Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
STEVEN Baker's nine-match suspension is unlikely to repeated after the AFL today introduced major changes to the tribunal for 2011.
The changes allow the tribunal to take into account if several offences were committed in the same event.
They come too late for St Kilda defender Baker, who rubbed out for nine weeks on four separate charges arising from a stoush with Geelong's Steve Johnson in June.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But the league will gain $$$ yet again
The final change doubles fines handed out for wrestling, melees or misconduct in Grand Finals
.
Have a great year Bakes for surviving beyond the expected given your' record- how ever deserved or undeserved-- can't wait for your 200th.. 7 to go..
Eastern wrote:Does this mean that Bakes now gets a "CREDIT" of 4-5 games for the incident this year? !!
Of course not.
It made a mockery out of the idiot tribunal system of Demtrious monkey Anderson, who should be sacked for incompetence.
The suspension was a disgrace, he gets nine weeks for a coupel of love taps while Johnson gets three for smashing Bakers eye socket.
It was as disgraceful as the 7 match suspension fix up against Farmer.
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
They both caused the 'Authorities' to 'Change the Rules'
" I am a loyal person and at the end of my career it will be great to look back and know I am a St Kilda person for life. That was something that has heavily influenced my decision.â€
This is a perfect example of the AFL doing something well. Recognising a flaw in the system (Baker's multiple suspensions) and making the change.
Too late for Baker though.
The AFL allowed a blatantly obvious manifestly excessive penalty to stand.
Where is the apology?
Where is the compensation for the player and the club?
It might have cost us the premiership.
The league has had no qualms with making policy on the run in the past, even going so far as to change the result of a game (sirengate) of which we were the unfortunate victims.
Why no policy on the run this time? Why wasn't it fixed when it happened?
The league don't like us. They've made it perfectly clear.
And don't get me started on Collingwood's "fixture".
This is a perfect example of the AFL doing something well. Recognising a flaw in the system (Baker's multiple suspensions) and making the change.
Too late for Baker though.
The AFL allowed a blatantly obvious manifestly excessive penalty to stand.
Where is the apology?
Where is the compensation for the player and the club?
It might have cost us the premiership.
The league has had no qualms with making policy on the run in the past, even going so far as to change the result of a game (sirengate) of which we were the unfortunate victims.
Why no policy on the run this time? Why wasn't it fixed when it happened?
The league don't like us. They've made it perfectly clear.
And don't get me started on Collingwood's "fixture".
What a crock of s***. They dont like us. You need to stop watching behind your back all the time.
This is a perfect example of the AFL doing something well. Recognising a flaw in the system (Baker's multiple suspensions) and making the change.
Too late for Baker though.
The AFL allowed a blatantly obvious manifestly excessive penalty to stand.
Where is the apology?
Where is the compensation for the player and the club?
It might have cost us the premiership.
The league has had no qualms with making policy on the run in the past, even going so far as to change the result of a game (sirengate) of which we were the unfortunate victims.
Why no policy on the run this time? Why wasn't it fixed when it happened?
The league don't like us. They've made it perfectly clear.
And don't get me started on Collingwood's "fixture".
What a crock of s***. They dont like us. You need to stop watching behind your back all the time.
This is a perfect example of the AFL doing something well. Recognising a flaw in the system (Baker's multiple suspensions) and making the change.
This is a perfect example of the AFL, doing something DISHONESTLY. Recognising a flaw in the system (Baker's multiple suspensions) and NOT making the change, or taking any action until the St Kilda player had been fully victimised by that flawed system first.
I disagree with BAM BAM and Plugger.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
You can almost coin the phrase "Baker's Law " based on this - i.e. if something can go wrong with an AFL rule (if not thought through properly), it will go wrong".
Those in charge of the AFL should be busy identifying and fixing any other"half-Baked" rules... to avoid similar future embarrassment.
joffaboy wrote:It was as disgraceful as the 7 match suspension fix up against Farmer.
Was it as disgraceful as the 3 weeks he got when 110kg of Allessio was standing with bootstuds on his shin causing him to push him away with his other leg and charged with kicking?
