Steven Baker found guilty

[Hawk-in-syd]

The tribunal accepted our evidence.

i.e. that it was a block.

I repeat, and feel free to correct me, NO player has ever been reported for laying a block. 99% of blocks don't even receive a free kick.


I don't get it and your spinning shit. What has a clothes-line have to do with this situation?

I laugh at you morons, one minute it's a head-butt, the next it's a king hit, now we've got a clothes line?

Seriously, you have no idea what happened - try reading the statements the tribunal accepted - but you're arguing that it's fair?

Fair dinkum.


lol, says the Spooner that has no idea of ANYTHING that actually occurred this week.

Go spit at your coach - I can tell you're the type.

Sorry JD I've give up, you are just too thick. The clothes line analogy was just another way to get it into your scull that you can initiate contact while being stationary. a block/shepard/bump or lets just quote straight from the rules book
"any bump causing forceful contact to be made to an opponent’s head or neck will be reportable for rough conduct. Rough conduct is interpreted widely in relation to any contact which is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances."
Call it what you like it cause forceful contact.

And yes the tribunal accepted Bakers evidence that he made forceful contact that why they found him guilty. God you and your QC are dumb

 

[JeffDunne]

I just argued your irrational claims.

No you didn't.

You also didn't answer my question. Did Freo appeal?

 

[Chopsticks]

Gonna brag about your one state league flag in 111 years again? I'll borrow a quote off Estiborder.

"That's like a 111 year old bragging to a twelve year old that he got laid once"

ROFL

Worth bumping to the top of the page again.

 

[Murray]

After which incident the Gia - Kosi incident or Ball - Whelan incident or are you just clutching at straws

I think, as the day goes on, you are getting sillier

 

[Lach72]

I think, as the day goes on, you are getting sillier

Two weeks tops Murray?

Someone does need to tell these jokers recess is over and you could be the man for the job

 

[JeffDunne]

You need to keep better track of your excuses.

Excuse for what? Seriously, why on earth would I make that up? For your benefit?

LOL

Check the American football board if you think I'm lying.

Seriously

Was a simple request JD. You made a claim about the outcome if it went to court and haven't backed it up. Stop deflecting and give us a rundown of the argument.

Deflecting? Learn to read. I posted last night what the basis of any legal challenge would be.

In summary - any legal action would be a challenge to the AFL's procedures for laying and determining the report. One area I'd focus on, was that the AFL's witnesses were given a copy of Bakers statement before the tribunal.

Go back and read the thread, I've covered that several times.

 

[Hawk-in-syd]

Let me explain this to you again.

Read it carefully because I know you struggle with comprehension.

1. When you're sent straight to the tribunal you can't enter an early plea.
2. The basis of the report was proven to be a lie.
3. The tribunal accepted Baker's testimony.
4. Had Baker pleaded guilty to claims made in the initial charge he would have got more than 4 weeks
5. His carry over points would have applied regardless of a guilty plea.

If you can understand all of those points, get back to me and I'll help you join the dots.

It was offered and your dumbass QC couldn't join that dots hahah

"Although the case was referred directly to tribunal by the match review panel, O'Callagan said Baker had the option of pleading guilty and perhaps accepting a lesser penalty."
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,22298156%5E19772,00.html

 

[Murray]

Two weeks tops Murray?

Someone does need to tell these jokers recess is over and you could be the man for the job

I think so

 

[JeffDunne]

Sorry JD I've give up, you are just too thick. The clothes line analogy was just another way to get it into your scull that you can initiate contact while being stationary.

You can punch someone in the nose standing still.

I still don't see your point.

Like I said, show me where any player - ever - has been reported for blocking?

a block/shepard/bump or lets just quote straight from the rules book
"any bump causing forceful contact to be made to an opponent’s head or neck will be reportable for rough conduct. Rough conduct is interpreted widely in relation to any contact which is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances."
Call it what you like it cause forceful contact.

He didn't bump him?

And yes the tribunal accepted Bakers evidence that he made forceful contact that why they found him guilty. God you and your QC are dumb

Yeah right.

Of course you're more conversant with the law than our QC.

 

[dockertor]

No you didn't.

You also didn't answer my question. Did Freo appeal?

I did

I dont think they did, Cant actually recall

 

[JeffDunne]

I did

I dont think they did, Cant actually recall

So they accepted the decision?

What are you complaining about then?

 

[Austin_McCrabbs]

All is not lost for Baker. Tonight he will be shadow Daniel Kerr in the stands. After the game Bakes will be useful as he puts his blocking skills to the test and put himself between Daniel and the taxi driver, Daniel will invariably have a dispute with.

 

[dockertor]

So they accepted the decision?

What are you complaining about then?

You brought it up dopey

 

[Chopsticks]

Excuse for what? Seriously, why on earth would I make that up? For your benefit?

LOL

Check the American football board if you think I'm lying.

Seriously


Deflecting? Learn to read. I posted last night what the basis of any legal challenge would be.

In summary - any legal action would be a challenge to the AFL's procedures for laying and determining the report. One area I'd focus on, was that the AFL's witnesses were given a copy of Bakers statement before the tribunal.

