Kerr 3 Baker dudded

[Fidelis]

Just heard Kerr offered 3 weeks for what was clearly an intentional contact with the head. It was, in my eyes, by any reasonable measure a more deliberate action than Bakers and, what's more, caught on camera. Bakes has every reason to feel hard done by

[plugger66]

Just heard Kerr offered 3 weeks for what was clearly an intentional contact with the head. It was, in my eyes, by any reasonable measure a more deliberate action than Bakers and, what's more, caught on camera. Bakes has every reason to feel hard done by

He got 5 weeks, Bakes got 4 weeks.

[satchmo]

Just heard Kerr offered 3 weeks for what was clearly an intentional contact with the head. It was, in my eyes, by any reasonable measure a more deliberate action than Bakers and, what's more, caught on camera. Bakes has every reason to feel hard done by

He got 5 weeks, Bakes got 4 weeks.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, Plugger, Bakes was suspended for SEVEN weeks.

[plugger66]

Just heard Kerr offered 3 weeks for what was clearly an intentional contact with the head. It was, in my eyes, by any reasonable measure a more deliberate action than Bakers and, what's more, caught on camera. Bakes has every reason to feel hard done by

He got 5 weeks, Bakes got 4 weeks.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, Plugger, Bakes was suspended for SEVEN weeks.

And it doesnt matter how many times you say it the tribunal gave him 4 and he got 3 others because of a poor record. Kerr probably got a week or 2 extra as well because of his record.

[Buckets]

Just heard Kerr offered 3 weeks for what was clearly an intentional contact with the head. It was, in my eyes, by any reasonable measure a more deliberate action than Bakers and, what's more, caught on camera. Bakes has every reason to feel hard done by

He got 5 weeks, Bakes got 4 weeks.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, Plugger, Bakes was suspended for SEVEN weeks.

And it doesnt matter how many times you say it the tribunal gave him 4 and he got 3 others because of a poor record. Kerr probably got a week or 2 extra as well because of his record.

Well if that is the case Bakes still got royally screwed because Kerr doesnt have the best of records for the past 3 years and he still only got 3 weeks! If i remember correctly West had to go off the ground because of the hit so why is lower than Bakes?
And if Kerr did have weeks put on because of his priors are you telling me that he only got 1 week for the hit and 2 weeks for priors??? If that is correct then the MRP is totally out of wack!

[Armoooo]

They finally found something Kerr couldn't get off for, amazing...

[plugger66]

Just heard Kerr offered 3 weeks for what was clearly an intentional contact with the head. It was, in my eyes, by any reasonable measure a more deliberate action than Bakers and, what's more, caught on camera. Bakes has every reason to feel hard done by

He got 5 weeks, Bakes got 4 weeks.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, Plugger, Bakes was suspended for SEVEN weeks.

And it doesnt matter how many times you say it the tribunal gave him 4 and he got 3 others because of a poor record. Kerr probably got a week or 2 extra as well because of his record.

Well if that is the case Bakes still got royally screwed because Kerr doesnt have the best of records for the past 3 years and he still only got 3 weeks! If i remember correctly West had to go off the ground because of the hit so why is lower than Bakes?
And if Kerr did have weeks put on because of his priors are you telling me that he only got 1 week for the hit and 2 weeks for priors??? If that is correct then the MRP is totally out of wack!

At the moment Kerr has 5 not 3 so I dont understand what you are talking about.

