Herald-Sun article on Tibunal penalties
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1941
- Joined: Sat 24 Apr 2004 10:24pm
- Location: Perth WA
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 19 times
Herald-Sun article on Tibunal penalties
No bias shown here of course.
How lucky are some players. I just hope teh AFL really trip up on this in the future and cop a flogging in some court. I continually get angry every time I hear, see or think about Bakes injustice.
Article follows.
Rules and penalties take king-hit
Mark Robinson | April 16, 2008 12:00am
ON SUNDAY, Geelong ruckman Trent West collected St Kilda's Xavier Clarke, who was not looking, and Clarke was carried off the ground on a stretcher. West was not cited.
Late last year, St Kilda hard man Steven Baker collected Fremantle's Jeff Farmer, who was not looking, and Farmer walked off the ground assisted by trainers.
Baker received seven matches - four for the incident plus a loading of three - and won't be available until Round 6 this year.
In my opinion, it remains the greatest tribunal injustice of recent time.
In both cases, the ball was more than 5m from the incident and, in both cases, the contact was initiated by a player intent on blocking or shepherding.
The AFL rule regarding this is Rule 15.4.5 (e) and is explained as when "a player makes prohibitive contact with an opposition player, if he pushes, bumps, holds, or blocks an opposition player when the football is further than five metres away from the opposition player or is out of play".
That Baker still awaits his 2008 debut angers him and the St Kilda Football Club.
Those close to the backman/tagger say he remains in disbelief, even bitter, about a clash that left Farmer with a broken nose, and himself with an "egg" on the back his head.
In essence, Baker was suspended for "blocking".
What helped West was TV footage of the incident. What helped hang Baker was that there was no TV footage of the incident.
We can guess what West would have said if he was reported and had to give evidence.
"I saw Clarke jogging after Josh Hunt, so I decided to run at Clarke and put on a block, because that's what 'Bomber' wants us to do.
Not just in the backline, but all over the ground when an opposition player is making a run to get the ball."
In his evidence, which reportedly didn't help Baker, Baker said he and Farmer were running together near the edge of the centre square.
"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'm a backman, that's what I do."
Baker seven, West zip.
The match review panel and tribunal continue to mystify us. Geelong's Ryan Gamble punched Nick Dal Santo in the jaw. It was a softish king-hit.
He cops one week.
In 2003 Collingwood's Brodie Holland whacked Sydney's Paul Williams flush in the face after arguing provocation. He got two weeks.
And last night we had Barry Hall. He was suspended for his act of violence and also suspended because of society's conscience. But does Hall's seven weeks mean what he did was seven times worse than what Gamble did?
The same for West and Baker. Was Baker's hit on Farmer, even without TV, seven times worse than what West did?
It is bewildering to say the least.
How lucky are some players. I just hope teh AFL really trip up on this in the future and cop a flogging in some court. I continually get angry every time I hear, see or think about Bakes injustice.
Article follows.
Rules and penalties take king-hit
Mark Robinson | April 16, 2008 12:00am
ON SUNDAY, Geelong ruckman Trent West collected St Kilda's Xavier Clarke, who was not looking, and Clarke was carried off the ground on a stretcher. West was not cited.
Late last year, St Kilda hard man Steven Baker collected Fremantle's Jeff Farmer, who was not looking, and Farmer walked off the ground assisted by trainers.
Baker received seven matches - four for the incident plus a loading of three - and won't be available until Round 6 this year.
In my opinion, it remains the greatest tribunal injustice of recent time.
In both cases, the ball was more than 5m from the incident and, in both cases, the contact was initiated by a player intent on blocking or shepherding.
The AFL rule regarding this is Rule 15.4.5 (e) and is explained as when "a player makes prohibitive contact with an opposition player, if he pushes, bumps, holds, or blocks an opposition player when the football is further than five metres away from the opposition player or is out of play".
That Baker still awaits his 2008 debut angers him and the St Kilda Football Club.
Those close to the backman/tagger say he remains in disbelief, even bitter, about a clash that left Farmer with a broken nose, and himself with an "egg" on the back his head.
In essence, Baker was suspended for "blocking".
What helped West was TV footage of the incident. What helped hang Baker was that there was no TV footage of the incident.
We can guess what West would have said if he was reported and had to give evidence.
"I saw Clarke jogging after Josh Hunt, so I decided to run at Clarke and put on a block, because that's what 'Bomber' wants us to do.
