will merrett, buchanan go under the "baker rule"?

bigcarl · Post: # 954886Post **bigcarl** » Sat 10 Jul 2010 10:52pm

a fair bit of sniping going on, including buchanan's uncalled for attack on riewoldt after the three-quarter time siren and merrett dropping a knee into riewoldt's leg (not sure if it was the injured hammy)?

a dog act. obviously the lions have learned nothing from the baker penalty.

the league, if it is to have any integrity at all (which it does not) cannot tolerate this sort of off-the-ball sniping.

also, who was the saints player who had his guernsey ripped off during the melee?

clarky449 · Post: # 954890Post **clarky449** » Sat 10 Jul 2010 10:53pm

Mini i thought

markinUSA · Post: # 954894Post **markinUSA** » Sat 10 Jul 2010 10:57pm

I was listening to Roo's comments after the game. He is a class act, and even the commentators said he was "very diplomatic". But does anyone think anything will come of that push and shove stuff at half time?

bigcarl · Post: # 954898Post **bigcarl** » Sat 10 Jul 2010 10:58pm

markinUSA wrote:I was listening to Roo's comments after the game. He is a class act, and even the commentators said he was "very diplomatic". But does anyone think anything will come of that push and shove stuff at half time?

i think the "Steven Baker rule" might get a bit of an airing. Players being targeted off the ball, etc.

3rd generation saint · Sat 10 Jul 2010 11:03pm

Does Fevola count as a player?

ace · Post: # 954908Post **ace** » Sat 10 Jul 2010 11:06pm

The Steven Baker Rule only applies to St Kilda players.
Gilbert 9 weeks for a good tackle.
Blake 9 weeks for allowing an opponent to lose his balance.
$1,000,000 fine for self defence because of Darren Sully's corruption.

ozrulestrace · Sat 10 Jul 2010 11:08pm

McGrath for putting his hands around the throat of Sam Gilbert in the melee?

The way the MRP works they'll give Gilbert three weeks.

markinUSA · Post: # 954921Post **markinUSA** » Sat 10 Jul 2010 11:11pm

Commentators seemed to be implying that Zac should go for the Baker rule. Puh-lease!

Bernard Shakey · Sat 10 Jul 2010 11:13pm

Why don't you all just grow up and enjoy the game?

bigcarl · Post: # 954955Post **bigcarl** » Sat 10 Jul 2010 11:23pm

Bernard Shakey wrote:Why don't you all just grow up and enjoy the game?

apparently the coach isn't happy with some of the treatment dished out to riewoldt.

indicated that he thought some clear boundaries had been set in this regard. no doubt the baker rule to which he was referring.

all you would ask for is consistency.

kosifantutti23 · Sat 10 Jul 2010 11:23pm

If Blake made contact with that leg, he'll be in trouble.

bigcarl · Post: # 954963Post **bigcarl** » Sat 10 Jul 2010 11:25pm

kosifantutti23 wrote:If Blake made contact with that leg, he'll be in trouble.

that was accidental contact. he has a clean record and a good reputation. i'd be surprised if he's in any trouble.

mullet · Post: # 954968Post **mullet** » Sat 10 Jul 2010 11:26pm

Just showed on chanel 10 buddy's reckless hit on someone from geelong I dont remember who. It was reckless and with buddy's carry over points it really should get looked at, but I dont want to have to go through this sort of thing every week.

Thought Ross was very clever with his wording during the interview. Didnt come across as bitter, but still pointed a few things out. But any wany only 7 more weeks isnt it bakes

SainterK · Post: # 954970Post **SainterK** » Sat 10 Jul 2010 11:27pm

Bernard Shakey wrote:Why don't you all just grow up and enjoy the game?

Is it unladylike to say I quite enjoyed the melee? Loved they had intent to fly the flag for Roo, I also think it fired everyone up a bit....no fisty-cuffs or anything

Bernard Shakey · Sat 10 Jul 2010 11:27pm

bigcarl wrote:
Bernard Shakey wrote:Why don't you all just grow up and enjoy the game?
apparently the coach isn't happy with some of the treatment dished out to riewoldt.

indicated that he thought some clear boundaries had been set in this regard. no doubt the baker rule to which he was referring.

all you would ask for is consistency.

