Steven Baker found guilty

[The Fireman]

JD

The rule re duty of care came in at the end of the 2006 season, there is no point comparing acts from before the 07 season. If someone takes a kick at the ball and causes injury then they should have the same principle applied.

Hell Rocca got done for a legit hip and shoulder simply cos of the duty of care principle. He did nothing wrong, the ump did not even pay a free but he should have forseen his action could have caused injury and pulled out.

Shit rule IMO, but it is the rule.

What is your opinion of the Tribunal and it's process Morgoth?

 

[Tony_Clifton]

.

Doesn't change anything in relation to the tribunal's conduct. That would be the basis of any legal challenge and not whether he received adequate council.

Care to expand on the tribunal's inappropriate conduct? As you are supremely confident you would win I would like to hear an explanation why.

I've argued that he shouldn't get off and you have responded but if this goes to court it will be St Kilda with the burden of proof to overturn a decision.

 

[keefriffhard]

And? Go fishing mate, it's all over.

Trout season opens Saturday week. He can head up to Eildon with Stevie if he wants...

 

[The Fireman]

Care to expand on the tribunal's inappropriate conduct? As you are supremely confident you would win I would like to hear an explanation why.

I've argued that he shouldn't get off and you have responded but if this goes to court it will be St Kilda with the burden of proof to overturn a decision.

What a shame Farmer wasn't still at Melb, you wouldn't need to bother yourself with all of this.

 

[Footylover1]

Trout season opens Saturday week. He can head up to Eildon with Stevie if he wants...

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Trout. Me likes!

 

[morgoth]

Its crap simply because it is inconsistent but it always has been and always will be. The Rooca suspension was a joke but hey thems the rules. I saw Caracella get his kneck broken, one of the worst things I have ever seen and the prick got off simply because the rules were not in place.

If these new rules stop something like that happening again then they are good rules. Fact is Baker did not have to block Farmer, just the same as Rocca did not have to bump. Once they did it they are responsible for their actions.

Nothing wrong with the rule the application/consistency is just up shit creek.

 

[The Fireman]

Trout season opens Saturday week. He can head up to Eildon with Stevie if he wants...

I might go with him, not Eildon though, further up

 

[The Fireman]

Its crap simply because it is inconsistent but it always has been and always will be. The Rooca suspension was a joke but hey thems the rules. I saw Caracella get his kneck broken, one of the worst things I have ever seen and the prick got off simply because the rules were not in place.

If these new rules stop something like that happening again then they are good rules. Fact is Baker did not have to block Farmer, just the same as Rocca did not have to bump. Once they did it they are responsible for their actions.

Nothing wrong with the rule the application/consistency is just up shit creek.

Gee I thought that was a defender did.

PS I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[sharpie]

Its crap simply because it is inconsistent but it always has been and always will be. The Rooca suspension was a joke but hey thems the rules. I saw Caracella get his kneck broken, one of the worst things I have ever seen and the prick got off simply because the rules were not in place.

If these new rules stop something like that happening again then they are good rules. Fact is Baker did not have to block Farmer, just the same as Rocca did not have to bump. Once they did it they are responsible for their actions.

Nothing wrong with the rule the application/consistency is just up shit creek.

just because a bloke gets hurt doesn't make it a suspendable offence

otherwise whoever got lonergan in the kidney or lacerated colbert's pancreas would never have played again

in the case of caracella - notting was going (and got) the ball

 

[JeffDunne]

Its crap simply because it is inconsistent but it always has been and always will be. The Rooca suspension was a joke but hey thems the rules. I saw Caracella get his kneck broken, one of the worst things I have ever seen and the prick got off simply because the rules were not in place.

If these new rules stop something like that happening again then they are good rules. Fact is Baker did not have to block Farmer, just the same as Rocca did not have to bump. Once they did it they are responsible for their actions.

Nothing wrong with the rule the application/consistency is just up shit creek.

lol

I'm still waiting for your explanation of what 'duty of care' means in relation to footballers.

 

[Tony_Clifton]

What a shame Farmer wasn't still at Melb, you wouldn't need to bother yourself with all of this.

That seems more appropriate if I say it to you, here goes:

What a shame Farmer wasn't still at Melb, you wouldn't need to bother yourself with all of this.