Not just in the backline, but all over the ground when an opposition player is making a run to get the ball."
In his evidence, which reportedly didn't help Baker, Baker said he and Farmer were running together near the edge of the centre square.
"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'm a backman, that's what I do."
Baker seven, West zip.
The match review panel and tribunal continue to mystify us. Geelong's Ryan Gamble punched Nick Dal Santo in the jaw. It was a softish king-hit.
He cops one week.
In 2003 Collingwood's Brodie Holland whacked Sydney's Paul Williams flush in the face after arguing provocation. He got two weeks.
And last night we had Barry Hall. He was suspended for his act of violence and also suspended because of society's conscience. But does Hall's seven weeks mean what he did was seven times worse than what Gamble did?
The same for West and Baker. Was Baker's hit on Farmer, even without TV, seven times worse than what West did?
It is bewildering to say the least.
Midfield clearances and clear winners are needed to make an effective forward line.
You need to protect the ball handler to increase posession efficiency
You need to protect the ball handler to increase posession efficiency
- Little Dozer
- Club Player
- Posts: 855
- Joined: Tue 11 Jul 2006 4:44pm
- Location: Forward Pocket, Outer side, Linton Street end or bay 38 Waverley
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4241
- Joined: Fri 15 Sep 2006 10:35am
- Location: earth
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 1390 times
It's been quite obvious for some time.
You wear a Saints jumper, you can be pole-axed and the offender walks away with little or no penalty.
e.g
Whelan on Ball - No penalty, worth at least 4 weeks
West on Clarke - No penalty, worth at least 2 weeks
Giansuracusa on Koschitzke - No penalty, worth at least 6 weeks
Burgoyne on Hayes - No penalty, worth about 6 weeks
Gamble on Dal Santo _ One week, worth at least three weeks
Hall on Maguire - No penalty, worth at least one week
Conversely, a Saint offends and gets 7 weeks with no video evidence or you get at least one week for a timid tummy-tap
e.g
Baker on Alessio - Two weeks, should have been cleared
Baker on Farmer - No video evidence, conflicting 'witnesses', but got 7 weeks
Gehrig on Harris - Pathetic tummy tap, that wouldn't have hurt a toddler - one week penalty
Gehrig on Rocca - a little cheapshot. Given two week, but reduced to one on appeal!
Is the tribunal crooked? The evidence speaks for itself
You wear a Saints jumper, you can be pole-axed and the offender walks away with little or no penalty.
e.g
Whelan on Ball - No penalty, worth at least 4 weeks
West on Clarke - No penalty, worth at least 2 weeks
Giansuracusa on Koschitzke - No penalty, worth at least 6 weeks
Burgoyne on Hayes - No penalty, worth about 6 weeks
Gamble on Dal Santo _ One week, worth at least three weeks
Hall on Maguire - No penalty, worth at least one week
Conversely, a Saint offends and gets 7 weeks with no video evidence or you get at least one week for a timid tummy-tap
e.g
Baker on Alessio - Two weeks, should have been cleared
Baker on Farmer - No video evidence, conflicting 'witnesses', but got 7 weeks
Gehrig on Harris - Pathetic tummy tap, that wouldn't have hurt a toddler - one week penalty
Gehrig on Rocca - a little cheapshot. Given two week, but reduced to one on appeal!
Is the tribunal crooked? The evidence speaks for itself
- saintbrat
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 44575
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 4:11pm
- Location: saints zone
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 188 times
there are lots of media and commentators astounded on the X and west incident
all the ' on the couch' panel
patrick smith
The Ox is /was going to ask Adrian anderson when he is on tonight
not just saints biased either
some- pro saints commentators actually saw it as fair
all the ' on the couch' panel
patrick smith
The Ox is /was going to ask Adrian anderson when he is on tonight
not just saints biased either
some- pro saints commentators actually saw it as fair
StReNgTh ThRoUgH LoYaLtY
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
![Image](http://www.saintsmembership.com.au/theme/afl-stkilda/img/how-i-want-to-be.png)
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
![Image](http://www.saintsmembership.com.au/theme/afl-stkilda/img/how-i-want-to-be.png)
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
I don't think it is about the rule being to soft or not. It's more that alot of Saints supporters are just sick of it and couldn't be bothered arguing anymore because it just seems to be a waste of time! The main thing with the Baker incident is that there was footage of the aftermath with blood streaming from Farmer's face! Yes X was knocked out but one could claim that it was the ground that did the damage. And if i remember he did come back on for a bit?rodgerfox wrote:This just baffles me.saintbrat wrote:
some- pro saints commentators actually saw it as fair
It was more than 5m away, therefore was illegal. Full stop.
