Baker's case is underway - discussion

[n1ck]

Well you could expand your mind and get some ACTUAL news from more reliable outlets...

[HarveysDeciple]

Of course it wasnt reported in Perth.

The Perth football media are as biased towards the WA sides as the Adelaide media is to the SA clubs.

Ever compared a Perth match's commentary to that of one played anywhere else?

Channel 10, ABC both reported the use of the photographic evidence - and its validity - DURING the hearing.

I'm simply going on what has been reported over here, there's nothing I can do about the WA media is there?

you can choose not to take it as gospel.

[PurpleJesus]

Well you could expand your mind and get some ACTUAL news from more reliable outlets...

In case you hadn't noticed, I've been quoting from The Age.

[PurpleJesus]

Of course it wasnt reported in Perth.

The Perth football media are as biased towards the WA sides as the Adelaide media is to the SA clubs.

Ever compared a Perth match's commentary to that of one played anywhere else?

Channel 10, ABC both reported the use of the photographic evidence - and its validity - DURING the hearing.

I'm simply going on what has been reported over here, there's nothing I can do about the WA media is there?

you can choose not to take it as gospel.

Where have I ever said it was gospel?

If The West Australian fails to mention that the Saints submitted photographic evidence in their defence (something that The Age doesn't mention in their report either by the way), how am I going to know that they have?

[saintsRrising]

I'm simply going on what has been reported over here, there's nothing I can do about the WA media is there?

Oh is there not oh Purple one??

Is this forum that you are trolling on based in WA? = No.


Try looking on the internet for IMPARTIAL reporting before you go trolling on an opposition forum.

If you do that, you can post sensible debate and be welcome.



Otherwise you are just a stooge and foll that is trotting out someone elses PROPGANDA.

[matrix]

like i said......point out where I said it.

and tell me whats wrong with running into someones path?
hey i got respect for ya coming on here and debating the incident jesus....but seriously what is wrong with running into the path of another player?
nothing, thats what.

i wonder if farmer didnt recall the incident when he clocked his misses.... and then changed his story.

[Mr Magic]

point out where i said baker was RUNNING in front of farmer.....
then i'll apologise purple.

Baker claimed he was running from Fremantle's half-back flank on the interchange side in front of Farmer, heading down the wing but slightly towards the Fremantle goal.

Baker said he had initially been about five metres ahead of Farmer but when the Docker forward got within about a metre of him he checked his stride and jumped into Farmer's path.


http://realfooty.com.au/news/news/seven ... 65162.html

And yet PurpleJesus, you neglecyt to quote the next sentence of the news report which states that Bker did not know WHICH PART OF FARMER CAME INTO CONTACT WITH HIM (sorry for the paraphrase but I don't know how to insert the actual quote).

Exactly how does this indicate an admission from Baker that he instigated the contact?

If you are going to quote in a reasoned manner please use the whole quote and not just the bit you think helps your argument.

[yipper]

[
If The West Australian fails to mention that the Saints submitted photographic evidence in their defence (something that The Age doesn't mention in their report either by the way), how am I going to know that they have?

Then don't enter into debates with ppl who have been hanging on every word, on this particular matter for over 24 hrs then!!

[saintsRrising]

Evidently the AFL is going to bring in new OS&H rules;

HFrom now on players can only:

*walk
*jumping is banned.

This has been done so that imapct injuries cannot occur.

In itial the football has been swapped fora foam ball so that players cannot be injured if the ball hits them in the face........................................................

[HarveysDeciple]

If Matthew Pavlich is trying to lead and say Darren Glass is chasing him. If Tarrant runs accross the path to block Pavlich, 5 metres in front of Glass, and he doesnt elbow him or anything, but Glass is watching the ball so can't see Tarrant and as a result collides with him , should Tarrant be suspended?

In your honest oppinion?

[Brewer]

Matrix, no specific disrepect for Jesus but he seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that if player A gets hurt, and sustains injuries B, then somebody else C must go down for D number of weeks.

He fails to realise that football (and the legal system, and hey, life in general) is not quite as blindly tit-for-tat as that. If you can't prove the culpability of player C, and you can't prove they did something worthy of suspension, then regardless of the injuries sustained they must be acquitted.

Nobody has proven that Baker did anything worthy of suspension.

Let's say an umpire saw it, but that Farmer turned away at the last second and it was just a bump. Would Baker have been reported? No, it would have been a free kick. The fact that Farmer failed to turn away does not suddenly turn THE SAME actions on the part of Baker from a free kick into a suspendable offence.

Like I said, try charging someone with murder for sneezing on a plane. If you can PROVE they knowingly transmitted a deadly disease, then you have a case. Otherwise, it's just a sneeze, and you can't hang somebody for sneezing.