[saintbrat]

Kerr = 3 weeks plus 1 for priors record = 4 with reduction for guilty = 3


Bakes =4 weeks + % for priors + Plus 2 games in points (from early2007) = 7 just over the 700 so no chance =for reduction-

no way was Bakes going to get less than 3- even if it had been judged accidental and he was given 1 week= 4
he can't get a reduction for guilty plee because he gets a loading for priors

[fonz_#15]

we're so hard done by, the afl seriously wants st.kilda to collapse... whinge whinge whinge f****** whinge.

bakers suspension was a joke, but it isnt going to change, comparing it to every tribunal case that goes up this year WILL NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT BAKER WAS SUSPENDED FOR 7 WEEKS.

get over it FFS

[matrix]

baker got 4 weeks...the other three had NOTHING to do with the farmer incident.
if he hadnt of done the other shite previously he would have got four.
its quite basic really.

so is kerr going to miss 3 or 5 games, someone tell me straight here?
id more than likely believe saintbrat and go with the three weeks

[my les foote]

Kerr = 3 weeks plus 1 for priors record = 4 with reduction for guilty = 3


Bakes =4 weeks + % for priors + Plus 2 games in points (from early2007) = 7 just over the 700 so no chance =for reduction-

no way was Bakes going to get less than 3- even if it had been judged accidental and he was given 1 week= 4
he can't get a reduction for guilty plee because he gets a loading for priors

I don't understand. You say Kerr has priors but gets a reduction if he pleads guilty but Baker had priors so he couldn't?

I thought Baker's right to plea guilty was not available because it was not referred to the MRP but went straight to the tribunal.

I also think that Baker was given 325 demerit points, the same as Kerr which I find weird. Kerr looked at West and head butted him. Baker stopped and let Farmer crash into him.

[saintsrus]

Im sure the key was Kerr didnt have any carryovers

[saintsrus]

so is kerr going to miss 3 or 5 games, someone tell me straight here?
id more than likely believe saintbrat and go with the three weeks

He got 5 but can accept 3 with an early guilty plea

[my les foote]

Im sure the key was Kerr didnt have any carryovers

The AFL's match review panel charged Kerr with a level four offence, attracting 325 demerit points and a three-match sanction.

However, his existing bad record — four matches suspended within the past three years — increased the penalty by 40%. Kerr also has 46.78 points carried over from within the past 12 months, taking the total to 501.78 points and a five-match sanction.

If Kerr makes an early guilty plea he can cut the penalty by 25% to 376.34 points and a three-match sanction.

[saintsrus]

Maybe not

Thanks Les

[Mr Magic]

[quote="my les foote"][
I thought Baker's right to plea guilty was not available because it was not referred to the MRP but went straight to the tribunal.

quote]

Spot on MLF.
The comparison is not correct because we have here 2 different panels handing out penalties.

If Kerr decides to roll the dice and go to the Tribunal we will be able to see how that panel (the Tribunal) compares with the penalty they gave Bakes.

[bigmicka]

ok he got 4 weeks for the offence, plus the 150 points left over from the marc murphy case, then loading. He did not get a chance to pleade guilty.

His poor record is what irks me.

Susspended for kicking when alessio was standing on his ankle. (Aker kicked Harves twice in the chest after the supposed squirel grip, nothing)

Susspended for wrestingling two Carlton players, It was a two on one situation yet the one gets reported for it. (obvious AFL bias and then the judge screws it by leaving him with 150 carry over points)

Susspended for Attempted Striking on Stafford, seriously he is a foot shorter than the guy. How many other attempted striking charges have there been in the last 3 years? and of those players are they also on the AFL hit list?)

The only charge that warrented a suspension was on Kayne Johnson.

Because of the AFL's incompetence Baker will be lost to St Kilda. He is our best defensive small player, but won't be able to do anything on the ground for fear of being rubbed out again. Watch for the next tiggy touchwood thing he does and he will get ten.

The AFL is disgrace, i have little respect for anyone running this competition. Dimwit should become a poker pro and leave the game alone, AA should go back to being a scum sucking lawyer. Fitzpatrick is probably trying to take over the Morans old business, with his old links to Leo Brooks.

mic

[st.byron]

Just heard Kerr offered 3 weeks for what was clearly an intentional contact with the head. It was, in my eyes, by any reasonable measure a more deliberate action than Bakers and, what's more, caught on camera. Bakes has every reason to feel hard done by

He got 5 weeks, Bakes got 4 weeks.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, Plugger, Bakes was suspended for SEVEN weeks.