Whether or not we think it's a soft rule or not is completely irrelevant. It was against the rules.
Not saying that, that in itself is an excuse, but the uproar to the Farmer incident was large because of the unknown actions of those around him!
Thats Mr. Smartarse to you
all we want is consistencyrodgerfox wrote:This just baffles me.saintbrat wrote:
some- pro saints commentators actually saw it as fair
It was more than 5m away, therefore was illegal. Full stop.
Whether or not we think it's a soft rule or not is completely irrelevant. It was against the rules.
if west got off so should have baker
if baker got suspended so should have west.
what we DONT want is one rule for one and another rule for another.
THAT is what is frustrating.
Bewaire krime, da krimson bolt is comeing to yure nayborhood to smach krime
SHUT UP KRIME!
SHUT UP KRIME!
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1058
- Joined: Tue 08 Feb 2005 1:18pm
- Location: Malvern East
- Has thanked: 86 times
- Been thanked: 34 times
I had a bit a look at some of the rules of the game - one of things that surprised me was the sending off rules - I didn't know that we had red and yellow card rules - has anyone seen these used?
15.4.2 Shepherd
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: and
(b) where such contact Is otherwise not Prohibited Contact under Law 15.4.5.
15.4.3 Permitted Contact
Other than the Prohibited Contact Identified under Law 15.4.5, a
Player may make contact with another Player:
(a) by using his or her hip, shoulder, chest, arms or open hands provided that the football is no more than 5 metres away from the Player:
(b) by pushing the other Player with an open hand in the chest or side of the body provided that the football Is no more than 5 metres away from the Player:
(c) by executing a Correct Tackle:
(d) by executing a Shepherd provided that the football Is no more than 5 metres away from the Player: or
(c) If such contact Is Incidental to a marking contest and the Player Is legitimately Marking or attempting to Mark the football.
15.4.4 Charge or Charging
(a) A Charge means an act of colliding with an opposition Player where the amount of physical force used is unreasonable or unnecessary In the circumstances, Irrespective of whether the Player is or is not in possession of the football or whether the Player is within 5 metres of the football.
(b) Without limiting the general application of Law 15.4.4 (a), a Charge occurs when a Player unreasonably or unnecessarily collides with an opposition Player: (1) who Is not within 5 metres of the football: (11) who, although within 5 metres of the football, Is not In the Immediate contest for the football and would not reasonably expect such contact: (111) who Is attempting to Mark the football or who has Marked the football or been awarded a Free Kick; (1v) after that Player has disposed of the football; (v) who Is Shepherding another Player on his or her Team: or (V1) before the football Is brought Into play.
19.2 REPORTABLE OFFENCES
19.2.1 Degree of Intent - Clarification
Where any of the Reportable Offences Identified In Law 19.2.2
specify that conduct may be Intentional, reckless or negligent:
(a) any report or notice of report which does not allege whether the conduct was Intentional, reckless or negligent shall be deemed to and be read as alleging that the conduct was either Intentional, reckless or negligent: and
(b) the Tribunal or other body appointed to hear and determine the report may find the report proven If It Is reasonably satisfied that the conduct was either Intentional, reckless or negligent.
20.5 ORDER OFF FOR SPECIFIED PERIOD
In addition to being reported on the first occasion for committing a Reportable Offence, other than those listed In Law 20.2, a Controlling Body may determine that a Player be ordered from the Playing Surface for such period as It In Its absolute discretion deems fit.
20.6 SIGNALLING AND PROCEDURE FOR ORDER OFF
20.6.1 Signal A field Umpire shall, In addition to Informing a Player that he or she Is to immediately leave the Playing Surface, signal that the Player has been ordered off the Playing Surface by pointing to the Interchange Area. He or she shall hold aloft a red card to signal that the Player has been ordered off for the remainder of the match or a yellow card to signalling that the Player has been ordered off for a period of the as specified by the Controlling Body.
20.6.2 Player to Leave Playing Surface (a) A Player shall immediately leave the Playing Surface when ordered to do so by an Umpire under the Law 20. (b) Where a Player refuses to or does not immediately leave the …
http://afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_docs/20 ... E_GAME.pdf
There are probably some other rules that are relevant too ...
