Matt of SEN back from Tribunal now giving run down

[SaintDippa]

With Bakes suddenly stopping, am I the only one who finds it ironice that we are all encouraged to 'wipe off 5'. Bakes does and gets 7! Go figure.

[Mr Magic]

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

According to SEN Baker's/Nixon's version of events was accepted by the Tribunal and was used to find him guilty.

So based on this nonsensical precedent delivered tonight will there be an edict issued by Monkeyboy tomorrow that all cases of players 'blocking' other players during a game will be reported from now on? Only the panalty will vary on a case by case basis depending on the 'force' of the block and the damage it causes.

No more 'blocking' at ballups, in forward lines or backlines.

Is it just me or is this a total nonsense?

[saint patrick]

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

But Michael slamming on the brakes is not an offence....laughable and would have 30 players potentially reported each week...this decision must be overturned and thrown out or our game is condemned forever

[saintspremiers]

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

Did Bakes say he deliberately put the brakes on to cause the impact collision with Farmer's head? I think he may have said that - or did he suddenly stop due to change his plan of attack - ie. did he just stop dead to quickly change direction??

[Mr Magic]

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

Did Bakes say he deliberately put the brakes on to cause the impact collision with Farmer's head? I think he may have said that - or did he suddenly stop due to change his plan of attack - ie. did he just stop dead to quickly change direction??

No, I believe he said he stopped to 'block' Farmer.
He didn't ay he intentionally hit him with the back of his head. - Farmer cannoned into him. Farmer could have also stopped but either didn't realize Baker was stationary or chose to cannon into him.

[brewski]

Surely you cant be rubbed out for running then stopping quickly, this is the biggest load of bollocks i have ever seen in footy.
Just because Farmer the dog is a bit slow upstairs to read whats happening in front of him, not Bakes fault

[chook23]

Full forward leads

FB trails but close behind

upfield ball deliver slips.......

FF props stops hoping to draw contact from behind......

FF hopes (instigate) contact for in the back......

BUT FF FINDS HIMSELF REORTED INSTEAD!!

[Riewoldting]

If I'm driving my car and slam on the brakes for whatever reason and the bloke behind me runs up my arse, it's his fault. He's got to leave a safe stopping distance suitable to the conditions.

Now, if the bloke behind me has been drinking ...

WHATEVER YOU DO, DON'T GET HIT FROM BEHIND BY A DRUNK DRIVER OR YOU WILL BE FOOTING THE BILL

[rodgerfox]

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?

Lionel Hutz, Attorney of Law.

[OnTheFence]

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

Anyone care to explain how a player getting blind-sided by another with an illegal shepherd 50 metres or more off the ball can result in an "accidental" head clash?

After the morons shoot me down in flames, then anyone who has actually played footy can try for a rational explanation.

[Riewoldting]

In other news, Australian netball captain Liz Ellis has been banned from international competition for life after an incident during the Third Test overnight.

In the third quarter of the test against New Zealand, Ellis burst forward to take possession of the ball before pulling up suddenly (in order to not be penalised for travelling).

Kiwi goal shooter Irene Van Dyk then cannoned into the back of Ellis, breaking her nose and busting up her pretty face something rotten.

Ellis was found guilty of reckless rough conduct and was subjected to a life ban by the International Federation of Netball Associations, the sport's governing body.

Also overnight, V8 Supercar driver Garth Tander has been ejected from the Championship after braking heavily on Turn 1 at Oran Park during the Jim Beam 400.

22 cars ran up Tander's arse, constantina-style, and he was deemed to have recklessly used the brakes in preventing himself from careening out of control into a concrete wall.

[Liam_G]

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

Anyone care to explain how a player getting blind-sided by another with an illegal shepherd 50 metres or more off the ball can result in an "accidental" head clash?

After the morons shoot me down in flames, then anyone who has actually played footy can try for a rational explanation.

