Im not being Biased am I???

[bangerisking]

Call me baised but surely im not over reacting when i say we've been screwed year after year by the tribunal?

I often bring this up and people say "oh here we go again everyones against St.Kilda" at times I've actually thought Im that passionate about the club that maybe their right.

What pisses me off is that we as a club always stand back and accept whats happened, which is why its going to keep happening until something is done about it.

They now say St.Kilda have asked the AFL for a please explain in regards to the X issue, bugger that id rather someone from the club to grow some balls and forget the fine and come out and give the AFL what for, hey id be more than happy to chip in for the fine.

I know someone on here listed in a previous post examples (see below) of where we've been screwed, Im sure theres plenty more over the last 5 years, feel free to add them to the list:



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!

[plugger66]

Well have to disagree about the Whelan incident. That was the right call for sure. Nothing in that one. Gamble got 2 weeks but was discounted to one. Bakes got 4 weeks not 7. But yes we have been unlucky but if you were to go to other sides footy sites they would probably come up with plenty to.

[suss]

You missed the clanger of all clangers...Bakes gets two weeks for an attempted strike on Greg Stafford. Yes, that two weeks for the smallest bloke on the ground not hitting the biggest. What a complete disgrace.

[Mr Magic]

What pisses me off is that we as a club always stand back and accept whats happened, which is why its going to keep happening until something is done about it.

They now say St.Kilda have asked the AFL for a please explain in regards to the X issue, bugger that id rather someone from the club to grow some balls and forget the fine and come out and give the AFL what for, hey id be more than happy to chip in for the fine.

The last time we stood up and complained was when GT told the Umpires to 'leave their egos at teh door'.

Coincidentally the following week we went to Perth to play Freo and were the subject of numerous bad decisions (admitted by Gieschen later) and Ch 9 reporter Tony Jones claimed he heard umpire(s) on the plane back make the comment 'now we know what it's like to win a game'. Of course it was just a coincidence.

The AFL can make life really difficult for any Club that is giving them 'trouble'.

Salary Cap investigations
Draw
just to name a couple of areas.
Of course I'm not suggesting they would actually 'conspire' to punish any Club that irritated tehm. It would purely be a coincidence if it did happen.

As I've posted previously, someone I know was told by one of the coaching staff in 2006 that the Club was warned that they (the AFL) were not happy with what Baker was doing - especially because it got Judd 'rubbed out' for retaliating.
That Baker put himself in a position to be sent to the Tribunal (the 2 Murphy incidents) was stupid on his behalf.
Once there he was going to get severely punished. Only some 'clever legal manoevering' got him off with a reasonably small sentence.
BUT that very 'clever legal manoeuvering' ensured that if they ever got the opportunity to have a go at him again they would 'whack him'.
And guess what - they used the 'hanging over points' to suspend him for 7 games for an incident that should never have even gone to the Tribunal.

But again, it's only a coincidence.

[plugger66]

What pisses me off is that we as a club always stand back and accept whats happened, which is why its going to keep happening until something is done about it.

They now say St.Kilda have asked the AFL for a please explain in regards to the X issue, bugger that id rather someone from the club to grow some balls and forget the fine and come out and give the AFL what for, hey id be more than happy to chip in for the fine.

The last time we stood up and complained was when GT told the Umpires to 'leave their egos at teh door'.

Coincidentally the following week we went to Perth to play Freo and were the subject of numerous bad decisions (admitted by Gieschen later) and Ch 9 reporter Tony Jones claimed he heard umpire(s) on the plane back make the comment 'now we know what it's like to win a game'. Of course it was just a coincidence.

The AFL can make life really difficult for any Club that is giving them 'trouble'.

Salary Cap investigations
Draw
just to name a couple of areas.
Of course I'm not suggesting they would actually 'conspire' to punish any Club that irritated tehm. It would purely be a coincidence if it did happen.

