Matt of SEN back from Tribunal now giving run down

saintsRrising · Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:23pm

Listen in

ausfatcat · Post: # 438906Post **ausfatcat** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:24pm

can ytou give a run down to what was said.

saintsRrising · Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:24pm

Sheldon considering appeal...but have till noon till decide.

Sheldon sounded pretty stunned...

saintsRrising · Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:26pm

Panel said they believed Baker...but judged his action in stopping as reckless

Solar · Post: # 438916Post **Solar** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:27pm

saintsRrising wrote:Panel said they believed Baker...but judged his action in stopping as reckless

LMAO

STOPPING IS RECKLESS!!!

saintsRrising · Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:27pm

They said that considering his record that 7 weeks was fair...would normally have bee 3 to 4 weeks.

basically the panel is saying that baker dobbed himself in...

Teflon · Post: # 438920Post **Teflon** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:27pm

oh thats just even worse.....yes yes we believe you Steven....but we are gonna have to give you 7??

THERES NOT FRICKEN EVIDENCE OTHER BIASED WITNESS FFS!

True Blue Sainter · Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:28pm

saintsRrising wrote:Panel said they believed Baker...but judged his action in stopping as reckless

Question:

Weren't Johnson's actions deemed as intentional?

Question:

Then how does Baker receive a virtually identical penalty (Johnson had 90 carryover pts, Baker 155)?

What a farce. Joke.

saint66au · Post: # 438922Post **saint66au** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:28pm

Bakes admitted to tribunal he initiated contact..from a distance..then moved towards Farmer

WOuld have been 3 weeks-ish if he had a clean sheet

joffaboy · Post: # 438924Post **joffaboy** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:29pm

saintsRrising wrote:Panel said they believed Baker...but judged his action in stopping as reckless

As I said earlier Baker gave himself up.

Now will Whelan get a retrospective suspension for stepping in the way of Luke Ball.

Apparently Luke Ball can get his head knocked off but thats OK, but Baker gets 7 weeks.

But sounds like the goose gave himself up. Will not get out of this. May get it reduced, but wont get out of a suspension.

I feel better now that it was his own silly fault.

QueenC · Post: # 438925Post **QueenC** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:29pm

True Blue Sainter wrote:
saintsRrising wrote:Panel said they believed Baker...but judged his action in stopping as reckless
Question:

Weren't Johnson's actions deemed as intentional?

Question:

Then how does Baker receive a virtually identical penalty (Johnson had 90 carryover pts, Baker 155)?

What a farce. Joke.

Actually Johnsons actions were deemed reckless.....

Munga · Post: # 438930Post **Munga** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:31pm

Solar wrote:
saintsRrising wrote:Panel said they believed Baker...but judged his action in stopping as reckless
LMAO

STOPPING IS RECKLESS!!!

wow looks like the afl have taken sheparding out of the game now

saintsRrising · Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:31pm

...not said...but that is 7 weeks for a shepherd!!!!

True Blue Sainter · Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:32pm

Johnson gets 6 weeks for endangering young Daniel Bell's career and ability to walk... Baker gets 7 (or 5.5) for stopping and Farmer running into his shoulder...

What is this world coming to?

saintsRrising · Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:33pm

Nixon confirmed that Farmer's face went into Baker's head.

milney044 · Post: # 438938Post **milney044** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:33pm

he gave himself up? you cant be serious. ohh bakes i knew you were dumb, but honestly i didnt think you were thatttt dumb!! what he said shouldnt even make him guilty though, it's not his fault farmer decided to keep running. 7 weeks for stopping, you've got to be kidding. but wait, it is st kilda and his name is steven baker.

saintsRrising · Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:34pm

Another caller stating that Farmer ran into Baker....

Saints-06-Premiers · Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:34pm

An off the ball block is rough conduct. f*** off AFL.

suss · Post: # 438945Post **suss** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:35pm

This isn't laughable...it's outright corruption.

I saw Scartlett whack Roo at couple of years back at the dome. I can't recall witnesses beyond the two players involved being called and the case was dismissed becuase the footage was inconclusive. Apparently falling to the ground and vomitting is standard procedure for Nick Reiwoldt.

It's a farce. It's a scam. It's corrupt. And I'm nearing the end of the road with this game.

I might watch the Hall/Maguire incident on re-play to cheer myself up...

Gilbert The Great · Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:37pm

farmer ran into the back of bakers head

coz baker stopped

wow

as if players dont jsut stop for physical contact 500 times a match

and if farmer is that stupid to run into his head

well then he deserves to get hurt

not 7 weeks, shouldn't of even gone to the tribunal

Iceman234 · Post: # 438951Post **Iceman234** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:38pm

joffaboy wrote:
saintsRrising wrote:Panel said they believed Baker...but judged his action in stopping as reckless
As I said earlier Baker gave himself up.

Now will Whelan get a retrospective suspension for stepping in the way of Luke Ball.

Apparently Luke Ball can get his head knocked off but thats OK, but Baker gets 7 weeks.

But sounds like the goose gave himself up. Will not get out of this. May get it reduced, but wont get out of a suspension.

I feel better now that it was his own silly fault.

So who was our counsel?

Who was advising Mr. Baker?

saint patrick · Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:38pm

joffaboy wrote:
saintsRrising wrote:Panel said they believed Baker...but judged his action in stopping as reckless
As I said earlier Baker gave himself up.

Now will Whelan get a retrospective suspension for stepping in the way of Luke Ball.

Apparently Luke Ball can get his head knocked off but thats OK, but Baker gets 7 weeks.

But sounds like the goose gave himself up. Will not get out of this. May get it reduced, but wont get out of a suspension.

I feel better now that it was his own silly fault.

Don't agree Joffa ..stopping is not an admission of guilt if Farmer ran into him...the whole thing is a farce and the aim should be to get him offf...there is no visual evidence and the hearsay is shaky and contradictory to say the least...just can't believe that Farmer is said to have concussion and no recollection of the incident and yet is called to give evidence...so pythonesque its scary

Iwon't feel better unless he runs out against the Eagles this wee

k

HSVKing · Post: # 438957Post **HSVKing** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:40pm

Solar wrote:
saintsRrising wrote:Panel said they believed Baker...but judged his action in stopping as reckless
LMAO

STOPPING IS RECKLESS!!!

Ok...

I'll ignore all the traffic lights on the way to work tomorrow... I'll send my fines to the AFL saying 'they said it's reckless to stop...'

Expect some letters Andy and Aidy...

Iceman234 · Post: # 438958Post **Iceman234** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:40pm

Almost sounds like he respresented himself - but surely not!!!

I reckon between us stinger and I could have beaten that charge.

But we wouldn't be anywhere near the hourly rate Bakes' counsel would have been so I'll just shut up ok?

saintsRrising · Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:45pm

milney044 wrote:he gave himself up? you cant be serious. ohh bakes i knew you were dumb, but honestly i didnt think you were thatttt dumb!! what he said shouldnt even make him guilty though, it's not his fault farmer decided to keep running. 7 weeks for stopping, you've got to be kidding. but wait, it is st kilda and his name is steven baker.

Not really...all he admitted to was basically shepherding....

You see it every game where one player stops in front of another......