Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Of course Baker is going to admit he had contact with Farmer!! Farmer ran into him!!
That's not the point, the point made by Lewis is that because there was no evidence as to how the contact was made Baker should have just said that the contact was purely accidental and not made because he deliberately tried to block Farmer off the ball.
As soon as I heard what Baker said I knew he had hung himself.
The basis of the charges was proven to be wrong. Kirkwood and Farmer both conflicted in their evidence. Nixon and Baker were consistant.....
However Baker admitted to an illegal tactic causing injury to an opposition player - in a case - at the tribunal.
Different to Kosi/Gia - deemed to be a legal shepard at the time and the head clash was accidental
Different to the Whelan clash that was deemed to be a shepard in play and the head clash was accidental.
Baker is sunk and Lewis is deadset correct. Any billy goat could have seen that as soon as Baker opened his trap.
No use now taking the moral high ground about "lying". All Baker had to say was that Farmer ran into him and he would have gotten off.
Once again our admin has stuffed up the defence.
This admin has now completely lost me.
The verdict will stand, they wont go to court, and Baker is farked.
I agree Joffa, doesn't matter that a block isn't reportable, facts are we didn't need to make it an issue, but due to incompetence we have.
The difference is that a block can be a type of shepherd.
Under Law 15.4.2:
"A Shepherd is using the body or arm to push, bump or block:
(a) a Player who does not have possession of the football and who is no further than 5 metres away from the football at the time when the push, bump or block occurs ... "
The ordinary dictionary meaning of "block" is: "to act so as to obstruct an opponent".
The ordinary dictionary meaning of "bump" is: "to come more or less heavily in contact with; strike; collide with".
Baker's testimony was that he did not bump Farmer, but stood in his path.
Riewoldting, thanks for the clarification. It seems from this definition that the "block" does not even necessarily require physical contact, whereas a "bump" does. It seems to me that if one can "block" without touching one's opponent, then this can be said of Baker's actions. He had his back to Farmer, didn't touch him but, rather, Farmer ran into him.
In this case the definition of "block" seems essential because it absolves Baker of guilt.
Yes - and all the common law principles surrounding foreseeability, reasonable care, causation, volenti non fit injuria, novus actus interveniens, contributory negligence and remoteness of damage suggest that Farmer has nobody but himself to blame.
your starting to sound like a law student.......
.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.
Of course Baker is going to admit he had contact with Farmer!! Farmer ran into him!!
That's not the point, the point made by Lewis is that because there was no evidence as to how the contact was made Baker should have just said that the contact was purely accidental and not made because he deliberately tried to block Farmer off the ball.
As soon as I heard what Baker said I knew he had hung himself.
The basis of the charges was proven to be wrong. Kirkwood and Farmer both conflicted in their evidence. Nixon and Baker were consistant.....
However Baker admitted to an illegal tactic causing injury to an opposition player - in a case - at the tribunal.
Different to Kosi/Gia - deemed to be a legal shepard at the time and the head clash was accidental
Different to the Whelan clash that was deemed to be a shepard in play and the head clash was accidental.
Baker is sunk and Lewis is deadset correct. Any billy goat could have seen that as soon as Baker opened his trap.
No use now taking the moral high ground about "lying". All Baker had to say was that Farmer ran into him and he would have gotten off.
Once again our admin has stuffed up the defence.
This admin has now completely lost me.
The verdict will stand, they wont go to court, and Baker is farked.
I initially agreed with this and then changed my mind. I think they can appeal based on whether the fact Baker thought it might be a free is irrelevant as he is not qualified nor paid to adjudicate on this. if an umpire paid a free then he is fried. However none was paid.
If Baker can hang on what his opinion is re free kicks will the allow him to start paying free kicks in the middle? No, because his opinion on what is or is not is totally irrelaevant (or should be).
Riewoldting wrote:suggest that Farmer has nobody but himself to blame.
Now you're sounding like me I knew you'd come round eventually
At the end of the day - it is exactly that, Farmer's own lack of awareness. However, because it was off the ball and he got hurt and had to leave the ground - everyone has panicked and assumed that a kinghit or untoward action has happened. Added to that is that it is St.Kilda's serial pest in Baker - and bingo, let's get a big suspension!! The club must hone in the actual actions that took place AND use precedents like Whelan on Ball, Kosi and Gia etc to highlight the fact that it was an accidental collision caused by Farmer not being aware of where Baker was.
I want to stand for something. I'm a loyal person and I think at the end of my career it will be great to look back and know that I'm a St Kilda person for life.
- Nick Riewoldt. May 19th 2009.
For me the issue is that I want to see that a reasonable and fair process is followed.
My understanding is that the tribunal is set up to make a judgement on the case that is put up by the prosecution. In this case, the tribunal appears to have found him not guilty on the case put to them and then amended the charge (on the basis of Baker's evidence) and found him guilty of the new charge.
I'm no legal eagle but I'd be surprised if they haven't overstepped their authority there.
Can't help feeling that the intention from the beginning was just to find something that would stick.
Let's hope that our legal team can demonstrate that the procedure has been flawed.
Yipper - unfortunately there are no precedents in this kangaroo court. They simply ignore them.
They even ignore their own rules when it is politically expedient to do so (eg a game is not over uintil the umpire blows his whistle and signifies the end of the game)!