In the cold light of day

[meher baba]

Baker and the club know that he has unreasonably targeted by the AFL. And he is perceived by neutral supporters and most media people as a thug and a blight on the game.

To the extent I can look at this with two eyes, it all seems like ridiculously unfair scapegoating of a player whose main "crime" seems to have been an superior ability to shut star players like Judd and Ablett out of big games.

But the scapegoating was there, and the club seemed to have responded appropriately by moving him out of the tagging role and getting him to tidy up his act. And the whole footy world was impressed with what he can do when he concentrates on footy.

On Friday, he was back to the worst aspects of his old style: wrestling, throwing pissweak punches and deliberately hitting SJ on his injured hand.

12 weeks is a ludicrous and totally unjust penalty, but I can't help feeling that Bakes put himself right in harm's way. He knew (or should have known) the risks. Even if he'd only gotten 2 weeks, that would have been a bad result for the club in exchange for what exactly? The opportunity to indulge in some pointless niggling nonsense with Stevie J.

Indulgence is what it was, and I've woken up feeling pretty pissed off not only with the AFL, but with Bakes too (and Lyon, if he instructed Baker to go out and behave like that, which I seriously doubt).

[Thinline]

My original view was that the punches were inconsequential. Having seen them played ad finitum last night, they were clearly a bit more than that, but IMO not much worse than a million others that get passed over every season (love tap, anyone??).

HOWEVER AND REGARDLESS

Hall, a player with 'history', got seven weeks for knocking out a bloke with a closed fist punch. Baker got three months for a series of relatively tame taps that deserved scrutiny, but not the death penalty.

Also, what did McPhee get for scragging Judd all night? Donuts.

Also again, what did the umpires do about the scrapping on the night? Donuts.

In the end one player was allowed to get away with over the top antics or too long and another has been slammed for retaliating.

Neither have been fairly done by because officialdom has failed the game.

Where's Plugger66? I'd like to know his views on this from an umps perspective.

[gringo]

I think the AFL has really at least clarified a few things for the players.


DON'T SCRAG....KINGHIT players or elbows to the face are cool but don't mess around with little pissy things.

Finally we have a decent MRP that sends a message to filter down through the comps. I will be instructing my kids on the new priorities.

I can't wait to see it in the finals, the old school big round elbows, Robbie Muir style explosions, and only a couple of weeks. Awesome. Just keep the little scrag out of the game, unless your Judd.

[Thinline]

I think the AFL has really at least clarified a few things for the players.


DON'T SCRAG....KINGHIT players or elbows to the face are cool but don't mess around with little pissy things.

Finally we have a decent MRP that sends a message to filter down through the comps. I will be instructing my kids on the new priorities.

I can't wait to see it in the finals, the old school big round elbows, Robbie Muir style explosions, and only a couple of weeks. Awesome. Just keep the little scrag out of the game, unless your Judd.

Without the loading, the penalties are all but equal...

[degruch]

I reckon Bakes could have saved it for the GF too, but regardless, he's the only tagger that applies this kind of harrassment that the AFL wants to shut down, having pushed Port's Carr completely out of the game.

As pointed out by Thinline, the penalty is equal to many (albeit many greater incidents IMO), it's the ridiculous loading which helps blows the whole gig out. Mind you, slapping someone's hand should not constitute a strike in the first place.

BTW, how did SJ break his hand?

[oneteam]

Baker and the club know that he has unreasonably targeted by the AFL. And he is perceived by neutral supporters and most media people as a thug and a blight on the game.

To the extent I can look at this with two eyes, it all seems like ridiculously unfair scapegoating of a player whose main "crime" seems to have been an superior ability to shut star players like Judd and Ablett out of big games.

But the scapegoating was there, and the club seemed to have responded appropriately by moving him out of the tagging role and getting him to tidy up his act. And the whole footy world was impressed with what he can do when he concentrates on footy.

On Friday, he was back to the worst aspects of his old style: wrestling, throwing pissweak punches and deliberately hitting SJ on his injured hand.