And it doesnt matter how many times you say it the tribunal gave him 4 and he got 3 others because of a poor record. Kerr probably got a week or 2 extra as well because of his record.

no Kerr got five or three with guilty plea. Bakes chose not to plead guilty and copped seven. If Kerr goes to the tribunal he'll cop five.

[Saints Premiers 2008]

he's back now so why the whinging...

[Solar]

Just heard Kerr offered 3 weeks for what was clearly an intentional contact with the head. It was, in my eyes, by any reasonable measure a more deliberate action than Bakers and, what's more, caught on camera. Bakes has every reason to feel hard done by

He got 5 weeks, Bakes got 4 weeks.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, Plugger, Bakes was suspended for SEVEN weeks.

And it doesnt matter how many times you say it the tribunal gave him 4 and he got 3 others because of a poor record. Kerr probably got a week or 2 extra as well because of his record.

no Kerr got five or three with guilty plea. Bakes chose not to plead guilty and copped seven. If Kerr goes to the tribunal he'll cop five.

no he had no choice to plead guilty or not, it went straight to the tribunal so he never had the chance to take the 25% discount. Yet hall and kerr are able to plead guilty to worse incedents. Thats where this whole system falls down. IMO they need to make that 25% pleading guilty only accessable to those given less then 300 points (3 weeks). It's bizzare that hall and kerr are caught on tape, thus allowing them to plead guilty. Thats bizzarre!

[Saints Premiers 2008]

get back to work/uni/school people

this topic is dead...

[Solar]

get back to work/uni/school people

this topic is dead...

seriously I don't get this type of comment, the topic is over because you said so?

Some points made are needed to be looked at and debated because they are on going problems with the system. At what stage do incidents go straight to the tribunal (thus disallowing the 25% discount for pleading guilty), in fact should those caught on film be able to plead guilty if its a high level offence? They bought in the plead guilty part to get more of the smaller offences out of the way without it going to the tribunal. Is this fair in the high grade offences?

[st.byron]

Just heard Kerr offered 3 weeks for what was clearly an intentional contact with the head. It was, in my eyes, by any reasonable measure a more deliberate action than Bakers and, what's more, caught on camera. Bakes has every reason to feel hard done by

He got 5 weeks, Bakes got 4 weeks.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, Plugger, Bakes was suspended for SEVEN weeks.

And it doesnt matter how many times you say it the tribunal gave him 4 and he got 3 others because of a poor record. Kerr probably got a week or 2 extra as well because of his record.

thanks for the correction Solar. Agree with you that system is not equitable.

no Kerr got five or three with guilty plea. Bakes chose not to plead guilty and copped seven. If Kerr goes to the tribunal he'll cop five.

no he had no choice to plead guilty or not, it went straight to the tribunal so he never had the chance to take the 25% discount. Yet hall and kerr are able to plead guilty to worse incedents. Thats where this whole system falls down. IMO they need to make that 25% pleading guilty only accessable to those given less then 300 points (3 weeks). It's bizzare that hall and kerr are caught on tape, thus allowing them to plead guilty. Thats bizzarre!

[Otiman]

And it doesnt matter how many times you say it the tribunal gave him 4 and he got 3 others because of a poor record. Kerr probably got a week or 2 extra as well because of his record.

You've run this line for all eternity, have you cottoned on yet that people disagree with ALL OF the verdict, the punishment, and also the system for punishing a "bad record".

[st_Trav_ofWA]

seriously !!!! are we going to sook about this every time some one go's to the tribunal and gets less then Bakes ???

the bakes fiasco was a farce i know that you know that the whole world know that debating it over and over and over and over again achieves what exactly ?
its non stop can we please for the love of Harvey stop sooking over a dead issue Bakes has done his time rightfully or wrongfully its over the powers that be cant shorten his penalty now can they !!! let it go build a brigdge have bex and a lie down what ever floats your boat but please lets just stop the constant sooking !!!!!