I don't really think that the umpires, match review committee or the tribunal need to turn into Nazi's but the consistency is black from white IMO
15.4.2 Shepherd
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: and
(b) where such contact Is otherwise not Prohibited Contact under Law 15.4.5.
15.4.3 Permitted Contact
Other than the Prohibited Contact Identified under Law 15.4.5, a
Player may make contact with another Player:
(a) by using his or her hip, shoulder, chest, arms or open hands provided that the football is no more than 5 metres away from the Player:
(b) by pushing the other Player with an open hand in the chest or side of the body provided that the football Is no more than 5 metres away from the Player:
(c) by executing a Correct Tackle:
(d) by executing a Shepherd provided that the football Is no more than 5 metres away from the Player: or
(c) If such contact Is Incidental to a marking contest and the Player Is legitimately Marking or attempting to Mark the football.
15.4.4 Charge or Charging
(a) A Charge means an act of colliding with an opposition Player where the amount of physical force used is unreasonable or unnecessary In the circumstances, Irrespective of whether the Player is or is not in possession of the football or whether the Player is within 5 metres of the football.
(b) Without limiting the general application of Law 15.4.4 (a), a Charge occurs when a Player unreasonably or unnecessarily collides with an opposition Player: (1) who Is not within 5 metres of the football: (11) who, although within 5 metres of the football, Is not In the Immediate contest for the football and would not reasonably expect such contact: (111) who Is attempting to Mark the football or who has Marked the football or been awarded a Free Kick; (1v) after that Player has disposed of the football; (v) who Is Shepherding another Player on his or her Team: or (V1) before the football Is brought Into play.
19.2 REPORTABLE OFFENCES
19.2.1 Degree of Intent - Clarification
Where any of the Reportable Offences Identified In Law 19.2.2
specify that conduct may be Intentional, reckless or negligent:
(a) any report or notice of report which does not allege whether the conduct was Intentional, reckless or negligent shall be deemed to and be read as alleging that the conduct was either Intentional, reckless or negligent: and
(b) the Tribunal or other body appointed to hear and determine the report may find the report proven If It Is reasonably satisfied that the conduct was either Intentional, reckless or negligent.
20.5 ORDER OFF FOR SPECIFIED PERIOD
In addition to being reported on the first occasion for committing a Reportable Offence, other than those listed In Law 20.2, a Controlling Body may determine that a Player be ordered from the Playing Surface for such period as It In Its absolute discretion deems fit.
20.6 SIGNALLING AND PROCEDURE FOR ORDER OFF
20.6.1 Signal A field Umpire shall, In addition to Informing a Player that he or she Is to immediately leave the Playing Surface, signal that the Player has been ordered off the Playing Surface by pointing to the Interchange Area. He or she shall hold aloft a red card to signal that the Player has been ordered off for the remainder of the match or a yellow card to signalling that the Player has been ordered off for a period of the as specified by the Controlling Body.
20.6.2 Player to Leave Playing Surface (a) A Player shall immediately leave the Playing Surface when ordered to do so by an Umpire under the Law 20. (b) Where a Player refuses to or does not immediately leave the …
http://afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_docs/20 ... E_GAME.pdf
There are probably some other rules that are relevant too ...
I don't really think that the umpires, match review committee or the tribunal need to turn into Nazi's but the consistency is black from white IMO
Concur - absolute bull butterbigred wrote:Absolute horseapples.Giansuracusa on Koschitzke - No penalty, worth at least 6 weeks
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>)
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>)
Baker incident should have gone to court ....end of story !! Was personally very irate at our previous admin for not showing some conscience on this matter.
The greatest injustice for mine of all time was Barry HAll being allowed to play in the Grand Final in 05. THis is when I realised the AFL was determined to see Sydney succeed even if competition equity was compromised.
Was very surprised at the time that the most influential man in football outside of Jolimont (Eddy McGuire) did not start a riot given 2 key Collingwood players were ousted in the 2 prior grand finals (Cloke and Rocca).
The greatest injustice for mine of all time was Barry HAll being allowed to play in the Grand Final in 05. THis is when I realised the AFL was determined to see Sydney succeed even if competition equity was compromised.
Was very surprised at the time that the most influential man in football outside of Jolimont (Eddy McGuire) did not start a riot given 2 key Collingwood players were ousted in the 2 prior grand finals (Cloke and Rocca).
My behaviour is considered acceptable in some far off remote exotic countries...