12 weeks is a ludicrous and totally unjust penalty, but I can't help feeling that Bakes put himself right in harm's way. He knew (or should have known) the risks. Even if he'd only gotten 2 weeks, that would have been a bad result for the club in exchange for what exactly? The opportunity to indulge in some pointless niggling nonsense with Stevie J.

Indulgence is what it was, and I've woken up feeling pretty pissed off not only with the AFL, but with Bakes too (and Lyon, if he instructed Baker to go out and behave like that, which I seriously doubt).

Exactly right MB

And I add, that he went above the shoulder 3 times. A great tagger/defender , knows the limits and sticks to them

[SainterK]

I am confident Ross told everyone to be physical and intimidating, I doubt he told him to make contact to the face.

Watching the vision with two eyes, the hit to the chin was forceful and he deserves his penalty. The other striking charges were insignificant, especially the contact to the neck during the jumper punching.

I made it very clear that I didn't like Stevie hitting an injured hand, I don't agree with concept and agree it should be misconduct. However I think it's unfair to see a precedent set when their was a more blatant and far more forceful attempt only weeks earlier.

He pushed the boundaries, but we are not talking about him flying solo here, there was two players involved and the gulf between the penalties is crazy.

[Moods]

Baker and the club know that he has unreasonably targeted by the AFL. And he is perceived by neutral supporters and most media people as a thug and a blight on the game.

To the extent I can look at this with two eyes, it all seems like ridiculously unfair scapegoating of a player whose main "crime" seems to have been an superior ability to shut star players like Judd and Ablett out of big games.

But the scapegoating was there, and the club seemed to have responded appropriately by moving him out of the tagging role and getting him to tidy up his act. And the whole footy world was impressed with what he can do when he concentrates on footy.

On Friday, he was back to the worst aspects of his old style: wrestling, throwing pissweak punches and deliberately hitting SJ on his injured hand.

12 weeks is a ludicrous and totally unjust penalty, but I can't help feeling that Bakes put himself right in harm's way. He knew (or should have known) the risks. Even if he'd only gotten 2 weeks, that would have been a bad result for the club in exchange for what exactly? The opportunity to indulge in some pointless niggling nonsense with Stevie J.

Indulgence is what it was, and I've woken up feeling pretty pissed off not only with the AFL, but with Bakes too (and Lyon, if he instructed Baker to go out and behave like that, which I seriously doubt).

Fair post. I was just commenting last night to a mate that I hadn't seen Bakes play this way for about 3 years. Not sure why he felt the need to go back to these ways. He thrashed SJ in the GF last year w/o resorting to these tactics. It's beyond doubt that he has been murdered by the MRP, but why put himself in that position to start off with? Very silly.

[bigred]

The AFL is biased and need to be taken to task for their rigging of the competition.

No tinfoil hats here.

[samoht]

Indulgence is what it was, and I've woken up feeling pretty pissed off not only with the AFL, but with Bakes too (and Lyon, if he instructed Baker to go out and behave like that, which I seriously doubt).

I was pounced upon and told to crawl under a rock or into a hole yesterday for feeling ambivalent about the whole thing and for putting a reasonable amount of blame back on Baker.

We were screwed (Baker should have got 2 weeks maximum)... but it still doesn't alter the fact that Baker didn't have to risk being reported.

[Thinline]

Baker and the club know that he has unreasonably targeted by the AFL. And he is perceived by neutral supporters and most media people as a thug and a blight on the game.

To the extent I can look at this with two eyes, it all seems like ridiculously unfair scapegoating of a player whose main "crime" seems to have been an superior ability to shut star players like Judd and Ablett out of big games.

But the scapegoating was there, and the club seemed to have responded appropriately by moving him out of the tagging role and getting him to tidy up his act. And the whole footy world was impressed with what he can do when he concentrates on footy.

On Friday, he was back to the worst aspects of his old style: wrestling, throwing pissweak punches and deliberately hitting SJ on his injured hand.