 

[JeffDunne]

Care to expand on the tribunal's inappropriate conduct? As you are supremely confident you would win I would like to hear an explanation why.

I already have, several times.

Can't be bothered typing it again. Read back a few pages and you'll find your answer

 

[keefriffhard]

I might go with him, not Eildon though, further up

Too much snow. The rivers will be too high and dirty. Trust me, I'm a Hawks man. Been heading off early in September since 2001.

 

[morgoth]

JD duty of care re footballers is not taking an action of their that could result in injury to another player where it is avoidable.

The Lonegan case was instigated by Lonegan backing back, the other players were on the lead, normal action.

The Notting Carracella incident is the classic example IMO. All players are old to keep their feet in a contest, not to go to ground. Go watch that footage, Carracella was already on the ground, Notting was running in, Notting elected to go to ground because he wanted to make contact, at the last second Carracella turned and the rest is history. If Notting had done what 90% of players would have done, ie kept his feet Carra might still be playing. (As for the comment re winning the ball, hello Carra had a broken neck, of course Notting won the ball).

Same as that Sydney bloke slipping when Rocca hit him, Rocca could have tackled or done nothing.

Under the current system Notting would be stuffed and it was because of this and the Kozi incident that the concept was brought in re what is a reasonable action. Due to the nature of footy it is a very fine line but I would prefer we had it.

 

[The Fireman]

Too much snow. The rivers will be too high and dirty. Trust me, I'm a Hawks man. Been heading off early in September since 2001.

I'm hearin ya and will bide my time, the good snow will feed the streams higher up for later on, will be a good year

 

[The Fireman]

That seems more appropriate if I say it to you, here goes:

What a shame Farmer wasn't still at Melb, you wouldn't need to bother yourself with all of this.

Correct, and we wouldn't have to put up with you.
and you are right it is more appropriate, your season is Kaput

 

[Tony_Clifton]

Did Steven Baker's lawyer to encourage you to testify against yourself,

What a shame Farmer wasn't still at Melb, you wouldn't need to bother yourself with all of this.

or did you do it to yourself. pwned

 

[JeffDunne]

JD duty of care re footballers is not taking an action of their that could result in injury to another player where it is avoidable.

No it doesn't.

Based on that definition players could be suspended for jumping into a players back to take a mark if the other player is injured (which happens quite often).

Didak's mid-air kick could also result in injury. Under your definition he could be suspended for that. I know the system is insane but it's not that insane. (Did you see the thread?)

We could also report players for dropping into a forwards 'hole' or players like Riewoldt running backwards into a pack.


Duty of care means taking into account the forseeable consequences of your actions. I defy anyone to prove that Baker could have foreseen the injury to Farmer by blocking him off the ball. To do that you have to presume what he did because all we know is he decided to step into his path. We don't know if Farmer changed direction, we don't know how fast Farmer was travelling and we don't know if Baker tried to maximise the impact.

I think it's safe to say when players block they expect the other player to pull up or change direction. A clash of heads is hardly a foreseeable consequence.

 

[Hawk-in-syd]

lol

I'm still waiting for your explanation of what 'duty of care' means in relation to footballers.

Seem to be strugling to get this dont you JD.
http://prod.mm.afl.cfour.com.au/afl/docs/Tribunal-Booklet-07.pdf
This is from the alf tribunal booklet
1.2 Other bumps to the head or neck
A number of submissions on this subject supported a stronger stance against head-high bumps and clarification of what constitutes a reportable bump. In 2007, any bump causing forceful contact to be made to an opponent’s head or neck will be reportable for rough conduct, unless the player did not have a realistic alternative to:
Contest the ball;Tackle; or Shepherd in a manner which was reasonable in the circumstances.
A definition has been added as follows:
"A player shall engage in rough conduct which in the circumstances is unreasonable where in bumping an opponent he causes forceful contact to be made to an opponent’s head or neck. Unless intentional or reckless such conduct shall be deemed to be negligent unless the player did not have a realistic alternative to:
Tackle;Shepherd in a manner which was reasonable in the circumstances."
The Tribunal guidelines have been amended to state:In determining whether there was a realistic alternative to shepherd in a manner which was reasonable in the circumstances, regard will be given to:
• Whether the degree of force applied by the person bumping was excessive for the situation.
• Whether the player being bumped was actively involved in the passage of play.
• The distance the player applying the bump has run to make contact.
• Whether the player being bumped is in a position to protect himself or is in a vulnerable position.
• Whether an elbow is part of the contact.
• Whether the player bumping jumps or leaves the ground to bump.
The onus is placed on a player who elects to bump to do so legitimately. He has a duty to avoid significant contact to an opponent’s head or neck where reasonably possible.

