Baker's case is underway - discussion

[Snakeman66]

According to Mat Thompson on SEN (he was the reporter at the Tribunal), when the Guilty verdict was handed down Saints Lawyer asked the Tribunal

Whose version of events did you believe? Bakers or Freo Trainers?

Tribunal replied Bakers!

Based on Baker claiming he ran at Farmer, stopped and Farmer cannoned into the back of him, he was found guilty of 'reckless conduct'.

UNBELIEVABLE!

Sounds like a lack of awareness?????

If Farmer ran into the back of an umpire who suddenly stopped running, how many weeks would the umpire get?

[Life Long Saint]

If Farmer ran into the back of an umpire who suddenly stopped running, how many weeks would the umpire get?

And there it is, folks!

Kosi copped a week for doing that last season.

If the roles with Baker and Farmer were reversed you can bet London to a brick that Bakes would have been done for charging!

[mad saint guy]

In the end...couldn't Bakes have simply claimed that he never made contact to Farmer? Obviously it would be lying, but with no evidence to form a case against him, surely he couldn't be charged.

I suppose he just assumed that the tribunal wasn't going to make up a new rule so they could suspend him.

[PurpleJesus]

Freo fan here. Not visiting your site to bait or troll, just to point out something that most of you seem to be missing regarding Steven Baker's suspension.

The punishment he received for the Jeff Farmer incident was 4 weeks, not 7. The reason he's been suspended for 7 weeks is because of his prior bad record (4 weeks of suspensions in the last 2 years) and 127.5 points carried over.

For the record, I think that 7 weeks is too long a suspension. As someone who has been frustrated by tribunal decisions against my team (see Michael Johnson's 4 week suspension for something a lot less damaging than Baker's actions) I understand where you're coming from. I'm not getting into any arguments about whether he should or shouldn't have gone; needless to say I probably disagree with your opinions and you with mine.

At the end of the day however, the fact remains that he only got 4 weeks for what he did to Farmer. The additional 3 weeks he brought on himself through past indiscretions.

[HarveysDeciple]

Freo fan here. Not visiting your site to bait or troll, just to point out something that most of you seem to be missing regarding Steven Baker's suspension.

The punishment he received for the Jeff Farmer incident was 4 weeks, not 7. The reason he's been suspended for 7 weeks is because of his prior bad record (4 weeks of suspensions in the last 2 years) and 127.5 points carried over.

For the record, I think that 7 weeks is too long a suspension. As someone who has been frustrated by tribunal decisions against my team (see Michael Johnson's 4 week suspension for something a lot less damaging than Baker's actions) I understand where you're coming from. I'm not getting into any arguments about whether he should or shouldn't have gone; needless to say I probably disagree with your opinions and you with mine.

At the end of the day however, the fact remains that he only got 4 weeks for what he did to Farmer. The additional 3 weeks he brought on himself through past indiscretions.

4 weeks to many though.
And what about your two guys lying to the tribunal?
they gave an account 100% different to what the panel actually found.
they were on a witch hunt to get a bloke suspended.

[Brewer]

The issue here (at least for me) is NOT the length of the suspension - I have no problem with the AFL using loadings for bad records and carry-over points to increase a suspension.

My problem is that there has been NO evidence that Baker behaved badly, as far as we can tell it was just the word of your moron Kirkwood (which was thrown out for the bulltish it was) and Farmer who claims he was standing still and got hit from the side (universally discounted, even by the tribunal's own admission, as it simply didn't happen that way).

There have been other, more impartial, witnesses who say if you report Baker for what he did you'd need to do it 50 times in any given game, and that it was just a standard tussle between opponents. Possibly a free kick, certainly not a suspension.

The fact that Farmer copped some ugly injuries from the incident does not in itself prove anything, that could just as easily have been due to Farmer's carelessness as Baker's.

The charge should have been thrown out. If it can be PROVEN that Bakes screwed up then we'll cop the 7 weeks and shut up.

[Behind Play]

It really is times like this you need a president like eddie........would the filth let them get away with it.

[PurpleJesus]

My problem is that there has been NO evidence that Baker behaved badly, as far as we can tell it was just the word of your moron Kirkwood (which was thrown out for the bulltish it was) and Farmer who claims he was standing still and got hit from the side (universally discounted, even by the tribunal's own admission, as it simply didn't happen that way).