Quite simply actually. We are both running. I run past you but then stop dead in my tracks and push backward, bracing myself to make an illegal shepard. You, not looking ahead (possibly looking sideways across the ground) and not bracing yourself run into the back of me. I am possibly expecting you to also be bracing yourself, or to have noticed what I have done. Unfortunately, you have not. Both of us are the same height. With the force that I have pushed back, and the force in which you are running without looking, you collide into me. Bone is strong, and it can do some serious damage, especially when you are not braced for it.

Other examples that an injury can occur so simply, if I hold up a substance as strong as skull bone and get you to run into it face first, your nose may take a beating. It only takes a knock on an unfortunate spot for a break to occur.

[Riewoldting]

Anyone care to explain how a player getting blind-sided by another with an illegal shepherd 50 metres or more off the ball can result in an "accidental" head clash?

After the morons shoot me down in flames, then anyone who has actually played footy can try for a rational explanation.

Because the initial act is not accidental, but the unwilled and unforeseen consequence is.

Consider youself shot down.

[OnTheFence]

Because the initial act is not accidental, but the unwilled and unforeseen consequence is.

Consider youself shot down

So by that logic if I deliberately stick someone with a knife and accidentally pierce their heart I will no doubt get off the murder charge.

[The_Dud]

Because the initial act is not accidental, but the unwilled and unforeseen consequence is.

Consider youself shot down

So by that logic if I deliberately stick someone with a knife and accidentally pierce their heart I will no doubt get off the murder charge.

yes, with our current justice system, you'd probably get man-slaughter.....

[Riewoldting]

Because the initial act is not accidental, but the unwilled and unforeseen consequence is.

Consider youself shot down

So by that logic if I deliberately stick someone with a knife and accidentally pierce their heart I will no doubt get off the murder charge.

No, because the act is willed and the consequence is foreseen (therefore no defence of accident) and intended (death or serious harm virtually certain).

Any other brilliant questions?

[OnTheFence]

The_Dud wrote:

yes, with our current justice system, you'd probably get man-slaughter.....

Much like being found guilty of rough conduct and not striking.

[The_Dud]

The_Dud wrote:

yes, with our current justice system, you'd probably get man-slaughter.....

Much like being found guilty of rough conduct and not striking.

i'm pretty sure striking is a lesser charge than rough conduct....

[aussierules0k]

[ausfatcat]

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...

love that will try that this morning see what happens

[Shaggy]

A 7 match suspension for stepping in the way of your opponent’s run … give me a break.

I have been floored with my opponent about 50 meters from the play because he ran into me after I stepped into his line. I always thought it was a legitimate tactic to take space and cancel my opponents. Blocking is different to shepherding.

Farmer obviously wasn’t keeping an eye on Bakes which is all part of the game.

There is no malice involved and its more dangerous for the one who is stationary.

The decision is unbelievable.

[St. Luke]

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

Did Bakes say he deliberately put the brakes on to cause the impact collision with Farmer's head? I think he may have said that - or did he suddenly stop due to change his plan of attack - ie. did he just stop dead to quickly change direction??

No, I believe he said he stopped to 'block' Farmer.
He didn't ay he intentionally hit him with the back of his head. - Farmer cannoned into him. Farmer could have also stopped but either didn't realize Baker was stationary or chose to cannon into him.

And Baker also states that the most it deserved was a free kick...if anything! Pure and simple, Farmer should have looked where he was fricken going!

[matrix]

this is the biggest load of bulls*** i have ever seen by a tribunal.
b grade/reserve footy in the country sees stuff like this every 5 mins, and much worse.
how the hell does johnson get 6 and bakes get 7.......?
i woke up this morning and i caught the "saint kildas steven baker gets 7 weeks" on sky news and i nearly spat my coffee.

we can complain all we like, nothing will get overturned or reduced.
i wonder if farmer had got up and had blood wiped from his nose and then played on, what the decision would have been.....4 weeks?

complete and utter joke.
so unless u are a 'superstar' and due to play in a grandy........u cant get off.
our game sometimes seems to be turning into a complete farce.

[SENsei]

This decision has me floored. Speechless. I have no speech.....