Matt of SEN back from Tribunal now giving run down

[Mr Magic]

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

It's worse than that. According to SEN the Tribunal accepted Baker's version of events and he was found guilty of 'rough conduct' because he stopped, allowed Farmer to cannon into him and Farmer broke his nose on the back of Baker's head/shoulder.

Simply unbelievable!

[milney044]

so its ok for mooney to intentionally head butt aaron hamill back in 2004, but its not ok for bakes to stop suddenly and have farmer knock into him from behind. geez who's head butting who here, why is it not farmer's fault for charging into bakes? because he broke his nose? well sorry but its not bakers fault he has a hard head. should not have even gone to the tribunal, but the tribunal love giving rediculous suspensions that are unworthy of the sentence, especially if the player accused is wearing red white and black.

[Saint_in_SA]

I think we should look long and hard at our legal representatives in this matter - I have no doubt that we have been stitched up this time, but we should thoroughly review the process that has taken place and make sure that we dotted every i and crossed every t and left no expense spared in sorting out this absolute DISGRACE!!!!!

Farmer should have got injured for stupidity and a lack of awareness, just as Kosi was rubbed out for his lack of awareness when Giansiracusa belted the crap out of him........

The AFL is a joke - incidental contact with a SQUAT amount of credible evidence gets 7 weeks. FFS!! Soon players will be running around in bibs and skirts, prancing around being reported for 'contact'...........they have already sanitised the game beyond apprehension enough. Demetriou and your girlfriends, WAKE UP, YOU ARE SCREWING THE GAME SENSELESS!!

Now, blokes on the field will be too frightened of a bit of push and shove just in case some stupid twat injures himself due to his own stupid fault....RIDICULOUS!

[yipper]

This is getting pretty damn amateurish. Seriously - flawed decision. An Appeal will surely get this rather strange judgement overturned.

[The_Dud]

does anyone else think that if there had have been footage of the incident, he would have got a lighter sentence, if one at all..?

[Solar]

the reporter on SEN has said that from his view the saints did EVERYTHING they could, they all thought he would get off.

[milney044]

probably not, you're talking about stevie baker and freo here. he probably would have got 7 for ATTEMPTING to stop and be head butted.

[Liam_G]

does anyone else think that if there had have been footage of the incident, he would have got a lighter sentence, if one at all..?

I would believe so, without a doubt. Actual footage showing the accidental head clash would surely have exonerated him.

[maverick]

We must have the prosecutors in the OJ Simpson case, every time we complain about our QC's, I remember Hamill getting a week for tripping because we got the leg wrong!!!

This is shameful, unfortunately Kenny S, this is your area of responsiblity, fix it...

[Oh When the Saints]

Philip Priest QC is an outstanding barrister.

If he couldn't get Baker off, then there are few other barristers in Victoria who could have done a better job IMO.

[satchmo]

Philip Priest QC is an outstanding barrister.

If he couldn't get Baker off, then there are few other barristers in Victoria who could have done a better job IMO.

If there are few better, then how about getting one of the few ?

[maverick]

the reporter on SEN has said that from his view the saints did EVERYTHING they could, they all thought he would get off.

The result is everything, its a fail whichever way you look at it

[Oh When the Saints]

They're not always able and willing ...

[Solar]

the reporter on SEN has said that from his view the saints did EVERYTHING they could, they all thought he would get off.

The result is everything, its a fail whichever way you look at it

twas rigged

they just made up a rule tonight

if you shepard off the ball and a player gets hurt you will go for at least 4-5 weeks

does farmer get done for charging and giving baker a headache???

[Viking3]

I am sitting here trying not to get too freakin emotional about another instance of the Saints being done over by the AFL and it's damn hard to stay reasonably calm. There are an absolute plethora of reasons why this should not have gone to the tribunal or at least have been thrown out. Following the result there are a few interesting questions to raise:
1. If Baker had of gone down and been somewhat groggy from the collision would this have still been referred to the tribunal? Because he is one tough nut he keeps going and suffers because of it.
2. If the tribunal believed Baker then what of the Freo evidence? Should he and the club be sanctioned for misleading the tribunal? I bet nothing will come of this!
3. The league goes on about "Duty of Care", ie. if you go to bump a player and he bends over you are held responsible for your actions and not showing a "duty of care". If you take a wild punch at the ball and KO a player you are held responsible for not showing a "duty of care". If a player changes direction or stops and you flatten him, you are responsible for not showing a "duty of care". Gee, doesn't this incident fit into the last category??!!
I am dismayed, confused, bitter, stunned, etc. etc. etc.

