Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
I'm having a lot of trouble comprehending our Barry gets 7 for that..it's not only a reprehensible incident, but it's portrays a SHOCKING image of the game and i'm sure will decrease grass-roots junior participation from parents who don't want their kids exposed to that sort of risk...
Good on the AFL I suppose. I personally think it's been overdramatised - I mean, getting a professor of medicine on to say he could have killed him! For goodness sake.
I thought that it was worth about 4-5 with priors to 7. Given that he doesn't have "priors" that count i.e. more than 2 years ago seems like a fair punishment to me.
Anyone could see he had a brain fade and that it was not premeditated so the lynch mob baying for 8-10+ a bit OTT in my view.
Last edited by Richter on Tue 15 Apr 2008 8:50pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hird... The unflushable one is now... just a turd...
Why. Sounds right to me. Thought he would get around 6-8 weeks.
So how would you compare this with Baker's 4 + 2 (hanging over him in penalty points) + 1 extra for ?
One is a deliberate 'KingHit' (as deemed by the MRP by referring it to the tribunal)
The other was, at best, a player stopping suddenly and allowing another player to 'cannon' in to him. (No other evidence was tendered at theat tribunal case to support any alternative to this description of the case against Baker)
I just wish there was some video footage of it so it could be compared to the Hall king hit.
I would have thought Hall would have got at least 10 weeks for something that was so plainly caught on video. The Baker incident wasn't even caught on video and I am still unclear as to what his crime was. He must of king hit Farmer.
When Barry Hall returns after suspension it will be against the Saints...
I hope the boys really get into him ...niggle him ...bump him...scrag him .. and dare him to react ....
midas_touch wrote:Same as Steven Baker - an absolute farce.
Also makes his return game against none other than us.
Baker got 4 weeks. When will people realise this.
So he has been back the past two weeks has he?
FFS he got SEVEN WEEKS suspension. Doesn't matter how. He got four for a non incident that was a farce and then the malicious AFL whom he had made a fool of earlier in the year fixed him with the three suspended.
You reckon it was a fix? Of course not, you love everything AFL and they would never do anything wrong.
Baker got 7 for stopping, Hall got seven for a king hit, seven mind you that he couldn't play anyway.
In effect the AFL have let Hall off any suspension again.
Absolute criminal joke.
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>)
Why. Sounds right to me. Thought he would get around 6-8 weeks.
So how would you compare this with Baker's 4 + 2 (hanging over him in penalty points) + 1 extra for ?
One is a deliberate 'KingHit' (as deemed by the MRP by referring it to the tribunal)
The other was, at best, a player stopping suddenly and allowing another player to 'cannon' in to him. (No other evidence was tendered at theat tribunal case to support any alternative to this description of the case against Baker)
Baker has nothing to do with this. What should he get. 20-30 matches. 7 matches is third of the season and if his contract says he doesnt get paid if he is suspended he also misses out on about $140,000.
Last edited by plugger66 on Tue 15 Apr 2008 8:56pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'd rather we follow the new interpretation of the shepherding rules and that the G-Train actually lands a huge bump for once. The number of times I've seen him line someone up and miss......
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons; for you are a quick and tasty morsel.
Why. Sounds right to me. Thought he would get around 6-8 weeks.
So how would you compare this with Baker's 4 + 2 (hanging over him in penalty points) + 1 extra for ?
One is a deliberate 'KingHit' (as deemed by the MRP by referring it to the tribunal)
The other was, at best, a player stopping suddenly and allowing another player to 'cannon' in to him. (No other evidence was tendered at theat tribunal case to support any alternative to this description of the case against Baker)
Baker has nothing to do with this. What should he get. 20-30 matches. & matches is third of the season and if his contract says he doesnt get paid if he is suspended he also misses out on about $140,000.
Plugger I'm just trying to understand how you can rationalize Hall getting 7 and Baker getting 4 + 2 + 1.
I and many other think that Baker was despicably treated. You obviously don't (I don't recall you posting that his punishment was unfair?).
Now I would like to hear how you rationalize Baker's penalty for what he was found guilty of and Hall's penalty for which he plead guilty to?
plugger66 wrote:
Baker has nothing to do with this. What should he get. 20-30 matches. & matches is third of the season and if his contract says he doesnt get paid if he is suspended he also misses out on about $140,000.
should get the seven weeks suspended AFTER he is confimed fit to play.
The AFL has again effectively let him off scott free.
And Baker has EVERYTHING to do with this. He got the same suspension for something nobody saw, and not his fault (as the evidence).
I know you love the AFL and they can do no wrong, but cant you see the blatant hypocricy and total inconsistancy of this hopeless and tainted MRP tribunal process.
And absolute travesty, but you continue to defend the righteous bloody AFL, because they would never get anything wrong would they?
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>)
Why. Sounds right to me. Thought he would get around 6-8 weeks.
So how would you compare this with Baker's 4 + 2 (hanging over him in penalty points) + 1 extra for ?
One is a deliberate 'KingHit' (as deemed by the MRP by referring it to the tribunal)
The other was, at best, a player stopping suddenly and allowing another player to 'cannon' in to him. (No other evidence was tendered at theat tribunal case to support any alternative to this description of the case against Baker)
Baker has nothing to do with this. What should he get. 20-30 matches. & matches is third of the season and if his contract says he doesnt get paid if he is suspended he also misses out on about $140,000.
Plugger I'm just trying to understand how you can rationalize Hall getting 7 and Baker getting 4 + 2 + 1.
I and many other think that Baker was despicably treated. You obviously don't (I don't recall you posting that his punishment was unfair?).
Now I would like to hear how you rationalize Baker's penalty for what he was found guilty of and Hall's penalty for which he plead guilty to?
I am not worried about comparing as they are separate cases. Bakes was badly advised and probably unlucky to get found guilty because of that bad advise. Hall has got pretty much what he deserved. From now on does every penalty have to be compared to Bakes to get a true amount of weeks. Maybe we should also compare what Pickett did and B johnson did and so on. That is why all cases are separate.