Lake gone for 2-3 weeks as per new 'Baker's Law'

BakesFan · Post: # 951962Post **BakesFan** » Sat 03 Jul 2010 3:37pm

Lake's penalty should be doubled on the grounds of stupidity given the hysteria and highlighting of such incidents all week.

awesome_days · Sat 03 Jul 2010 8:55pm

In general I would say free kick, nothing more.

In light of what happened last week, and the remarks made by AFL re off the ball instances, Lake needs to be cited and found guilty, 1 week reduced to reprimand.

If the ALF is really serious about behind play niggling, they should introduce a penalty of persistant unsportsmanlike behaviour carrying a 200 point penalty.

That way if players want to do it they know they are going to miss a week, maybe two. It will also relieve pressure on the "umpires should take control" brigade and allow play to flow like it did last friday.

Life Long Saint · Sat 03 Jul 2010 11:36pm

Can't believe that nobody has mentioned the penalty that Buddy will cop for attempting to strike Lake earlier in the quarter...Happened on the members HFF.

Under the Baker rule and given his poor record (30% or 40% loading), he will be in trouble.

I fully expect the MRP to penalise the heinous act!

bigcarl · Post: # 952049Post **bigcarl** » Sun 04 Jul 2010 12:02am

Life Long Saint wrote:I fully expect the MRP to penalise the heinous act!

good one

saint3d · Post: # 952051Post **saint3d** » Sun 04 Jul 2010 12:15am

awesome_days wrote:If the ALF is really serious

He looks pretty serious to me.

jays · Post: # 952062Post **jays** » Sun 04 Jul 2010 12:45am

hehe love this thread

Griggsy · Post: # 952068Post **Griggsy** » Sun 04 Jul 2010 12:52am

saint3d wrote:
awesome_days wrote:If the ALF is really serious
He looks pretty serious to me.

I think he meant this guy, uniform at the ready to take charge of this charade.

saintsrus · Post: # 952856Post **saintsrus** » Mon 05 Jul 2010 5:36pm

Officially Lake has no case to answer due in insufficient force

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

Sainterman · Post: # 952861Post **Sainterman** » Mon 05 Jul 2010 5:40pm

saintsrus wrote:Officially Lake has no case to answer due in insufficient force

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

How funny is that...who knows how they measure force...

A very large joke known as the MRP continues to grow.

Well done AFL management, you have totally confused players, umpires and supporters with your inconsistent and corrupt ways.

dcstkfc · Post: # 952866Post **dcstkfc** » Mon 05 Jul 2010 5:47pm

saintsrus wrote:Officially Lake has no case to answer due in insufficient force

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

Further disgrace

Dis Believer · Mon 05 Jul 2010 5:49pm

Sainterman wrote:
saintsrus wrote:Officially Lake has no case to answer due in insufficient force

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx
How funny is that...who knows how they measure force...

A very large joke known as the MRP continues to grow.

Well done AFL management, you have totally confused players, umpires and supporters with your inconsistent and corrupt ways.

And this is exactly the things that gave me the s***s last week - does anyone know if anywhere in the rules there is a reference to a level of force required to consitute a strike? I seriously doubt that there is and is the re reason that BAker should have gotten off? Whilst they cannot use precedent (convenient for the MRP) they can argue that all case thrown out on the basis of lack of force are arbritary and as such Bakers was of insuffiicient force (it's an arbitrary judgement, impossible for the AFL to have beaten the argument).

TazzieSaintGirl83 · Mon 05 Jul 2010 5:52pm

Trying to decide between laughing and disbelief right now, this has to be a joke.
Everything we got dragged through the mud for, contact off the play and level of force, happens again this week but no case to be answered.

ralphsmith · Post: # 952882Post **ralphsmith** » Mon 05 Jul 2010 6:12pm

Why was Baker suspended and Lake was not?

saintbrat · Post: # 952884Post **saintbrat** » Mon 05 Jul 2010 6:19pm

Difference could only be - ACCIDENTAL
as opposed to DELIBERATE as Bakes was .

Kyle Cheney, Melbourne, has been charged with a level two striking offence against Brendon Goddard, St Kilda, during the second quarter of the round 14 match between Melbourne and St Kilda, played at Etihad Stadium on Sunday July 4, 2010.

In summary, he can accept a reprimand and 93.75 points towards his future record with an early plea.

The incident was assessed as intentional conduct (three points), low impact (one point) and body contact (one point). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a level two offence, drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to a reprimand and 93.75 points towards his future record.

Contact between Collingwoodâ€™s Luke Ball and West Coastâ€™s Beau Wilkes from the third quarter of Saturdayâ€™s match was assessed. Ball was pursuing the ball after a boundary line throw-in. Wilkes arrives at the contest just before Ball and bends down to gain possession. Ball tries to minimise the impact of the contact and contact is made primarily to the shoulder region of the West Coast player. No further action was taken.

that a first- even to be looked at?>

Thinline · Post: # 952898Post **Thinline** » Mon 05 Jul 2010 7:03pm

I know the stitch up was (apparently) premeditated, but still this week's MRP findings make our insipid attempt at fighting last week's seem positively childlike.

Hurricane · Post: # 952900Post **Hurricane** » Mon 05 Jul 2010 7:05pm

Of course he wasnt going to go, the league would be in serious trouble if they suspended a player from the PM's side

BANG BANG