Bakes will understand
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 235
- Joined: Wed 21 Dec 2005 5:26pm
- Location: Cave underneath Bay 17 Moorabbin
Bakes will understand
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
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
'What do we eat? -Mussles
How do we eat 'em? - Alive'
How do we eat 'em? - Alive'
- The Fireman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 13243
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:54pm
- Has thanked: 644 times
- Been thanked: 1907 times
- The Fireman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 13243
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:54pm
- Has thanked: 644 times
- Been thanked: 1907 times
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.....
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1357
- Joined: Wed 07 Apr 2004 8:42pm
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12754
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 763 times
- Been thanked: 423 times
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?
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?
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1497
- Joined: Wed 24 Mar 2004 11:45am
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.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?
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12754
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 763 times
- Been thanked: 423 times
!00% spot on DanDan 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.
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'?