As I've posted previously, someone I know was told by one of the coaching staff in 2006 that the Club was warned that they (the AFL) were not happy with what Baker was doing - especially because it got Judd 'rubbed out' for retaliating.
That Baker put himself in a position to be sent to the Tribunal (the 2 Murphy incidents) was stupid on his behalf.
Once there he was going to get severely punished. Only some 'clever legal manoevering' got him off with a reasonably small sentence.
BUT that very 'clever legal manoeuvering' ensured that if they ever got the opportunity to have a go at him again they would 'whack him'.
And guess what - they used the 'hanging over points' to suspend him for 7 games for an incident that should never have even gone to the Tribunal.

But again, it's only a coincidence.

Well it should have gone to the tribunal and he should have been advised better. If he said he did nothing he probably would have got off but he he was poorly advised as most media at the time said.

[bangerisking]

You missed the clanger of all clangers...Bakes gets two weeks for an attempted strike on Greg Stafford. Yes, that two weeks for the smallest bloke on the ground not hitting the biggest. What a complete disgrace.

If i remember correctly its was a result of Stafford cleaning up Dal Santo? which of course was thrown out at the Tribunal

[Mr Magic]

Plugger, teh Baker/Farmer case should have been 'thrown out' the instant the Freo trainer admitted under cross-examination. That he did not actually see the contact.

The case was only sent to the Tribunal because this particulatr trainer told the AFL Investigation Officer that he saw Baker hit Farmer.

Baker Denied it to teh Investigations Officer
Farmer told him he didn't know what happened.
No-one other than the Freo trainer claimed to have seen it.

Based solely on this account by the Freo Trainer the charge weas laid.

IMO, the Tribunal Chairman erred by not dismissing the case immediatley it bacame clear that teh Freo trainer did not actually see the 'hit'.

Baker's and the Saints mistake was that their representative did not demand this outcome at the time and chose to allow him to give evidence. They obviously (erroneously) felt that given Baker had not done anything malicious or 'against the rules' they hadf nothing to fear from telling the truth. History will judge that as a bad judgement call. It would seem that this particular Tribunal found a way to find him guilty of a 'heinous crime' that warranted 7 weeks suspension.
(I know they only gave him 4 plus his carryover, but if they wanted him to be out of the game for 4 they would have given him 1 plus his carryover. To argue they didn't know/ weren't aware of the additional 3 beggars belief).

[Otiman]

Well have to disagree about the Whelan incident. That was the right call for sure. Nothing in that one. Gamble got 2 weeks but was discounted to one. Bakes got 4 weeks not 7. But yes we have been unlucky but if you were to go to other sides footy sites they would probably come up with plenty to.

So is the issue then the carryover points and reduction for "good record"? If you bring the incidents Baker was reported for in the past under scrutiny, those would have contributed to his 'extra 3 weeks'.

It's an overall tribunal issue, not just 7 weeks vs 2.

[Mr Magic]

You missed the clanger of all clangers...Bakes gets two weeks for an attempted strike on Greg Stafford. Yes, that two weeks for the smallest bloke on the ground not hitting the biggest. What a complete disgrace.

If i remember correctly its was a result of Stafford cleaning up Dal Santo? which of course was thrown out at the Tribunal

An Bakes' was an 'attempted JUMPER PUNCH'

[plugger66]

Plugger, teh Baker/Farmer case should have been 'thrown out' the instant the Freo trainer admitted under cross-examination. That he did not actually see the contact.

The case was only sent to the Tribunal because this particulatr trainer told the AFL Investigation Officer that he saw Baker hit Farmer.

Baker Denied it to teh Investigations Officer
Farmer told him he didn't know what happened.
No-one other than the Freo trainer claimed to have seen it.

Based solely on this account by the Freo Trainer the charge weas laid.

IMO, the Tribunal Chairman erred by not dismissing the case immediatley it bacame clear that teh Freo trainer did not actually see the 'hit'.