12 weeks is a ludicrous and totally unjust penalty, but I can't help feeling that Bakes put himself right in harm's way. He knew (or should have known) the risks. Even if he'd only gotten 2 weeks, that would have been a bad result for the club in exchange for what exactly? The opportunity to indulge in some pointless niggling nonsense with Stevie J.

Indulgence is what it was, and I've woken up feeling pretty pissed off not only with the AFL, but with Bakes too (and Lyon, if he instructed Baker to go out and behave like that, which I seriously doubt).

Fair post. I was just commenting last night to a mate that I hadn't seen Bakes play this way for about 3 years. Not sure why he felt the need to go back to these ways. He thrashed SJ in the GF last year w/o resorting to these tactics. It's beyond doubt that he has been murdered by the MRP, but why put himself in that position to start off with? Very silly.

Perfect opportunity to make an example.

Baker flirts with the edge of the rules, has a poor image and reputation, and he's arguably in his last season.

What better target for a public lynching?

Baker was foolish, but he was being permitted to carry on unchecked.

Would a policeman watch an assault in the hope they might lay a subsequent robbery charge in addition?

The inescapable truth is the umps did bugger all ALL NIGHT to either protagonist and the MRP's inconsistent application of the basic principles - Riewoldt J, Judd, McPhee, Hall's headlock etc etc... - is so ridiculously disproportionate that the only way to tackle this whole shitstorm is to go legal.

There's no other way.

[Sainterman]

Indulgence is what it was, and I've woken up feeling pretty pissed off not only with the AFL, but with Bakes too (and Lyon, if he instructed Baker to go out and behave like that, which I seriously doubt).

I was pounced upon and told to crawl under a rock or into a hole yesterday for feeling ambivalent about the whole thing and for putting a reasonable amount of blame back on Baker.

We were screwed (Baker should have got 2 weeks maximum)... but it still doesn't alter the fact that Baker didn't have to risk being reported.

It is fine to say he should not have put himself in this position, but the point remains that he got 12 weeks...not the 2 that any normal and sane person might expect.

Even if he committed the offence, the punishment needs to fit the crime, and in relative terms it does not. You cannot tell me Bakes should be treated differently to a Judd, and if he is then this is an out and out disgrace. Something is terribly wrong here relative to other MRP results. The system is not working, and is the worst the AFL have ever had in place.

Yes, Bakes could avoid being reported or reviewed, but in no way is 12 weeks anything like fair, and in no way should he have expected this to be the result of his actions.

[samoht]

They have always had 2 sets of rules when it came to Baker - so they have been consistently hard on him.

Therefore the best and most sensible thing for Baker to do is avoid the tribunal - more than anyone else.

[Sainterman]

They have always had 2 sets of rules when it came to Baker - so they have been consistently hard on him.

Therefore the best and most sensible thing for Baker to do is avoid the tribunal - more than anyone else.

The best and most sensible thing would be for there to be 1 set of rules. Seriously, how difficult is it for this to be the case?

Are we in a fair unbiased competition here or not??

All the hard work our boys put in preparing for an AFL season and now we need to modify things cos the AFL has favorites and then those it likes to make an example of?

I just cannot accept this as reasonable.

[IcanKickit]

good onya bakes ... should of hit him harder though.

catch em and smash em = our flag.

that'll do me.

sorry , to those , this opinion offends

[samoht]

The best and most sensible thing would be for there to be 1 set of rules. Seriously, how difficult is it for this to be the case?

I agree I wish there was 1 set of rules ... but in the clear absence of that ( Baker already knew there was another set of rules for him ) the sensible thing is just to avoid being reported.

You can only control what you can control - it's not as if it's compulsory and unavoidable for Baker to get reported - other players go through a whole career without being reported once.

[rodgerfox]

I can't believe what I read sometimes.

There are rules. They are clear. Getting reported and even copping a week or two is not a concern - sometimes you need to break some eggs to make an omelet.

This is why this such a disgrace. It's not the fact he's going to miss some games - it's the fact that he's going to miss f***ing 12 of them!! He's going to miss 12 of them when others have done far worse and have missed far less games than him!


