believed jeff who said he didn't know who hit him baker probably would have been better off. )
Click to expand...
No Freo lads told the tribunal Baker used his Elbow, that is what Baker was charged with. This was proved to be false and he should have been let off
 
Oh When the Saints said:
Whether or not it was 4+3 weeks, or 2+5 weeks, or 8-3+2 weeks is irrelevant.

The fact is, Baker must sit out 7 matches because of his actions.
Click to expand...

Its not irrelevant, its actually central to the process of deciding how many weeks to give a guilty player :rolleyes:. Are you trying to be deliberately dense or something?

Oh When the Saints said:
Anyone with common sense when giving a punishment in this case would have said 3-4 weeks was a fair and reasonable period for Baker to serve.

Not 7 weeks.
Click to expand...

Well guess what and looky here! He did receive 4 weeks.

You're essentially saying that prior record shouldn't count at the tribunal. Why? There's no problem with that side of it; repeat offenders should have the book thrown at them, and Baker is a repeat offender by anyone's (even JD et al) definition.

Argue the merits of finding him guilty in the first place all you like, can't complain though when someone with a record like Baker's gets another 3 tacked on.
 
bourbons said:
Well guess what and looky here! He did receive 4 weeks.

You're essentially saying that prior record shouldn't count at the tribunal. Why? There's no problem with that side of it; repeat offenders should have the book thrown at them, and Baker is a repeat offender by anyone's (even JD et al) definition.

Argue the merits of finding him guilty in the first place all you like, can't complain though when someone with a record like Baker's gets another 3 tacked on.
Click to expand...

Of course you can. He didn't get an opportunity to see a charge and accept a penalty, and how is it fair he gets 3 weeks added on?
 
Qsaint said:
Of course you can. He didn't get an opportunity to see a charge and accept a penalty, and how is it fair he gets 3 weeks added on?
Click to expand...

Well Baker had a suspended 2 week sentence haging over his head from the game this year where he was reported twice during a game. Then he recived another extra week for a bad record. Thats how he arrived with the extra 3 weeks
 
inferno66 said:
Well Baker had a suspended 2 week sentence haging over his head from the game this year where he was reported twice during a game. Then he recived another extra week for a bad record. Thats how he arrived with the extra 3 weeks
Click to expand...

So thats 2 weeks not 3, so they just made the other 1 up against the System of activation points their suppose to be adhearing too.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Baker told the tribunal that Farmer had merely run into the back of him as he stepped into his path to prevent him running into the forward line.

"My intention (in blocking Farmer) was to stay goal side of him and to stop him getting the ball," he said.

However Baker conceded the ball was more than five metres away when he blocked Farmer and conceded his actions warranted a free-kick but not a report.

In contrast Farmer said he was standing watching the play when he felt someone make contact 'to the right hand side of his face.'

But he was unable to tell the tribunal who had made contact with him.

"Basically I was watching the play and the next thing I remember contact was made to my face and then I remember being on the ground on all fours."

Farmer then needed assistance to leave the field and did not play the rest of the game and is in doubt for this week's game against his former club Melbourne.

Fremantle trainer Barry Kirkwood also gave evidence telling the tribunal that Baker ran in from about 20 metres away from Farmer from 'a diagonal direction' and made contact with him.

But he was unable to tell the tribunal what form of contact Baker made because his view at the moment of impact was obscured.

lol farmer said he was standing still and kirkwood, baker and nixon said farmer was moving...

so is kirkwood a liar or is farmer a liar?

irrespective of bakers guilt, one 'eyewitness' directly contradicts farmers events.

did farmer lie to stitch up baker or did kirkwood lie to stitch up baker? interestingly the tribunal convicted baker on his own testamony and didn't believe kirkwood or farmer...

liars one or both them?
 
The Fireman said:
An interesting point, Farmer was on the deck for a long period of time, what was the trainer , who saw the incident, doing? Writing it all down? because he certainly wasn't running out to assist Farmer.
Click to expand...

First out there along with the club doctor. Assisted the bloodied and concussed Jeffrey from the ground.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top