Baker's and the Saints mistake was that their representative did not demand this outcome at the time and chose to allow him to give evidence. They obviously (erroneously) felt that given Baker had not done anything malicious or 'against the rules' they hadf nothing to fear from telling the truth. History will judge that as a bad judgement call. It would seem that this particular Tribunal found a way to find him guilty of a 'heinous crime' that warranted 7 weeks suspension.
(I know they only gave him 4 plus his carryover, but if they wanted him to be out of the game for 4 they would have given him 1 plus his carryover. To argue they didn't know/ weren't aware of the additional 3 beggars belief).

But Bakes admitted contact which he should not have. They couldnt throw it out after that. But I have had enough of this rubbish. Unless we can get the weeks back that every unluckly Saints players have got I dont see the point of something that has already happened. We can cry till we a blue in the face about incidents but so can other clubs. Who cares. You know what I care about is how we are travelling as a side and can we win on Friday. You can live in the past but it is about friday for me.

[The Peanut]

But Bakes admitted contact which he should not have. They couldnt throw it out after that. But I have had enough of this rubbish. Unless we can get the weeks back that every unluckly Saints players have got I dont see the point of something that has already happened. We can cry till we a blue in the face about incidents but so can other clubs. Who cares. You know what I care about is how we are travelling as a side and can we win on Friday. You can live in the past but it is about friday for me.

I agree with the last part of your post - we have a game coming up to focus on - however you stated Bakes admitting contact cost him the case - yes it he admitted contact but so did Trent West. The tribunal just make it up as they go along and the smaller clubs have to bow to them so they don't get punished for making waves and this is a known fact in senior ranks down at the club.

Surely on a supporters forum we can have a winge - if you think we should move on from the issue it's probably not a good idea to post on the subject - thus bringing the thread back to the top of the list.

[ratismeat]

Posted this in another topic but even Ox on SEN was pissy at the MRP - called it indefensible - based on TV vision:
distance from the ball 9-12 m
bulk of contact to body (i.e. rest to the head)
no elbow (who cares)
only took 4 steps to take the bump (who cares)

As Ox points out this was a clear case. West had a case to answer. Having had a look at the footage again I tend to agree.

[brown-coat]

Well have to disagree about the Whelan incident. That was the right call for sure

I agree it was the right call.

But swap the players and Ball would probably have been reported due to the red white and black clause.

[stinger]

smith says it all really.....


"
Panel found under carpet with a broom





THE community must feel concussed, fuzzy around the edges. It has been battered around the head with the image of Sydney’s Barry Hall clocking his opponent so many times that even the most thick-headed of us must be seeing double, says Patrick Smith.

Brent Staker, the poor West Coast player who had the temerity to niggle Hall, saw nothing at all. Just felt Hall’s left fist smash him on the chin and knock him unconscious. Staker’s eyes were rolling uncontrollably before he had even approached the horizontal.

The way the media picked up this moment and ran with it front and back pages, start and end of news broadcasts, spoke to relatives of villain and victim, suggest this was an incident out of the ordinary.

And it was. The AFL has worked diligently to take this thuggery from the game. The blow was as startling as it was despicable. Yet the moment has elements that has taken it from the sport pages to general news.

Hall is football’s genuine colourful character. He had been suspended for 16 matches before last night’s appearance before the AFL tribunal. He loves to box and is said to be very good at it. His left hook was not the work of an amateur. Staker was unprotected, an innocent and unsuspecting victim. And then there’s the vision. The spin, the punch, the lolling eyes.

Mostly, the community has been disturbed because a player could be so violently assaulted on a football field. The fact that the incident happened behind the play and Staker had no chance to defend himself heightened the outrage.

That previously battered players were interviewed, relatives called Hall a mongrel, medical experts sought to diagnose the blow as potentially deadly, columnists and experts demanded capital punishment, have made this the biggest story of the season so far.

If it is the force of the blow, coupled with Staker’s defenceless and unaware state that has driven this assault from a football yarn to one of wider community interest, then AFL football laws are ambiguous and hypocritical, as is the response of those who govern the game and those who follow it.