For the soccer mums, limp wrists and nanas, here's a list of guys - tell me what they have in common...

Leigh Matthews
Dermott Brereton
Dustin Fletcher
Jonothan Brown
Wayne Carey
Cameron Mooney
Barry Hall
Mick Martyn
Glenn Archer
Dipper
Josh Carr
Byron Pickett
etc. etc. etc.


Don't start this 'Bakes shouldn't have put himself in that situation' shiit. Having blokes like Bakes who put themselves in that situation is why w're a contender. And it's why all the great teams are great teams.
Missing a week here and there is absolutely worth it - if it gets you a mental edge every time you walk on the park.

Getting 12 is just f****** bullshiit.

[Thinline]

I can't believe what I read sometimes.

There are rules. They are clear. Getting reported and even copping a week or two is not a concern - sometimes you need to break some eggs to make an omelet.

This is why this such a disgrace. It's not the fact he's going to miss some games - it's the fact that he's going to miss f***ing 12 of them!! He's going to miss 12 of them when others have done far worse and have missed far less games than him!


For the soccer mums, limp wrists and nanas, here's a list of guys - tell me what they have in common...

Leigh Matthews
Dermott Brereton
Dustin Fletcher
Jonothan Brown
Wayne Carey
Cameron Mooney
Barry Hall
Mick Martyn
Glenn Archer
Dipper
Josh Carr
Byron Pickett
etc. etc. etc.


Don't start this 'Bakes shouldn't have put himself in that situation' shiit. Having blokes like Bakes who put themselves in that situation is why w're a contender. And it's why all the great teams are great teams.
Missing a week here and there is absolutely worth it - if it gets you a mental edge every time you walk on the park.

Getting 12 is just f****** bullshiit.

YEP YEP YEP YEP AND YEP.

[SainterK]

I can't believe what I read sometimes.

There are rules. They are clear. Getting reported and even copping a week or two is not a concern - sometimes you need to break some eggs to make an omelet.

This is why this such a disgrace. It's not the fact he's going to miss some games - it's the fact that he's going to miss f***ing 12 of them!! He's going to miss 12 of them when others have done far worse and have missed far less games than him!


For the soccer mums, limp wrists and nanas, here's a list of guys - tell me what they have in common...

Leigh Matthews
Dermott Brereton
Dustin Fletcher
Jonothan Brown
Wayne Carey
Cameron Mooney
Barry Hall
Mick Martyn
Glenn Archer
Dipper
Josh Carr
Byron Pickett
etc. etc. etc.


Don't start this 'Bakes shouldn't have put himself in that situation' shiit. Having blokes like Bakes who put themselves in that situation is why w're a contender. And it's why all the great teams are great teams.
Missing a week here and there is absolutely worth it - if it gets you a mental edge every time you walk on the park.

Getting 12 is just f****** bullshiit.

Well I'm a mum swear bear...

The only part I don't like is that he targetted an injured hand, and I think only one of the striking charges had sufficient force.

Should of got a warning in regards to misconduct, and about 4 weeks for the punch in the jaw.

[rodgerfox]

Should of got a warning in regards to misconduct, and about 4 weeks for the punch in the jaw.

Do you know the rules SainterK?

Or are you using your moral handbook to come to these decisions?

[SainterK]

Should of got a warning in regards to misconduct, and about 4 weeks for the punch in the jaw.

Do you know the rules SainterK?

Or are you using your moral handbook to come to these decisions?

So you think he should of been charged with midconduct, keeping in mind the MRP had a perfect example to make an 'example' of someone only a few weeks previous?

So head high, intentional, medium force....50% loading = ?

[samoht]

Should of got a warning in regards to misconduct, and about 4 weeks for the punch in the jaw.

Well said ... and all saint fans should not forget - that punch was unnecessary - that's what disappoints me.

You can be equally tough (let's call it sensibly tough) without throwing silly reportable punches behind play.

[rodgerfox]

Should of got a warning in regards to misconduct, and about 4 weeks for the punch in the jaw.

Do you know the rules SainterK?

