CONFIRMED: We are appealing
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Tue 21 Aug 2007 11:52pm
Straight from the AFL Tribunal's own handbook, with situation applicable to Baker's actions highlighted.
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:
a. Contest the ball;
b. Tackle; or
c. 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:
a. Contest the ball;
b. Tackle; or
c. Shepherd in a manner which was reasonable in the circumstances.â€
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:
a. Contest the ball;
b. Tackle; or
c. 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:
a. Contest the ball;
b. Tackle; or
c. Shepherd in a manner which was reasonable in the circumstances.â€
- Mr X from the West
- Club Player
- Posts: 1239
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 5:58pm
- Location: Subiaco
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Tue 21 Aug 2007 11:52pm
- Mr X from the West
- Club Player
- Posts: 1239
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 5:58pm
- Location: Subiaco
- Dal_Santos_Gal
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5158
- Joined: Fri 18 Mar 2005 9:38pm
- Location: In the Saints Year Unknown Premiership Cup
- Contact:
Well what do you know we have a TROLL !!OnTheFence wrote:If you were paying attention MrX you would know it was 2.
And describing this as crap after all the rubbish so called tribunal experts on this forum have spouted is ludicrous.
Why don't you flock back over to fockerland and cry in your spilt milk because you didn't go home with the 4 points and the fact you have no CHANCE in hell of playing finals footy this year.
In Ross Get lost!
I am excited to stay at St Kilda and this is a great result for the Club and all our fans. I’m proud to be part of the Saints and am pleased to be playing football with the Clubâ€
I am excited to stay at St Kilda and this is a great result for the Club and all our fans. I’m proud to be part of the Saints and am pleased to be playing football with the Clubâ€
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Tue 21 Aug 2007 11:52pm
MrX from the West, with this fixation you seem to have on sore balls, you wouldn't be Daniel Kerr by any chance would you?
Or did you snag your balls on the rabbit-proof fence on your way to the game on Saturday? You did go didn't you?
Big claim that, speaking on behalf of everyone on the forum, what a proud puppy you must be!
Or did you snag your balls on the rabbit-proof fence on your way to the game on Saturday? You did go didn't you?
Big claim that, speaking on behalf of everyone on the forum, what a proud puppy you must be!
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12754
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 764 times
- Been thanked: 423 times
Dear splinterupthear$e
What is so difficult to understand?
None of the crap you posted is relevant!
Baker's testimony, which was accepted by the Tribunal, was that he did not lay a shepherd or bump or tackle or anything else. He 'blocked' which means he stopped dead in his tracks and Farmer cannoned into him.
This is not disputed by the Tribunal.
Therefore, Baker did not hit Farmer - Farmer hit Baker.
Is that in plain enough English for you?
What is so difficult to understand?
None of the crap you posted is relevant!
Baker's testimony, which was accepted by the Tribunal, was that he did not lay a shepherd or bump or tackle or anything else. He 'blocked' which means he stopped dead in his tracks and Farmer cannoned into him.
This is not disputed by the Tribunal.
Therefore, Baker did not hit Farmer - Farmer hit Baker.
Is that in plain enough English for you?
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Tue 21 Aug 2007 11:52pm
- Dal_Santos_Gal
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5158
- Joined: Fri 18 Mar 2005 9:38pm
- Location: In the Saints Year Unknown Premiership Cup
- Contact:
LOL Mr MagicMr Magic wrote:Dear splinterupthear$e
What is so difficult to understand?
None of the crap you posted is relevant!
Baker's testimony, which was accepted by the Tribunal, was that he did not lay a shepherd or bump or tackle or anything else. He 'blocked' which means he stopped dead in his tracks and Farmer cannoned into him.
This is not disputed by the Tribunal.
Therefore, Baker did not hit Farmer - Farmer hit Baker.
Is that in plain enough English for you?
If you haven't noticed it appears a lot of fockers supporters are struggling to understand what happened on Saturday afternoon.
See when you only have an IQ of around 1 maybe 2..... I guess even learning that freo freooo O theme song would be hard.
In Ross Get lost!
I am excited to stay at St Kilda and this is a great result for the Club and all our fans. I’m proud to be part of the Saints and am pleased to be playing football with the Clubâ€
I am excited to stay at St Kilda and this is a great result for the Club and all our fans. I’m proud to be part of the Saints and am pleased to be playing football with the Clubâ€
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Tue 21 Aug 2007 11:52pm
- Oh When the Saints
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5621
- Joined: Wed 29 Mar 2006 4:25pm
- Location: QLD
- Contact:
Not allowed to be named.Brewer wrote:A really interesting point. When is the deadline for naming the team?meher baba wrote:Can we still name Baker in the team pending the result of the appeal? If not, then he would presumably be forced to miss the game against the Eagles regardless of the outcome of the appeal.
If time was frozen, Baker is banned from playing football in a registered competition for 7 matches.
It's like if someone is found guilty of murder and appeals ... they are not allowed to resume their life until the appeal ... they are remanded, and the time is deducted from their sentence.
They should only play AFL games now when it's raining. Slow games of footy are so much better to watch.
- Dal_Santos_Gal
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5158
- Joined: Fri 18 Mar 2005 9:38pm
- Location: In the Saints Year Unknown Premiership Cup
- Contact:
excuse me, I barrack for the saints, you don't and you have only 15 posts... and you are telling me to move on..... think again trollOnTheFence wrote:Dal_Santos_Gal, I think you should move on.