 

[The Fireman]

Did Steven Baker's lawyer to encourage you to testify against yourself,

What a shame Farmer wasn't still at Melb, you wouldn't need to bother yourself with all of this.

or did you do it to yourself. pwned

I'm still trying to figure out why you are still here? I'm starting to realize that maybe what the WC supporters are saying about you guys is true.
Let it go, it's all over.

 

[fusion]

just because a bloke gets hurt doesn't make it a suspendable offence

otherwise whoever got lonergan in the kidney or lacerated colbert's pancreas would never have played again

in the case of caracella - notting was going (and got) the ball

If the guy who kneed Colbert in the abdomen causing his pancreatic injury got suspended I'd have been very unhappy. Especially as it was his teammate, David King.

The rules have changed from last year to this year, so it's hard to compare to those previous incidents.

 

[MeeSo]

I already have, several times.

Can't be bothered typing it again. Read back a few pages and you'll find your answer

Must have been deleted by a mod because you haven't even come close to putting forward an argument with a solid legal basis.

He was afforded the right to defend himself as well as to appeal the decision. Which part of this whole process could St Kilda challenge?

 

[Tony_Clifton]

I'm still trying to figure out why you are still here?

I enjoy a good debate. Especially after you Saints supporters painted us as the bad guys and went on to troll on about how great your one premiership is compared to our none, how Farmer is more of a thug than Baker (the aggressor) and childish stuff about the color purple.

The thing that I wouldn't have thought to be true is that Jeff Dunne is far superior to you in the debating/arguing/trolling stakes. You're more like a bug I couldn't help squishing.

 

[greennick]

My god, a reasonable Fremantle supporter.

No wonder you are a moderator.

Can we frame you and freeze your DNA?


How can what Baker did be worse than what Ben Johnson did? Seriously.

7 weeks is the sort of penalty that is deserving of a king hit to the face, or shoving an umpire.

Not shepherding someone off the ball.

You obviously don't know Ripper very well...

 

[JeffDunne]

Seem to be strugling to get this dont you JD.

I'm struggling to knock off work before midnight if that's what you mean.

I understand what duty of care means, I just don't understand the AFL's application of it.

This is from the alf tribunal booklet
1.2 Other bumps to the head or neck
A number of submissions on this subject supported a stronger stance against head-high bumps and clarification of what constitutes a reportable bump. In 2007, any bump causing forceful contact to be made to an opponent’s head or neck will be reportable for rough conduct, unless the player did not have a realistic alternative to:
Contest the ball;Tackle; or Shepherd in a manner which was reasonable in the circumstances.
A definition has been added as follows:
"A player shall engage in rough conduct which in the circumstances is unreasonable where in bumping an opponent he causes forceful contact to be made to an opponent’s head or neck. Unless intentional or reckless such conduct shall be deemed to be negligent unless the player did not have a realistic alternative to:
Tackle;Shepherd in a manner which was reasonable in the circumstances."
The Tribunal guidelines have been amended to state:In determining whether there was a realistic alternative to shepherd in a manner which was reasonable in the circumstances, regard will be given to:
• Whether the degree of force applied by the person bumping was excessive for the situation.
• Whether the player being bumped was actively involved in the passage of play.
• The distance the player applying the bump has run to make contact.
• Whether the player being bumped is in a position to protect himself or is in a vulnerable position.
• Whether an elbow is part of the contact.
• Whether the player bumping jumps or leaves the ground to bump.
The onus is placed on a player who elects to bump to do so legitimately. He has a duty to avoid significant contact to an opponent’s head or neck where reasonably possible.

I've highlighted all the points questionable and unproven in this case.