Go back and read the thread, I've covered that several times.

Butterss given you a buzz yet? Given your expert knowledge I'll be very surprised if he hasn't.

 

[Bloben]

Not a chance that I'm going to even try and read all the posts here.

Just wanted to add my 2 cents though.

this week was a great learning opportunity for all clubs and QC's on how not to handle a tribunal hearing.

Quite comical to basically plead guilty in your submission and expect to get off because apparently everyone does it...

Imagine being charged with doing drugs, going to court, pleading not guilty with your defense being - I did it but so does everyone else each week!!! Not gonna work einstein!

 

[JeffDunne]

"Although the case was referred directly to tribunal by the match review panel, O'Callagan said Baker had the option of pleading guilty and perhaps accepting a lesser penalty."

Really. Are you that thick?

"Perhaps" - look up the meaning of the word.

He couldn't get a reduced sentence for an early plea. Full stop end of story.

He could have taken the risk and pleaded guilty to a lie. A lie mind you that said he made contact with his shoulder or hip - i.e. a charge.

You seriously think a charge is worth less than a block?

If so, where do you get off questioning anyone's intelligence?

 

[JeffDunne]

You brought it up dopey

I brought up the claim that Freo have been on the end of some rough decisions?

LOL, yeah right . . . dopey.

Feel free to list examples of where you've received rough justice because I'm not seeing any evidence.

 

[astro_toby]

Let me explain this to you again.

Read it carefully because I know you struggle with comprehension.

1. When you're sent straight to the tribunal you can't enter an early plea.
2. The basis of the report was proven to be a lie.
3. The tribunal accepted Baker's testimony.
4. Had Baker pleaded guilty to claims made in the initial charge he would have got more than 4 weeks
5. His carry over points would have applied regardless of a guilty plea.

If you can understand all of those points, get back to me and I'll help you join the dots.

LMAO

 

[dockertor]

I brought up the claim that Freo have been on the end of some rough decisions?

LOL, yeah right . . . dopey.

Feel free to list examples of where you've received rough justice because I'm not seeing any evidence.

You brought up Johnno. You claimed we had a free ride. God its like talking to a brick wall. I could list numerous occasions where a freo player has been made an example of but I'm not going to.
It would just result in your claiming that they should have got more or some other inane argument.
I've had enough of your nonsense for now.

 

[Austin_McCrabbs]

I think Baker got off easy. Amazed that it wasn't 9 matches.

 

[Hawk-in-syd]

Really. Are you that thick?

"Perhaps" - look up the meaning of the word.

He couldn't get a reduced sentence for an early plea. Full stop end of story.

He could have taken the risk and pleaded guilty to a lie. A lie mind you that said he made contact with his shoulder or hip - i.e. a charge.

You seriously think a charge is worth less than a block?

If so, where do you get off questioning anyone's intelligence?

Note my quote, straight from chair. The MRP didn't lay a charge they refered it straight to the tribunal who determined that he face "rough conduct" charges. SFC decided to fight these and not take an early plea which may have reduced his sentence unlike the MRP which gives an automatic 25% discount. The tribunal determins the number of weeks using the point system as a guide only.

Your QC after viewing the freo statement (all statements are given to the tribunal before the hearing and avaiable to all parties) thought he would face charging/striking and prepared the defence for that. Big Mistake!


Still waiting on your 1,2 or 3

 

[astro_toby]

st.kilda need to learn some class from collingwood

take the suspension - u know what little baker did was nauhtey - and he deserves the 7 weeks he was given.

thats why he was offered 7 weeks

thats why when he took it to the tribunal they gave him 7 weeks

thats why when they appealed it, they supported the 7 weeks

that's why they are not going to take it any further - and he will serve his 7 weeks

The End

 

[MeeSo]

Deflecting? Learn to read. I posted last night what the basis of any legal challenge would be.

In summary - any legal action would be a challenge to the AFL's procedures for laying and determining the report. One area I'd focus on, was that the AFL's witnesses were given a copy of Bakers statement before the tribunal.

Go back and read the thread, I've covered that several times.

This is the argument you have so much faith in? You'd need more than this for the courts to even think about intervening in the administration of a professional sport. The statement angle might get some traction but only if the St Kilda QC wasn't provided the same statements. Vague arguments about unfair process though won't get you anywhere.

 

[the-shamus-the]

st.kilda need to learn some class from collingwood

take the suspension - u know what little baker did was nauhtey - and he deserves the 7 weeks he was given.

thats why he was offered 7 weeks

thats why when he took it to the tribunal they gave him 7 weeks

thats why when they appealed it, the supported the 7 weeks

The End

No one that actually saw the incident believes that he should get 7 weeks (Unless the most bias supporters) the neutral fans who were there think he should have got off, the on ly people who seem to think he got what he deserved were the deadbeats who even though they didn't see it still think that Baker threw an elbow... worst decision ever it's absolutely ****ed

 

[Kram]

No one that actually saw the incident believes that he should get 7 weeks

Stop saying 7 weeks for god's sake, he only got FOUR.