I'm looking at it like this, at the most basic level. Fact 1: Baker admitted to making contact with Farmer. Fact 2: Said contact broke Farmer's nose and concussed him to the point he couldn't stand up by himself, let alone walk off the ground.

The conclusion I draw from that is that whatever Baker did, whether it was to stop and prop, headbutt, or full on punch Farmer in the face, was severe enough that it caused enough damage to force Jeff from the ground and put him in doubt for a game a week later. You cause that sort of damage, you deserve to be suspended whether the evidence is video or witness accounts.

There have been other, more impartial, witnesses who say if you report Baker for what he did you'd need to do it 50 times in any given game, and that it was just a standard tussle between opponents. Possibly a free kick, certainly not a suspension.

One of those "impartial witnesses" you speak of, Michael Voss, who saw the incident while commentating the game, said immediately afterwards that Bakker would hope there was no behind the goals footage because he would go otherwise.

And if the incident in question is no more severe than 50 other incidents in a game, why do we fail to see 50 other players carried from the ground broken nosed, concussed and barely conscious? If nothing else, the severity of Farmer's injuries prove your statement to be incorrect.

The fact that Farmer copped some ugly injuries from the incident does not in itself prove anything, that could just as easily have been due to Farmer's carelessness as Baker's.

Well we already know that Baker initiated intentional contact with Farmer, that much is not in dispute (Baker has admitted as much). That contact caused Farmer's injuries, therefore Baker is responsible for them.

[yipper]

[quote="PurpleJesus[
One of those "impartial witnesses" you speak of, Michael Voss, who saw the incident while commentating the game, said immediately afterwards that Bakker would hope there was no behind the goals footage because he would go otherwise.

Voss said he didn't see it at first - then said he did, then, again, later said he didn't see it!! Voss made a tool of himself and was trying to be clever me thinks.[/i]

Well we already know that Baker initiated intentional contact with Farmer, that much is not in dispute (Baker has admitted as much). That contact caused Farmer's injuries, therefore Baker is responsible for them.[/quote]

Not if he could not forsee the consequences. The Act in itself is not an unlawful action - and he could not have possibly known that Farmer would cannon into him at speed and smash his face on the back of his scone. That in anyone's language, is accidental contact.

[Dan Warna]

whelan smashed ball and that was legal.

if baker stopped and propped and farmer ran into baker, how iis it bakers fault?

its farmer for being a dumbass.

[Mr Magic]

No PurpleJesus,
Baker did not admit causing the collision.
What Baker admitted was that he got in front of Farmer and STOPEED. Farmer then cannoned into him and apparently did thte damage when his head clashed with the back of Baker's head.

THE TRIBUNAL ACCEPTED THIS EVIDENCE

Therefore your whole premise is incorrect.

VOSS
The sequence of events as you state them is also incorrect. As the event hapenned, Voss was commentating and said I DID NOT SEE WHAT HAPPENED.

Some minutes later when pressed by Tim Lane he changed his story. Which version was correct? Neither you nor I really know, but his testimony would be suspect at best.

[PurpleJesus]

Voss said he didn't see it at first - then said he did, then, again, later said he didn't see it!! Voss made a tool of himself and was trying to be clever me thinks.

Actually, Voss initially said he did see it, then when his co-commentator mentioned that he may be called as a tribunal witness he did his best to backtrack. And I have that on video. Yes, Voss is a goose, but that doesn't change what he saw or what he said.

Not if he could not forsee the consequences. The Act in itself is not an unlawful action - and he could not have possibly known that Farmer would cannon into him at speed and smash his face on the back of his scone. That in anyone's language, is accidental contact.

Whether he foresaw the consequences isn't the point. If Baker were to come out and say, "yes I meant to punch Farmer in the face, but I didn't think it would hurt him", that doesn't excuse what he did. If he didn't intend to break Jeff's nose and give him a wicked concussion, he shouldn't have done anything. He made the decision to initiate contact, therefore he bears responsibility for the consequences of the ensuing collision.