In the same round and on the same day as both Hall and Staker lost their senses, another footballer was concussed after being crunched when he was defenceless and oblivious that he was about to be struck.

St Kilda’s Xavier Clarke was not participating in the play as he trailed the ball that was sent some 20 metres ahead of him in the match against Geelong. Yet he was knocked so heavily that he was concussed and taken from the ground on a stretcher. As he followed the ball he could have hardly expected contact yet the AFL has deemed it fair and appropriate that he be knocked stupid and removed from the ground.

As Clarke jogged up the ground Geelong’s Trent West ran towards Clarke, striking him with his hip and shoulder. Some contact must have been made to the head because he was unable to walk off the ground and after the game St Kilda named him as an injured player suffering from concussion.

In March last year the general manager of football operations at the AFL, Adrian Anderson, introduced new guidelines after Justin Koschitzke suffered a fractured skull when he was bumped by the Bulldogs’ Daniel Giansiracusa the previous season.

Anderson said: “It’s still fine to execute a legitimate hip and shoulder bump, that is here to stay as part of the game. But if a player suffers an injury to the head or neck from a bump and you had other options then you will be held responsible.â€

[Behind Play]

[quote="bangerisking"]ks
Burgoyne on Hayes - No penalty, worth about 6 weeks


I am happy to read that someone else saw it the way I did.

[yipper]

Plugger, teh Baker/Farmer case should have been 'thrown out' the instant the Freo trainer admitted under cross-examination. That he did not actually see the contact.

The case was only sent to the Tribunal because this particulatr trainer told the AFL Investigation Officer that he saw Baker hit Farmer.

Baker Denied it to teh Investigations Officer
Farmer told him he didn't know what happened.
No-one other than the Freo trainer claimed to have seen it.

Based solely on this account by the Freo Trainer the charge weas laid.

IMO, the Tribunal Chairman erred by not dismissing the case immediatley it bacame clear that teh Freo trainer did not actually see the 'hit'.

Baker's and the Saints mistake was that their representative did not demand this outcome at the time and chose to allow him to give evidence. They obviously (erroneously) felt that given Baker had not done anything malicious or 'against the rules' they hadf nothing to fear from telling the truth. History will judge that as a bad judgement call. It would seem that this particular Tribunal found a way to find him guilty of a 'heinous crime' that warranted 7 weeks suspension.
(I know they only gave him 4 plus his carryover, but if they wanted him to be out of the game for 4 they would have given him 1 plus his carryover. To argue they didn't know/ weren't aware of the additional 3 beggars belief).

But Bakes admitted contact which he should not have. They couldnt throw it out after that. But I have had enough of this rubbish. Unless we can get the weeks back that every unluckly Saints players have got I dont see the point of something that has already happened. We can cry till we a blue in the face about incidents but so can other clubs. Who cares. You know what I care about is how we are travelling as a side and can we win on Friday. You can live in the past but it is about friday for me.

My goodness - it's good enough for high profile journos to seriously question these incidents, for the St.Kilda FC to seek clarification as to why the Baker case is different to the West case and for the general outrage of the community in this "process" - BUT , no-one on here can say anything because Plugger is adamant that there is nothing we can do about it and/or the AFL have no conspiracy against anyone!!?? Stop lecturing ppl on what and when we should be outraged. For goodness sakes even blind freddy could see that there is a massive inconsistency happening here - we can all see Bakes was stitched-up by the AFL - except it seems you???

[Mooksy]

I believe part of the problem is those representing us at the tribunal. We don't make compelling cases very well.

[Behind Play]

I believe part of the problem is those representing us at the tribunal. We don't make compelling cases very well.

These guys are gone now and thankfully we haven't needed the services of the new representatives. It will be interesting to see how we fair, should we have one of the boys up on a charge.

[bigcarl]

The match review panel has made a very poor decision. So poor that a perplexed St Kilda Football Club sought further explanation from the panel.

well at least we did that much. they owe us one now