Not what I heard Ross say.

degruch · Post: # 954987Post **degruch** » Sat 10 Jul 2010 11:37pm

Under the Steven Baker Rule, the whole team is suspended for 3 weeks, including Baker for being an inspiration.

Scoop · Post: # 955001Post **Scoop** » Sat 10 Jul 2010 11:43pm

Bernard Shakey wrote:
bigcarl wrote:
Bernard Shakey wrote:Why don't you all just grow up and enjoy the game?
apparently the coach isn't happy with some of the treatment dished out to riewoldt.

indicated that he thought some clear boundaries had been set in this regard. no doubt the baker rule to which he was referring.

all you would ask for is consistency.
Not what I heard Ross say.

Exactly what I heard Ross say....

degruch · Post: # 955003Post **degruch** » Sat 10 Jul 2010 11:45pm

Scoop wrote:
Bernard Shakey wrote:
bigcarl wrote:
Bernard Shakey wrote:Why don't you all just grow up and enjoy the game?
apparently the coach isn't happy with some of the treatment dished out to riewoldt.

indicated that he thought some clear boundaries had been set in this regard. no doubt the baker rule to which he was referring.

all you would ask for is consistency.
Not what I heard Ross say.
Exactly what I heard Ross say....

I hope so...the AFL deserves a dig on that side of things.

bigcarl · Post: # 955057Post **bigcarl** » Sun 11 Jul 2010 12:17am

Scoop wrote:
Bernard Shakey wrote:
bigcarl wrote:
Bernard Shakey wrote:Why don't you all just grow up and enjoy the game?
apparently the coach isn't happy with some of the treatment dished out to riewoldt.

indicated that he thought some clear boundaries had been set in this regard. no doubt the baker rule to which he was referring.

all you would ask for is consistency.
Not what I heard Ross say.
Exactly what I heard Ross say....

That is how I understood it Bernard. What was your interpretation?

bigcarl · Post: # 955117Post **bigcarl** » Sun 11 Jul 2010 1:24am

Scoop wrote:
Bernard Shakey wrote:
bigcarl wrote:
Bernard Shakey wrote:Why don't you all just grow up and enjoy the game?
apparently the coach isn't happy with some of the treatment dished out to riewoldt.

indicated that he thought some clear boundaries had been set in this regard. no doubt the baker rule to which he was referring.

all you would ask for is consistency.
Not what I heard Ross say.
Exactly what I heard Ross say....

good on him. he worded it beautifully, so it didn't sound like he was bleating or dobbing.

obviously just wants consistency, which the afl must provide if it is to have any integrity.

bigred · Post: # 955120Post **bigred** » Sun 11 Jul 2010 1:28am

Merrett dropped the knees into Roo.

It will be looked at and he will get off.

bigcarl · Post: # 955124Post **bigcarl** » Sun 11 Jul 2010 1:44am

bigred wrote:Merrett dropped the knees into Roo. It will be looked at and he will get off.

you are probably right that he will get off. if it was his injured hamstring it is a dog act.

i wouldn't like to be seen as a squealer, but the club ought to make some discreet behind the scenes inquiries as to why st kilda has paid a ridiculously heavy penalty on baker while similar actions from others go unpunished.

tribunal consistency is a red hot issue and i am all over it.

bigred · Post: # 955126Post **bigred** » Sun 11 Jul 2010 1:49am

Yeah...Its hard to say but I honestly reckon that is what he was thinking....

I mean...why the f*** would you knee someone's hamstrings?

Seriously...explain that.

I agree is is a dogs act. Weak as piss.

Raven · Post: # 955136Post **Raven** » Sun 11 Jul 2010 2:08am

It was the other, uninjured hammy, but it doesn't make it any better.

wallbanger · Sun 11 Jul 2010 10:23am

That was exactly what Ross was saying Bernard - did you have the teletext on your TV at the time?

Sometimes it gets lost in translation....