Why do I keep supporting a sport that is so blatantly flawed and biased???

[Saint_in_SA]

ST KILDA’S Steven Baker was suspended on Tuesday night for seven matches by the AFL Tribunal.

Baker was found guilty of engaging in rough conduct against Fremantle's Jeff Farmer during the third quarter of Saturday's match at Telstra Dome.

The tribunal jury accepted Baker's account of events, with the player saying he was running in front of Farmer, before stopping and propping causing Farmer to run into the back of him.

But they still found he had engaged in rough conduct, acting recklessly and that he made high contact to Farmer with high impact.

THE LAST STATEMENT IS AN ERROR IN FACT. FARMER MADE CONTACT WITH HIM WITH HIGH IMPACT, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!! ST KILDA - FIGHT THIS STUPID DECISION!!

[saint66au]

Bakes was gone from the minute he admitted instigating the contact.

That. combined with the never-ending vision of Farmers smashed moosh scaring the impressionable kiddies was all the excuse they needed to rub him out ..plus it was Steven Baker not Nick Dal Santo

I think it stinks, I think its wrong, and Im as mad as anyone else about it, but thats their thought process Id be as sure as eggs about it..

Just a cpl of other points that may have been forgotten about..

The Freo trainers evidence was thrown out so that wasnt a factor

Ricky Nixons appearance was not expected..SEN's reporter hypothesised that at that point the Saints thought their case was in trouble

Bakes was NOT given 7 weeks for this offence. IF we'd had a 100% clean record he'd have got 3

Now..please noone howl me down for committing the heinous crime of taking a deep breath before I post K??

[Oh When the Saints]

Is three weeks an appropriate penalty though?

I would believe it is still excessive for an incident that occurs weekly in contact sport.

[SaintDippa]

Are there anu legal eagles on the forum? Can someone please explain to me how we can lose a he-says-I-say type case. Who advised Bakes to say he instigated contacted. Farmer could'nt remember the incident for god sakes. The trainer was miles away. How could we not get Bakes Off??? Surely he could have been instructed to portray events so as to leave no incrimidations. Sounds like a poor defence.

[suss]

Farmer should have got injured for stupidity and a lack of awareness, just as Kosi was rubbed out for his lack of awareness when Giansiracusa belted the crap out of him........

Not sure I agree but it's interesting to compare the Kosi/Gia incident to this one...

What did Bakes get busted for? High contact/recklessness/engaging in rough play??? Based on this decision Gia should still be still out the game now.

What a complete and utter sham. [/quote]

[saintbrat]

pity you can't link to SEN discussion of the last hour,

plenty of information on how and why's

including from someone who used to defend players in VFL,

[saint66au]

THE LAST STATEMENT IS AN ERROR IN FACT. FARMER MADE CONTACT WITH HIM WITH HIGH IMPACT, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!! ST KILDA - FIGHT THIS STUPID DECISION!!

Well no..Bakes has admitted slamming on the brakes..therefore technically he collided with Farmer. theres no "sensible braking distance" in AFL lol

Once again I say..as soon as Bakes ADMITTED that he braked, the tribunal have taken his action as the one that caused the injury...and therfore found him guilty

BUt..the vision of Farmer semi-comatose has hung Bakes way more than anything he actually did

Oh...and the Gia / Kosi incident..the ball wasnt 50m away and it was captured on video by 25 cameras. All bar a few hysterical people here exonerated Gia at the time anyway as I recall

[Life Long Saint]

But they still found he had engaged in rough conduct, acting recklessly and that he made high contact to Farmer with high impact.

THE LAST STATEMENT IS AN ERROR IN FACT. FARMER MADE CONTACT WITH HIM WITH HIGH IMPACT, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!! ST KILDA - FIGHT THIS STUPID DECISION!!

Since when has a head clash been classed as high contact?

I have no recollection of any case where that has been the case.

If anything the contact would have to have been to the chest area causing the head move forward causing the clash.

Matthew Whelan should have received the same charge for the round 1 hit on Luke Ball.

But that was OK because he was playing the AFL's favourite game, Whack-A-Sainter!

[Saints43]

Doesn't the previous bad record (which I think is accumualtive) include

'attempting to strike' Stafford (the ****)

'kicking' some Essendon ruckman standing on his ankle.

He's had a fairly bad run at the tribunal.

[Oh When the Saints]

The thing is, he has 7 weeks.

Whether it's 3+4 or 2+5 or 1+6 is irrelevant.

He must serve 7 weeks on the sidelines.


In using common-sense, is this an appropriate penalty for Baker's actions?