Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
AP Erebus wrote:I disagree with the jumper punches, but I completely agree with the injured hand hitting being penalised.
We all decried the treatment of Roo, this is exactly the same.
Fair enough, but why do we always seem to be the ones that are first to suffer when a new rule or interpretation is brought in???
agreed.... they make it a rule that if a trainer is with them then it's not on but if you play on it's fair game... then as soon as baker does it they come down hard....
go figure...
How is the club taking this?
FQF
loyal in the good times and bad
In richo I trust
2013 trade/draft best ever?
Billings - future brownlow medallist Longer - future best ruck
Dunstan - future captain Eli - future cult hero
Acres - future norm smith
The AFL is always on about thuggery and the way it affects the mums with their attitude to their little kiddies playing our great game.
I suppose now they can hand out DVDs of Friday Night's game at the Auskick clinics, with the suggestion the little tackers model their game on SJ's and not SB's!
Mate i have used your photo to post over facebook and to bakes is that ok?
Can you explain how to get this on facebook too so if it is ok I will do the same.
This is a disgrace and the club need to do something. I tihnk all suppirters should email the AFL and complain this is unfair and inequitable treatment...
Included in this story by Mark Robinson & Aaron Langmaid, which is basically about Baker's dad's response is:
"But family groups applauded the decision, saying the panel has sent a strong message that violence would not be tolerated on the field.......
Joe Tucci, chief executive of the Australian Childhood Foundation, said Baker's 12- week suspension was a step in the right direction.
"Sport plays such an important role in children's development so you need to provide them with a clear, unambiguous message that this sort of thing should not happen," Dr Tucci said.
"If you don't provide that message around unacceptable violence, you are almost condoning it."
No doubt the Hun sought out this Tucci drongo for a quote.
This is a series of small niggly incidents from #10 and they're playing this up as being worse than the Hall/Staker incident.
Instead of getting these useless soundbites from Dr Sesame Street the Hun should've used their columns to attack the ridiculous over reaction of the MRP!
''I still get really excited, and I've got the '66 thing up on the wall in a frame … You look at it and think: one day, we want to achieve that.''- Arryn Siposs
It would be like the police putting 4 speed cameras all along 1 small stretch. They won't stop you (equivelent to umps at the game) but later in the mail bam bam bam bam, loss of license.
If the cops (umps) had of been there and just pulled you over and said 'you can't do that, I am going to fine you (penalise you)'. There would be a lot less trouble at the end.
He got Johnson a good one in the jaw - happy to take two weeks for that one.
Disappointed with the week for hitting the hand, not condoning the act but that J Riewoldt did exactly the same thing not long ago for no penalty. Won't be surprised if we challenge particularly as the AFL has said that the player must be receiving treatment at the time
The other two should hopefully be thrown out as the force was lower than low - minimal and did not impact Johnson in any way. How those strikes can be deemed to be of adequate force is beyond me.
SJ unlucky on the precedent front as well given Judd last week but his elbow deserved a couple of weeks. Unlucky that he got him in the eye and the shiner popped up, a little gash on the cheek and he might've got away with the exact same action...
In reality, Baker should have got 2 - and maybe 1 for hitting the hand if the MRP are willing to break precedent. Sad that it took this incident to show what a shambles the system is - and has been for a while now - but thankfully it will be reviewed and in all likelihood overhauled at the end of the year
As an aside
253.13 for the first strike (rubbish)
253.13 for the second strike (rubbish)
253.13 for the third strike (fair enough)
140.63 for slapping the hand
adds up to 900.02 points - yes, over the 9 games by .02 points
also means that if we can get him off the first two striking charges then it will only be 3 matches
Mate i have used your photo to post over facebook and to bakes is that ok?
Can you explain how to get this on facebook too so if it is ok I will do the same.
This is a disgrace and the club need to do something. I tihnk all suppirters should email the AFL and complain this is unfair and inequitable treatment...
Mate i have used your photo to post over facebook and to bakes is that ok?
Can you explain how to get this on facebook too so if it is ok I will do the same.
This is a disgrace and the club need to do something. I tihnk all suppirters should email the AFL and complain this is unfair and inequitable treatment...
According to Martin Blake it is 'a bad joke, the worst tribunal/review panel decision I have seen in 25 years of writing football'.
Is Martin Blake a saints fan?? Just wondering.
I hope Finey does not get in too much trouble for his rant last night
I was out last night and taped the footy shows...only got home in time to see Footy Classified. The Grant Thomas response didn't surprise me, but the rest of the panel also seemed to agree with how over the top the suspension was...even Caro. My husband watched the other programs and said that was the over riding thing from all of the programs. Disbelief that it had actually happened. That all were expecting maybe a couple of weeks, no more.
It seems that the club simply has to take this on. I received quite a few texts last nights from neutrals and even my brother who is a Geelong supporter...saying what a joke it is that he got so many weeks.
It seems that most reasonable footy supporters and most in the media agree it is beyond ridiculous and must be challenged. It seems only the feral supporters of other clubs agree with it, coming out with their righteous comments calling Baker a thug and saying he had it coming. I hope these same people are so understanding when a player of theirs is unfairly suspended. Most in the media and most reasonable footy fans can see the bigger picture here.
"At the end of the day, a coach and a fitness adviser doesn't make a good football team, they're not the only ones who got us to two Grand Finals." Lenny Hayes. 27/9/2011.
Steven Baker is considered to be rough. He has not been a sniper for a long time and is being hung out to dry on this issue because of public perception.
The MRP is set up not to hand out justice but to save the AFL time and as such money. The match review panels decisions are rarely overturned as the AFL does not want to encourage clubs to challenge.
It is based on the American plea bargain system that encourages innocent people to plead guilty to charges so they don't get life in prison. If offered by the DPP the option of 2 years in prison compared to life you take the safer option if they tell you they are confident they will prosecute. It is an international embarrassment as it is unfair, but it saves the government a fortune and so is not changed. The AFL looked at all the bad press and though now here is a good system.
not helped by CH 7 putting the package together
the MRP do not look at whole matches but are apparently ( heard the other week) suggested parts of game to check not sure by who
Ch 7 could provide them with a redy made selection- with repeats...
AP Erebus wrote:I disagree with the jumper punches, but I completely agree with the injured hand hitting being penalised.
We all decried the treatment of Roo, this is exactly the same.
Fair enough, but why do we always seem to be the ones that are first to suffer when a new rule or interpretation is brought in???
agreed.... they make it a rule that if a trainer is with them then it's not on but if you play on it's fair game... then as soon as baker does it they come down hard....
go figure...
How is the club taking this?
I think the fact is that it's unnessessary... From the MRP wording: "misconduct offence in that he made unreasonable and unnecessary contact with an injured player".
The ruling is that if an injured player plays on, thats ok, but targetted attempts to "contact" (hurt, hit, etc) the injury are not acceptable.. Which it shouldn't be.
I think what pisses me off the most is that the umpires did nothing, there was no direction from AFL HQ saying this would be targetted. A single free kick would have nipped this in the bud.
It's still a f****** joke and I hope they challenge.
it has been around this time that "Kosi" will headbutt a fence, rip a hamstring or belt someone.
