Rough conduct?

[To the top]

Rough conduct?

Rough conduct in that he swung a punch and hit Farmer on the nose, causing it to bleed and causing Farmer to be concussed? If this happended there are 2 scenarios - 1) Whilst running past Farmer or 2) When facing Farmer.

Or rough conduct in that he was in proximity when Farmer went to ground?

The point I make is what exactly is the allegation?

Without knowing exactly what the allegation is, you can not defend the charge.

The AFL is obviously presenting that Baker did something outside the rules by laying the charge.

But exactly what?

I would guess that the faunicated morons, Demitriou and Anderson, are on a fishing expedition, because if Baker says he has no knowledge except for a collision from behind, resulting in a lump to his head, what happens next?

Who questions Baker's account, and on what basis? And with what credibility?

What I do know, from my vantage point adjacent to where it happened (Isle 9, Ground level in the AFL Reserve), was that when Farmer went to ground, Baker was probably 10 metres from him and running, because my concern was that Farmer was doubling back into the corridor and Baker was committed the other way - except Farmer crumpled to the ground attempting to draw the attention of the umpires as he fell.

Baker hesitated, slowed his gait as if suddenly aware that Farmer was not in close proximity and looked around, saw Farmer going to ground and then sped up again into the Fremantle F50 in an attempt to block a pass, unsuccessfully from memory. Baker was in line with the flight of the ball, but under it and could not get a hand on it despite reaching.

From the sequence of events I did see, Baker did not come from behind Farmer moving from the centre corridor to the flank. So Baker could not have round housed Farmer as he ran past Farmer - because that did not happen. And neither player was stationary (the ball was in proximity, in the corridor, in the possession of Fremantle going inside the Fremantle F50), so it is improbable that Baker turned and hit Farmer - also because of the distance between the 2 when Farmer went to ground. Baker would have been a lot closer if he had stopped, turned and hit Farmer and then taken off again.

And from where Baker was when he slowed to view Farmer going to ground, Baker remained ahead of Farmer throughout, moving away from the corridor toward the flank on the AFL Member's pocket.

As I said, my concern was that Farmer would double back into the corridor.

But I did not see the contact which was obviously there.

Only the lead up and the aftermath - a split second later.

I might add, that from seeing Farmer go to ground attempting to draw the attention of the umpires as he did, it surprised me to see him not bounce back to his feet, but stay down and then get assisted off.

What I witnessed is consistent with Farmer making contact with the back of Baker, quite possibly to gain an advantage over Baker with the intention of doubling back into the corridor as an option for the Fremantle player with the ball, inside the F50 and with a possible shot on goal.

I am also reasonably confident that, if there was an untoward action by Baker, I would have caught it because it was in my line of vision and it would have attracted me. The incident against Richmond a couple of years ago certainly did!

Only Farmer falling, and Baker some distance from him and slowing to look around, then accelerating, caught my attention.

[To the top]

Unbelievable!

Interesting to me is Nixon coming forward, and his statement that you would see such a blocking action 100 times a game in an Under 11 game.

And Nixon is absolutely correct.

Nixon's recall supports what I have previously posted.

The trainer from Fremantle obviously has another agenda, and, you would imagine, with the concurrance of the Fremantle FC.

Those associated with the AFL, to coin a rough phrase, all piss in each others pockets - including as to exactly how good and important they are.

And King B is that faunicated moron, Demitriou.

In that climate, what is assumed to be the favoured position of King B is the position adopted.

On another issue :-

Some years ago there was a betting syndicate which bet big, very big.

The existance of this syndicate featured on the front page of "The Age".

In one particular year, so the story went, someone then associated with St Kilda could not pay up when the end of season call was made.

So people who otherwise would have won actually lost because one substantial loser did not have the capacity to honour his bets.

So the story went.

Separately again :-

It is known that King B carries a grudge - and is absolutely ruthless in dispensing "pay back".

I am led to believe that even family sources may confirm this (from a third party it must be conceded, but a third party who has contacts with the family of King B).

An unfortunate character who is out of his depth, and always has been.

And the result is what AFL football is now.

Next, instead of getting in front of your opponent to block him from taking a pro-active position to the ultimate advantage of his team mates, you will have to stop and wave him on. Then applaud him when he takes an uncontested mark with you jogging 10 metres behind him lest you make any physical contact.

As a comparison, where does that leave Hall (on Maguire).

Then again Hall no longer plays for King B's least favourite team.

Look at the draw - year after year after year.

When the chips are down, St Kilda play last year's Grand Finalists for a second time.

Time for King B and his henchmen to go.

[Brewer]

Under the new rules implemented last year, 'rough conduct' for Victorian teams can mean anything from running past an interstate player and not offering them a cup of tea, to failing to catch them when they trip over their shoelaces or faint of exhaustion.

For interstate teams, 'rough conduct' means ripping off an opponent's head and sh!tting down their neck in full view of the TV cameras. This rule does not apply if your following match is a final or against St Kilda.

[St. Luke]

Under the new rules implemented last year, 'rough conduct' for Victorian teams can mean anything from running past an interstate player and not offering them a cup of tea, to failing to catch them when they trip over their shoelaces or faint of exhaustion.

For interstate teams, 'rough conduct' means ripping off an opponent's head and sh!tting down their neck in full view of the TV cameras. This rule does not apply if your following match is a final or against St Kilda.

BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAA so close to the truth it's frightening!!!

[SaintWodonga]

Under the new rules implemented last year, 'rough conduct' for Victorian teams can mean anything from running past an interstate player and not offering them a cup of tea, to failing to catch them when they trip over their shoelaces or faint of exhaustion.

For interstate teams, 'rough conduct' means ripping off an opponent's head and sh!tting down their neck in full view of the TV cameras. This rule does not apply if your following match is a final or against St Kilda.

Yeah and Hall was a real angel with his "Tummy Rub" on Goose...

Hall still played in the GF with Video evidence!

I think the AFL has got too much money from the interstate clubs and they are influenced by the almighty dollar. Being an original member of the VFL/AFL (St.Kilda) means nothing!! PPFFTT!