Or was it as disgraceful as the suspension of 4 weeks he got for attempting to strike Greg "Stalker" Stafford - the first player ever charged with this ludicrous offence.
The four Baker cases are amongst the greatest inconsistencies ever.
Trying to rank the relative injustice of them is impossible.
The rest of Australia can wander mask-free, socialise, eat out, no curfews, no zoning, no police rings of steel, no illogical inconsistent rules.
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
Sobraz wrote:So does this mean the AFL admit that they got the suspension wrong with Baker??.... That they were too harsh and he was made an example of??...
Obviously there is no retrospective credit for Bakes, and I just see this as a slap in the face for what happened...
There is no reason why this common sense change couldn't have been implemented at the time of the SB v's SJ incident...
AFL = Disgrace.
i actually fully agree with you here...twice now bakes has been bent over and shafted by the afl.....
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
Sobraz wrote:So does this mean the AFL admit that they got the suspension wrong with Baker??.... That they were too harsh and he was made an example of??...
Obviously there is no retrospective credit for Bakes, and I just see this as a slap in the face for what happened...
There is no reason why this common sense change couldn't have been implemented at the time of the SB v's SJ incident...
AFL = Disgrace.
i actually fully agree with you here...twice now bakes has been bent over and shafted by the afl.....
Doubley screwed from the farmer incident as that bulls*** ensured he had a bad record and full loading fro the SJ incident. Between the 2 he had not been in trouble
This is a perfect example of the AFL doing something well. Recognising a flaw in the system (Baker's multiple suspensions) and making the change.
Too late for Baker though.
The AFL allowed a blatantly obvious manifestly excessive penalty to stand.
Where is the apology?
Where is the compensation for the player and the club?
It might have cost us the premiership.
The league has had no qualms with making policy on the run in the past, even going so far as to change the result of a game (sirengate) of which we were the unfortunate victims.
Why no policy on the run this time? Why wasn't it fixed when it happened?
The league don't like us. They've made it perfectly clear.
And don't get me started on Collingwood's "fixture".
What a crock of s***. They dont like us. You need to stop watching behind your back all the time.
but we did get the rough end of the stick on this. there are many other examples. I'm not going to list them all.
Will all the f--kwits including Luke Ball who said that it was a just decision at the time and he did the crime should do the time blh blah blah come out and say how terrible this is? The AFL is a big joke...
Last edited by SaintPav on Thu 16 Dec 2010 10:57pm, edited 1 time in total.
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
This is a perfect example of the AFL doing something well. Recognising a flaw in the system (Baker's multiple suspensions) and making the change.
This is a perfect example of the AFL, doing something DISHONESTLY. Recognising a flaw in the system (Baker's multiple suspensions) and NOT making the change, or taking any action until the St Kilda player had been fully victimised by that flawed system first.
I disagree with BAM BAM and Plugger.
Good point.
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
Sobraz wrote:So does this mean the AFL admit that they got the suspension wrong with Baker??.... That they were too harsh and he was made an example of??...
Obviously there is no retrospective credit for Bakes, and I just see this as a slap in the face for what happened...
There is no reason why this common sense change couldn't have been implemented at the time of the SB v's SJ incident...
AFL = Disgrace.
i actually fully agree with you here...twice now bakes has been bent over and shafted by the afl.....
Shhhhh Plugger might hear you !!!!
Jack Newnes happy to be a Saint !!!! PS and to hit a target !!!
Sobraz wrote:So does this mean the AFL admit that they got the suspension wrong with Baker??.... That they were too harsh and he was made an example of??...
Obviously there is no retrospective credit for Bakes, and I just see this as a slap in the face for what happened...
There is no reason why this common sense change couldn't have been implemented at the time of the SB v's SJ incident...
AFL = Disgrace.
i actually fully agree with you here...twice now bakes has been bent over and shafted by the afl.....
samoht wrote:You can almost coin the phrase "Baker's Law " based on this - i.e. if something can go wrong with an AFL rule (if not thought through properly), it will go wrong".
Those in charge of the AFL should be busy identifying and fixing any other"half-Baked" rules... to avoid similar future embarrassment.
!!
Whose side are you on anyway?