In Ross Get lost!
I am excited to stay at St Kilda and this is a great result for the Club and all our fans. I’m proud to be part of the Saints and am pleased to be playing football with the Clubâ€
I am excited to stay at St Kilda and this is a great result for the Club and all our fans. I’m proud to be part of the Saints and am pleased to be playing football with the Clubâ€
OnTheFence wrote:If you were paying attention MrX you would know it was 2.
And describing this as crap after all the rubbish so called tribunal experts on this forum have spouted is ludicrous.
f*** off troll......
.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.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 677
- Joined: Sun 14 Mar 2004 8:10pm
is tomorrow night at 5:30luckysaint wrote:how long is this going to take???
thankgod we are taking it to appeal.....
FQF
loyal in the good times and bad
In richo I trust
2013 trade/draft best ever?
Billings - future brownlow medallist Longer - future best ruck
Dunstan - future captain Eli - future cult hero
Acres - future norm smith
loyal in the good times and bad
In richo I trust
2013 trade/draft best ever?
Billings - future brownlow medallist Longer - future best ruck
Dunstan - future captain Eli - future cult hero
Acres - future norm smith
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 677
- Joined: Sun 14 Mar 2004 8:10pm
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Tue 21 Aug 2007 11:52pm
The relevance is Mr Magic (please note that I have the courtesy to address you correctly, and that the fence my name refers to is metal and has no splinters) that you should therefore know that what Baker did, a long way off the ball, is by no means excusable and never has been and never will be considered acceptable in our game.Mr Magic wrote:Mr Splinterupthear$eOnTheFence wrote:Mr Magic have you actually played football?
Yes I have.
Relevance?
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6440
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 11:13pm
you obviously didn't see my earlier post numbnuts....must be related to farmer........he also has poor eyesight...so i have copied it for you you fool.......OnTheFence wrote:The relevance is Mr Magic (please note that I have the courtesy to address you correctly, and that the fence my name refers to is metal and has no splinters) that you should therefore know that what Baker did, a long way off the ball, is by no means excusable and never has been and never will be considered acceptable in our game.Mr Magic wrote:Mr Splinterupthear$eOnTheFence wrote:Mr Magic have you actually played football?
Yes I have.
Relevance?
f*** off troll......
......
![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
.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.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
- Dis Believer
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5088
- Joined: Sun 28 Mar 2004 1:42pm
- Location: The terraces at Moorabbin, in the pouring rain.......
- Has thanked: 256 times
- Been thanked: 272 times
Excuse me Mr SplintersuptheAr$e, but what did Baker do exactly? The problem is that no-one really knows, Baker by his own admission was merely blocking Farmers run! That is completely acceptable in our game and always has been! I played the game as well and that is standard procedure everywhere our great game is played!!!!!OnTheFence wrote: The relevance is that what Baker did,is by no means excusable and never has been and never will be considered acceptable in our game.
And therein lays the rub - he shouldn't be found guilty because there is no evidence, and he did nothing against the rules.
The heavy metal artist formerly known as True Believer!
IF you look around the room and can't identify who the sucker is, then it's probably you!
IF you look around the room and can't identify who the sucker is, then it's probably you!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23208
- Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 11:44pm
- Has thanked: 735 times
- Been thanked: 1776 times
[quote="OnTheFence"]Straight from the AFL Tribunal's own handbook, with situation applicable to Baker's actions highlighted.
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:
a. Contest the ball;
b. Tackle; or
c. 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:
a. Contest the ball;
b. Tackle; or
c. Shepherd in a manner which was reasonable in the circumstances.â€
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:
a. Contest the ball;
b. Tackle; or
c. 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:
a. Contest the ball;
b. Tackle; or
c. Shepherd in a manner which was reasonable in the circumstances.â€
“Yeah….nah””
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: Sun 27 Mar 2005 8:29pm
- Has thanked: 9 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
What did he do that was so unexceptable?OnTheFence wrote:...that what Baker did, a long way off the ball, is by no means excusable and never has been and never will be considered acceptable in our game.
According to the tribunal he made contact by blocking Farmer.
And this is what they agreed occured...Herald Sun wrote:...The jury, Wayne Henwood, Emmett Dunne and Wayne Schimmelbusch, said after the marathon hearing that it had based the guilty finding on the tough Saint's admission that he deliberately blocked Fremantle forward Jeff Farmer in an off-the-ball clash at Telstra Dome on Saturday....
Whelan got off with a similar action in round 1, yet he was within 15m of the play, this being the only difference as far as the tribunal is concerned."I stopped in my path and Jeffrey kept running and I blocked his path just to stop him getting into the forward 50," Baker said. "I felt contact on the back and the back of my head. I stumbled and continued forward."
www.afl.com http://afc.com.au/Season2007/News/NewsArticle/tabid/4417/Default.aspx?newsId=40453 wrote:* Contact between Melbourne's Matthew Whelan and St Kilda's Luke Ball. It was the view of the panel that Whelan ran eight-to-10 metres from in front of Ball. Just before contact was made, Whelan turned his body to shepherd his teammate, resulting in contact between his back and Ball's chest. The momentum of the contact resulted in an accidental head clash. Under the tribunal guidelines, this was an accidental head clash.
And accident is an accident in play or not, is it not?