[Brewer]

I'm looking at it like this, at the most basic level. Fact 1: Baker admitted to making contact with Farmer. Fact 2: Said contact broke Farmer's nose and concussed him to the point he couldn't stand up by himself, let alone walk off the ground.

Fact 1: Two players made contact with each other. Fact 2: Farmer came off worse. That in itself proves nothing, and it certainly does not prove that Baker was more careless than Farmer. In fact the opposite - Farmer should have looked where he was going, after all he rear-ended Baker didn't he? Baker was looking the other way, how can he be more at fault?

The conclusion I draw from that is that whatever Baker did, whether it was to stop and prop, headbutt, or full on punch Farmer in the face, was severe enough that it caused enough damage to force Jeff from the ground and put him in doubt for a game a week later. You cause that sort of damage, you deserve to be suspended whether the evidence is video or witness accounts.

Rubbish. Baker is entitled to stop running if he wants. If Farmer is dumb enough to run into the back of someone, then he is an idiot and certainly should not be entitled to a presumption of the moral high ground which is what you seem to be espousing. Injuries alone are not grounds for punishment. It's about INTENT.

One of those "impartial witnesses" you speak of, Michael Voss, who saw the incident while commentating the game, said immediately afterwards that Bakker would hope there was no behind the goals footage because he would go otherwise.

Voss is an idiot, and saw nothing. Watch the replay. He immediately says he didn't see it, then later makes a stupid comment assuming Baker's guilt, then later corrects himself and admits once again he didn't see the incident but simply assumed it was bad. Assumption is not good enough for a conviction.

And if the incident in question is no more severe than 50 other incidents in a game, why do we fail to see 50 other players carried from the ground broken nosed, concussed and barely conscious? If nothing else, the severity of Farmer's injuries prove your statement to be incorrect.

Again, rubbish. Forget this idea of 'revenge' where injuries alone somehow prove intent. THEY DO NOT. Perhaps Farmer was just stupider, or was slower to react than the other 50 incidents, or tripped over his bootlace at the same time and headbutted the ground. Perhaps he's just got a weaker head.

Well we already know that Baker initiated intentional contact with Farmer, that much is not in dispute (Baker has admitted as much). That contact caused Farmer's injuries, therefore Baker is responsible for them.

Once again, complete twaddle. Do some legal research, you cannot draw such a long bow and attribute all subsequent injuries to the initial event - otherwise you could find yourself charged with murder for sneezing on a plane. How Farmer actually sustained the injuries has not been proven to be directly due to Baker's recklessness. Baker bumped Farmer - fair enough. Give Farmer a free kick. If Farmer's glass nose starts bleeding, he gets concussion, or he goes berserk and decides to beat up his missus, vandalise cars or give all his money to scientology, Baker is not responisble for that - Baker is responsible for the bump UNLESS you can prove undue force, recklessness or malicious intent.

YOU CAN'T, so his penalty should be decided on the known facts alone and not by joining the dots with guesswork and prejudice.

[PurpleJesus]

No PurpleJesus,
Baker did not admit causing the collision.
What Baker admitted was that he got in front of Farmer and STOPEED. Farmer then cannoned into him and apparently did thte damage when his head clashed with the back of Baker's head.

THE TRIBUNAL ACCEPTED THIS EVIDENCE

Therefore your whole premise is incorrect.

From The Age: "Baker said he had initially been about five metres ahead of Farmer but when the Docker forward got within about a metre of him he checked his stride and jumped into Farmer's path."

I don't know about you, but I'd say that makes Bakre responsbile for whatever happens after that. Baker jumped in front of Farmer with the intetion of making contact, not the other way around.

VOSS
The sequence of events as you state them is also incorrect. As the event hapenned, Voss was commentating and said I DID NOT SEE WHAT HAPPENED.

Some minutes later when pressed by Tim Lane he changed his story. Which version was correct? Neither you nor I really know, but his testimony would be suspect at best.

I'm afraid the video says otherwise. You want to take this up with the video, I can send you a copy, you two can have an intimate evening together. It still won't change anything.

[saintsRrising]

Actually, Voss initially said he did see it, then when his co-commentator mentioned that he may be called as a tribunal witness he did his best to backtrack. And I have that on video. Yes, Voss is a goose, but that doesn't change what he saw or what he said.