- bigred
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11463
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 7:39am
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 609 times
That bump was a straight up and down hip & shoulder to a chasing player. Absolutely fair in the spirit of the game.Eastern wrote:horseapples?? Is that anything like nana's coleslawbigred wrote:Absolute horseapples.Giansuracusa on Koschitzke - No penalty, worth at least 6 weeks? !!
6 weeks my backside.
Agree 100%Baker incident should have gone to court
Its laughable.
This comp has been rigged for years. With the new clubs coming in, it will continue to be rigged based purely on finances.The greatest injustice for mine of all time was Barry HAll being allowed to play in the Grand Final in 05. THis is when I realised the AFL was determined to see Sydney succeed even if competition equity was compromised
It is a joke. It is crooked and it is run by half wits.
The tribunal system as it stands is pretty straight forward. Until, somehow, without any video evidence, a player can be rubbed out because some asshat runs into the BACK of his head because idiots, attempting to justify their employment, think it right to hammer a players career.
Sure I'm venting, but to be 100% honest with all of you, this game is in its worst state of health that I have ever seen it. The games are over umpired. The new rules or enforcement of the rules are absolutely changing the face of this game.
Not every team can win 100% of the time and if you have to sit through loss after loss, with players taking dives because the halfwit ump is going to give them an easy free, the AFL is kidding itself. Who in their right mind wants to see games being so heavily influenced by umpires?
Its rubbish. The AFL is turning the game into netball.
"Now the ball is loose, it gives St. Kilda a rough chance. Black. Good handpass. Voss. Schwarze now, the defender, can run and from a long way".....
And that shows with record attendances and the most money ever paid and by a fair way fortv, radio and internet rights. Games have always been influenced by decisions. Go and look at replays of games in the 70's.bigred wrote:That bump was a straight up and down hip & shoulder to a chasing player. Absolutely fair in the spirit of the game.Eastern wrote:horseapples?? Is that anything like nana's coleslawbigred wrote:Absolute horseapples.Giansuracusa on Koschitzke - No penalty, worth at least 6 weeks? !!
6 weeks my backside.
Agree 100%Baker incident should have gone to court
Its laughable.
This comp has been rigged for years. With the new clubs coming in, it will continue to be rigged based purely on finances.The greatest injustice for mine of all time was Barry HAll being allowed to play in the Grand Final in 05. THis is when I realised the AFL was determined to see Sydney succeed even if competition equity was compromised
It is a joke. It is crooked and it is run by half wits.
The tribunal system as it stands is pretty straight forward. Until, somehow, without any video evidence, a player can be rubbed out because some asshat runs into the BACK of his head because idiots, attempting to justify their employment, think it right to hammer a players career.
Sure I'm venting, but to be 100% honest with all of you, this game is in its worst state of health that I have ever seen it. The games are over umpired. The new rules or enforcement of the rules are absolutely changing the face of this game.
Not every team can win 100% of the time and if you have to sit through loss after loss, with players taking dives because the halfwit ump is going to give them an easy free, the AFL is kidding itself. Who in their right mind wants to see games being so heavily influenced by umpires?
Its rubbish. The AFL is turning the game into netball.
Skills of footy have never been better and most new rules have improved the game. The hands on the back being the exception.
- rodgerfox
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9059
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 9:10am
- Has thanked: 425 times
- Been thanked: 327 times
Although the intention may have been in the spirit of the game, Guido left the ground and got Kosi in the head. Accidentally or not, he got him high and caused sever injury.bigred wrote:That bump was a straight up and down hip & shoulder to a chasing player. Absolutely fair in the spirit of the game.Eastern wrote:horseapples?? Is that anything like nana's coleslawbigred wrote:Absolute horseapples.Giansuracusa on Koschitzke - No penalty, worth at least 6 weeks? !!
6 weeks my backside.
The rules of the game state that that is illegal.
-
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004 7:43pm
- Location: Gippsland
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
Exactly. And the ball wasn't within 5 metres either. Either you have rules, and apply them, or you don't. At the moment we have selected application of the rules, or as is in the Baker case, just make it up as we go along to suit the agenda.rodgerfox wrote:Although the intention may have been in the spirit of the game, Guido left the ground and got Kosi in the head. Accidentally or not, he got him high and caused sever injury.
The rules of the game state that that is illegal.
AFAIK it's not against the rules to stop running. And blocks happen a hundred times a game.