-
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
JeffDunne
TheBrownDog
Hawk-in-syd, I do agree with you in relation to how St Kilda have prepared for hearings in the past. Our admin has been caught with their pants down on more than one occassion.
However in this case I don't see how they could have argued anything different.
As for the issue of Barry Kirkwood, he said to the investigators that contact was made by Baker with his body "somewhere between his shoulder and hip". He changed his evidence at the tribunal and it's why his evidence was tossed out.
Interesting to note too that he had access to Bakers statement BEFORE the tribunal hearing. I believe that if the appeal is dismissed this may form the basis of a legal challenge to the process.
However in this case I don't see how they could have argued anything different.
As for the issue of Barry Kirkwood, he said to the investigators that contact was made by Baker with his body "somewhere between his shoulder and hip". He changed his evidence at the tribunal and it's why his evidence was tossed out.
Interesting to note too that he had access to Bakers statement BEFORE the tribunal hearing. I believe that if the appeal is dismissed this may form the basis of a legal challenge to the process.
Re: What if Baker was an umpire ?
gold!
but I just realised that I meant Coleman taking out Farmer.
gold!
but I just realised that I meant Coleman taking out Farmer.
MRobbo
Norm Smith Medallist
to Jeffdunne and any saints supporter, just give it up the saints have no chance tonight. That will be end of story.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
JeffDunne
TheBrownDog
Re: What if Baker was an umpire ?
Some of your best work of fiction MarkT.
Tough call I know given some of your past work but that's a beauty.
Maybe you should be there tonight so we upgrade the charge to head-butting - with the back of your head.
Some of your best work of fiction MarkT.
Tough call I know given some of your past work but that's a beauty.
Maybe you should be there tonight so we upgrade the charge to head-butting - with the back of your head.
Re: What if Baker was an umpire ?
The charge doesn't need to be upgraded. 7 weeks keeps everyone (well, nearly everyone) happy.
Some of your best work of fiction MarkT.
Tough call I know given some of your past work but that's a beauty.
Maybe you should be there tonight so we upgrade the charge to head-butting - with the back of your head.
The charge doesn't need to be upgraded. 7 weeks keeps everyone (well, nearly everyone) happy.
- Banned
- #857
Re: What if Baker was an umpire ?
Gary Coleman headbutts with the back of his head so he doesnt ruin the beauty that is on the front of his head
Gary Coleman headbutts with the back of his head so he doesnt ruin the beauty that is on the front of his head
Re: What if Baker was an umpire ?
I missed that, but that's the best piece of conjecture I've ever read. Backwards headbutts now ?.
The prosecution calls to the stand...... Jackie Chan
What a dick.
Some of your best work of fiction MarkT.
Tough call I know given some of your past work but that's a beauty.
Maybe you should be there tonight so we upgrade the charge to head-butting - with the back of your head.
I missed that, but that's the best piece of conjecture I've ever read. Backwards headbutts now ?.
The prosecution calls to the stand...... Jackie Chan
What a dick.
Re: What if Baker was an umpire ?
At least when the tribunal say 'We put it to you that you recklessly took out Farmer behind play' he can reply
'What you talkin bout tribunal????'
At least when the tribunal say 'We put it to you that you recklessly took out Farmer behind play' he can reply
'What you talkin bout tribunal????'
JeffDunne
TheBrownDog
MRobbo, who are you trying to convince, us or yourself?
FWIW, I don't think tonight will change anything other than giving us the opportunity to take it the next step. This result was determined Monday and (W)AFL pressure will ensure tonight changes nothing.
FWIW, I don't think tonight will change anything other than giving us the opportunity to take it the next step. This result was determined Monday and (W)AFL pressure will ensure tonight changes nothing.
MRobbo
Norm Smith Medallist
The Appeal is the last step and nothing will change.
First thing you could have done was not to admit to a reportable offence. As I said earlier if he said nothing he would have got off. And it wouldn't have been a stretch to tell him to just play dumb either. The guy is a genuine nuffy. Did you ever see him doing the spelling contest with Milne on fox. Don't think either would pass grade 4.
I am fairly certain this will end up in court and is just going through the motions
Re: What if Baker was an umpire ?
Sorry for getting off the hijacked topic...
I think it would depend on what Gary Coleman rocked up. If it was 1990 Gare Coleman, then he may be in with a chance of having his testimony heard. If it was 2007 security guard Gary Coleman, then there is little chance. It is as Big Cox says:
He is ugly nowadays. He has a bad temper too.
Sorry for getting off the hijacked topic...
I think it would depend on what Gary Coleman rocked up. If it was 1990 Gare Coleman, then he may be in with a chance of having his testimony heard. If it was 2007 security guard Gary Coleman, then there is little chance. It is as Big Cox says:
He is ugly nowadays. He has a bad temper too.
MRobbo
Norm Smith Medallist
If St Kilda take this to court they should lose all their premiership points, draft picks and a big fine.
Yep. Lets keep the courts out of it.
JeffDunne
TheBrownDog
Blocking is no more a reportable offence than pushing someone in the back.
If Baker is the "nuffy" you make him out to be, then having him lie wouldn't be a wise thing would it? Had he contradicted himself in cross examination they probably would have given him 12 weeks (given Barry Kirkwood's 'evidence'). Barry's a school teacher and even he's a bad liar.
JeffDunne
TheBrownDog
lol, that would suit you wouldn't it?
If the AFL did that then they'd have one hell of a court case on their hands and when we won, we wouldn't need to worry about our income figures for the next decade.
Christ some people talk crap on this subject.
I hope the Aints do go legal. The AwFuL will screw them for years with the draw and other issues they control as pay back. But Butters knows this so he wont. If there was ever a case to go to the courts it was the overturned Freo result. And we know what all the chest puffing from the Aints resulted in there dont we.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Isn't great not to believe in Democracy
MRobbo
Norm Smith Medallist
You are one of them.
Most sane people know the appeal won't be successful end of story.
Nothing to do with democracy - just due process.
JD,
serious question this time
what happened with that other witness that St Kilda had. Heard him on SEN saying he was waiting in another room but they decided not to use him.
I can think of 3 potential reasons
1. he was purposely held back for appeal so they had a valid new evidence card to play
2.assessment that he might contradict existing testimony from Baker who may have strayed from the agreed story
3.perception that freo had dug enough of a hole with inadequate evidence, ie a star witness who had blocked vision of the incident
will he be there tonight or is the procedural defence the best option
serious question this time
what happened with that other witness that St Kilda had. Heard him on SEN saying he was waiting in another room but they decided not to use him.
I can think of 3 potential reasons
1. he was purposely held back for appeal so they had a valid new evidence card to play
2.assessment that he might contradict existing testimony from Baker who may have strayed from the agreed story
3.perception that freo had dug enough of a hole with inadequate evidence, ie a star witness who had blocked vision of the incident
will he be there tonight or is the procedural defence the best option
I am glad you agree
The basis of the appeal is that Baker was denied due process and therefore has no case to answer
Blockings not reportable on its own. Its blocking + head high contact is. Baker admitted to the blocking and the head high contact is sort of obvious. (broken nose, cut mouth, concussion) The saints QC should have been able to work that out surely. The only way I can think they stuffed this so badly is if Phillip Priest QC wasn't aware they changed the rules this year after the kossi/gia hit. If thats the case I wouldn't be to happy when you get the bill. Whats a QC, $1000 an hour??
- Status