Bakes will understand

osama milne laden · Tue 03 Jun 2008 10:48am

MEDIA RELEASE FROM THE AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE

The AFL Match Review Panel wishes to advise it has completed an investigation into the circumstances as to why Port Adelaide's Chad Cornes left the field in the first quarter of Sunday's Round 10 match against Fremantle, played at Subiaco.

Cornes left the field and required treatment for a cut to the head after attempting to block Fremantle's Jeff Farmer. The Port Adelaide player said he turned side-on to block Farmer with his hip and shoulder, felt contact to the head, but was unaware which part of Farmer's body made contact with his head.

Farmer said the contact was caused by a clash of heads, and maintained that his arm remained at his side throughout the contact and was not raised at any stage.

After viewing the available video evidence and interviewing the players involved, the Match Review Panel determined there was no evidene to refute the claim the injury suffered by Cornes was the result of an accidental clash of heads. No further action will be taken in this matter.

ends

Patrick Keane

AFL Media Manager

Ice Wolf · Post: # 579889Post **Ice Wolf** » Tue 03 Jun 2008 10:55am

Maybe they should launch an investigation into Jeff Farmer.

Or Fremantle could get him a medical check-up seems he runs into things.

Although you'd have to wonder how stuffed Cornes would have been if Farmer managed to break his nose again.

The Fireman · Tue 03 Jun 2008 11:05am

very interesting, the AFL stuffed up with the Baker Farmer case and will never admit it no matter what.
But gee it's not as if we get the shitty end of the stick most times.

saintsrus · Post: # 579913Post **saintsrus** » Tue 03 Jun 2008 11:47am

When are you people going to understand that it was Baker that admitted he made contact.

The Fireman · Tue 03 Jun 2008 11:49am

saintsrus wrote:When are you people going to understand that it was Baker that admitted he made contact.

he admitted applied a block.
Farmer may have tried to head butt Bakes and came off 2nd best.

stinger · Post: # 579917Post **stinger** » Tue 03 Jun 2008 11:51am

saintsrus wrote:When are you people going to understand that it was Baker that admitted he made contact.

no....when are you going to acknowledge that the simple fact was that baker was poorly advised.....end of story.....

aussiejones · Tue 03 Jun 2008 1:29pm

baker was poorly advised.....

end of story .....

Ice Wolf · Post: # 580040Post **Ice Wolf** » Tue 03 Jun 2008 2:55pm

saintsrus wrote:When are you people going to understand that it was Baker that admitted he made contact.

So did Cornes :rolleyes:

Mr Magic · Post: # 580049Post **Mr Magic** » Tue 03 Jun 2008 3:07pm

Why were the MRP even involved in this?

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but in the Baker case, it was given to an 'Investigations Officer' who sent it straight to teh Tribunal, because THERE WAS NO VIDEO FOOTAGE OF THE INCIDENT.

Here we have a case of a player leaving the ground bleeding and apparently no video footage. Why wasn't this referred to the 'Investigations Officer'?

I'm not suggesting either player did anything wrong. But why in Baker's case was the MRP unable to adjudicate and they were able to in this case?

Sainterman · Post: # 580053Post **Sainterman** » Tue 03 Jun 2008 3:26pm

Mr Magic wrote:Why were the MRP even involved in this?

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but in the Baker case, it was given to an 'Investigations Officer' who sent it straight to teh Tribunal, because THERE WAS NO VIDEO FOOTAGE OF THE INCIDENT.

Here we have a case of a player leaving the ground bleeding and apparently no video footage. Why wasn't this referred to the 'Investigations Officer'?

I'm not suggesting either player did anything wrong. But why in Baker's case was the MRP unable to adjudicate and they were able to in this case?

Exactly, why were they treated differently? Because one had footage and the other didnt? Bakes should never have been at the tribunal based on this case at hand now and therefore would have never "admitted" anything.

sunsaint · Post: # 580056Post **sunsaint** » Tue 03 Jun 2008 3:33pm

the fundamental difference between the two is that the blocker came off worse than the blockee.
still doesnt change the fact that Bakes was sold up the river...

Dan Warna · Post: # 580082Post **Dan Warna** » Tue 03 Jun 2008 4:30pm

baker spoke AT the tribunal, not before when he was summoned.

this isn't going to any tribunal.

Baker made no comment till the actual hearing.

there WILL BE NO HEARING THIS TIME.

Mr Magic · Post: # 580086Post **Mr Magic** » Tue 03 Jun 2008 4:33pm

Dan Warna wrote:baker spoke AT the tribunal, not before when he was summoned.

this isn't going to any tribunal.

Baker made no comment till the actual hearing.

there WILL BE NO HEARING THIS TIME.

!00% spot on Dan
BUT why did the MRP lookinto this case and not Baker's?
Am I mistaken in believeing there was no video footage of either incident and that the similarity is that a player left the ground bleeding from something that happened 'off the ball'?