.

Actually you area fool as well as a TROLL.

The tape if you watch it CLEARLY has Voss's first words on the matter as stating that he did not see it.

Later they cross back to Voss who then says he saw it...

Get you facts right.

But then you area Fremantle person anf lying is endorsed.

Ie Harvey lying about M Voss

Freo Trainer lying about what he saw...The Still cameras proved he lied.

Farmer lying about Baker not being in front of him. ALL other witness's confirmed that baker was in frontof him.





So proof positive along with your distortion of what M Voss said...that Fremantle people have no compunction in lying.

[PurpleJesus]

I'm looking at it like this, at the most basic level. Fact 1: Baker admitted to making contact with Farmer. Fact 2: Said contact broke Farmer's nose and concussed him to the point he couldn't stand up by himself, let alone walk off the ground.

Fact 1: Two players made contact with each other. Fact 2: Farmer came off worse. That in itself proves nothing, and it certainly does not prove that Baker was more careless than Farmer. In fact the opposite - Farmer should have looked where he was going, after all he rear-ended Baker didn't he? Baker was looking the other way, how can he be more at fault?

The conclusion I draw from that is that whatever Baker did, whether it was to stop and prop, headbutt, or full on punch Farmer in the face, was severe enough that it caused enough damage to force Jeff from the ground and put him in doubt for a game a week later. You cause that sort of damage, you deserve to be suspended whether the evidence is video or witness accounts.

Rubbish. Baker is entitled to stop running if he wants. If Farmer is dumb enough to run into the back of someone, then he is an idiot and certainly should not be entitled to a presumption of the moral high ground which is what you seem to be espousing. Injuries alone are not grounds for punishment. It's about INTENT.

One of those "impartial witnesses" you speak of, Michael Voss, who saw the incident while commentating the game, said immediately afterwards that Bakker would hope there was no behind the goals footage because he would go otherwise.

Voss is an idiot, and saw nothing. Watch the replay. He immediately says he didn't see it, then later makes a stupid comment assuming Baker's guilt, then later corrects himself and admits once again he didn't see the incident but simply assumed it was bad. Assumption is not good enough for a conviction.

And if the incident in question is no more severe than 50 other incidents in a game, why do we fail to see 50 other players carried from the ground broken nosed, concussed and barely conscious? If nothing else, the severity of Farmer's injuries prove your statement to be incorrect.

Again, rubbish. Forget this idea of 'revenge' where injuries alone somehow prove intent. THEY DO NOT. Perhaps Farmer was just stupider, or was slower to react than the other 50 incidents, or tripped over his bootlace at the same time and headbutted the ground. Perhaps he's just got a weaker head.

Well we already know that Baker initiated intentional contact with Farmer, that much is not in dispute (Baker has admitted as much). That contact caused Farmer's injuries, therefore Baker is responsible for them.

Once again, complete twaddle. Do some legal research, you cannot draw such a long bow and attribute all subsequent injuries to the initial event - otherwise you could find yourself charged with murder for sneezing on a plane. How Farmer actually sustained the injuries has not been proven to be directly due to Baker's recklessness. Baker bumped Farmer - fair enough. Give Farmer a free kick. If Farmer's glass nose starts bleeding, he gets concussion, or he goes berserk and decides to beat up his missus, vandalise cars or give all his money to scientology, Baker is not responisble for that - Baker is responsible for the bump UNLESS you can prove undue force, recklessness or malicious intent.

YOU CAN'T, so his penalty should be decided on the known facts alone and not by joining the dots with guesswork and prejudice.

Believe what you want, you've clearly made your mind up already anyway. If you're simply going to write off anything that doesn't correspond with your view of the events as rubbish then there's no point debating with you.

Personally, I doubt that Farmer is going to intentionally rub headlong into the back of Baker's head as such speed as to give himself a broken nose and a concussion. Call me crazy, but I don't think Farmer is that stupid. However, if Farmer is running, Baker jumps right in front of him and stop and props, Farmer is responsible for the fact he has no time or space to avoid a collision?

The fact is that Baker initiated the incident, not Farmer. Take off your red, white and black coloured glasses and you'd see that.