Or are you using your moral handbook to come to these decisions?

So you think he should of been charged with midconduct, keeping in mind the MRP had a perfect example to make an 'example' of someone only a few weeks previous?

Head high, intentional, medium force....50% loading = ?

He absolutely should not have been charged with misconduct.

Every 5 minutes a player gets up from a contest whincing. Are they off limits until everyone decides they feel better???

He wasn't in the hands of the trainers. He was on the ground, and he continued to participate in contests after Bakes tickled his hand.

To charge him with misconduct on the grounds that he made unnecessary contact with an injured player is the most farcical thing I've ever heard in my life.


As for ...

"Head high, intentional, medium force....50% loading = ?"

This is where the whole issue arises. Judd recklessly caused head high contact with Pavlich with high force - force enough to open a gash in his head. And it wasn't hard enough to constitute a strike.

So, based on the rules, it wasn't medium force in which Baker hit Johnson.

Hall knocking out Staker was high impact.
Judd splitting open Pavlich was lower than low impact.

So how to get to Baker's 'strike' being medium force??

[SainterK]

Should of got a warning in regards to misconduct, and about 4 weeks for the punch in the jaw.

Do you know the rules SainterK?

Or are you using your moral handbook to come to these decisions?

So you think he should of been charged with midconduct, keeping in mind the MRP had a perfect example to make an 'example' of someone only a few weeks previous?

Head high, intentional, medium force....50% loading = ?

He absolutely should not have been charged with misconduct.

Every 5 minutes a player gets up from a contest whincing. Are they off limits until everyone decides they feel better???

He wasn't in the hands of the trainers. He was on the ground, and he continued to participate in contests after Bakes tickled his hand.

To charge him with misconduct on the grounds that he made unnecessary contact with an injured player is the most farcical thing I've ever heard in my life.


As for ...

"Head high, intentional, medium force....50% loading = ?"

This is where the whole issue arises. Judd recklessly caused head high contact with Pavlich with high force - force enough to open a gash in his head. And it wasn't hard enough to constitute a strike.

So, based on the rules, it wasn't medium force in which Baker hit Johnson.

Hall knocking out Staker was high impact.
Judd splitting open Pavlich was lower than low impact.

So how to get to Baker's 'strike' being medium force??

All very fair, but there is no precendent in regards to the MRP

[rodgerfox]

Should of got a warning in regards to misconduct, and about 4 weeks for the punch in the jaw.

Do you know the rules SainterK?

Or are you using your moral handbook to come to these decisions?

So you think he should of been charged with midconduct, keeping in mind the MRP had a perfect example to make an 'example' of someone only a few weeks previous?

Head high, intentional, medium force....50% loading = ?

He absolutely should not have been charged with misconduct.

Every 5 minutes a player gets up from a contest whincing. Are they off limits until everyone decides they feel better???

He wasn't in the hands of the trainers. He was on the ground, and he continued to participate in contests after Bakes tickled his hand.

To charge him with misconduct on the grounds that he made unnecessary contact with an injured player is the most farcical thing I've ever heard in my life.


As for ...

"Head high, intentional, medium force....50% loading = ?"

This is where the whole issue arises. Judd recklessly caused head high contact with Pavlich with high force - force enough to open a gash in his head. And it wasn't hard enough to constitute a strike.

So, based on the rules, it wasn't medium force in which Baker hit Johnson.

Hall knocking out Staker was high impact.
Judd splitting open Pavlich was lower than low impact.

So how to get to Baker's 'strike' being medium force??

All very fair, but there is no precendent in regards to the MRP

IT's not even about precedence though. This is another thing that shiits me.

The AFL and the MRP turn around every time and talk about there being no precedence (which in itself is just ludicrous) - but there has to be some definitions.

Definitions are used every week by the MRP to find guys guilty, and to find guys no guilty. All done without any actual definitions.

So these aren't precedence's I'm talking about - it's about logic telling you what they mean by 'medium force' based on things they've told us only 2 weeks earlier.

The precedence thing is a cop out by the AFL.

It's about definitions.