[saintsRrising]

I'm afraid the video says otherwise. You want to take this up with the video, I can send you a copy, you two can have an intimate evening together. It still won't change anything.

Wind the tape back you FOOL to when it was firsty mentioned by Voss.
You are prattling on about when he talks about it for the SECOND time. Fool.

[PurpleJesus]

Actually, Voss initially said he did see it, then when his co-commentator mentioned that he may be called as a tribunal witness he did his best to backtrack. And I have that on video. Yes, Voss is a goose, but that doesn't change what he saw or what he said.

.

Actually you area fool as well as a TROLL.

The tape if you watch it CLEARLY has Voss's first words on the matter as stating that he did not see it.

Later they cross back to Voss who then says he saw it...

Get you facts right.

But then you area Fremantle person anf lying is endorsed.

Ie Harvey lying about M Voss

Freo Trainer lying about what he saw...The Still cameras proved he lied.

Farmer lying about Baker not being in front of him. ALL other witness's confirmed that baker was in frontof him.





So proof positive along with your distortion of what M Voss said...that Fremantle people have no compunction in lying.

Right, so anything that you don't agree with immediately consitutes lying?

That's an interesting definition of the word.

[Grimfang]

Actually, Voss initially said he did see it, then when his co-commentator mentioned that he may be called as a tribunal witness he did his best to backtrack. And I have that on video. Yes, Voss is a goose, but that doesn't change what he saw or what he said.

Go back to the tape and then get your hearing tested. The first thing Voss says is that Farmer is down behind play and that he DID NOT see what happened. He then states a few minutes later that he did. At the end of the game he states he didn't and has backed away from the "I saw it" comment since.

He made the decision to initiate contact, therefore he bears responsibility for the consequences of the ensuing collision.

So, the complete reverse of the Kosi-Gia situation now applies. Giansiracusa was not cited on the basis that Kosi's lack of awareness of someone coming in from the side was at fault. Now Baker bares responsibility because Farmer lacked awarenes of what was directly in front of him?

[matrix]

From The Age: "Baker said he had initially been about five metres ahead of Farmer but when the Docker forward got within about a metre of him he checked his stride and jumped into Farmer's path."

so......show us the ruling that this is an illegal act.
its a contact sport...and jumping into the pathway of another player is not illegal, and the resulting injuries to the player is his fault im afraid
if a path is blocked by another player its classed as a shep of the ball...if the player offended against hurts himself then thats his problem.


when jeff white got kicked in the face by a stray boot what happened?

[St. Luke]

It was worth a free kick, nothing more! Farmer needs his eyes checked!

[yipper]

Actually, Voss initially said he did see it, then when his co-commentator mentioned that he may be called as a tribunal witness he did his best to backtrack. And I have that on video. Yes, Voss is a goose, but that doesn't change what he saw or what he said.

Go back to the tape and then get your hearing tested. The first thing Voss says is that Farmer is down behind play and that he DID NOT see what happened. He then states a few minutes later that he did. At the end of the game he states he didn't and has backed away from the "I saw it" comment since.

Exactly - someone needs a hearing aid!!

He made the decision to initiate contact, therefore he bears responsibility for the consequences of the ensuing collision.

So, the complete reverse of the Kosi-Gia situation now applies. Giansiracusa was not cited on the basis that Kosi's lack of awareness of someone coming in from the side was at fault. Now Baker bares responsibility because Farmer lacked awarenes of what was directly in front of him?

Absolutely spot on - great example. So - who changed the interpretations since then?? Awareness and expectation of contact. It is a body contact sport and blocking is allowable as a defender.

[PurpleJesus]

So, the complete reverse of the Kosi-Gia situation now applies. Giansiracusa was not cited on the basis that Kosi's lack of awareness of someone coming in from the side was at fault. Now Baker bares responsibility because Farmer lacked awarenes of what was directly in front of him?

I'm not arguing wih you on the Kosi incident; for what it matters, I thought Giansiracusa should have gone for that. Bumping/striking someone when they can't see it coming is no excuse IMO, if anything that just makes it worse, like hitting someone from behind.

[eppo67]

If he did say he jumped into his path to make contact he is a dill.

What he should say is that he moved into his path to make him change direction and slow down his direct entry into the Fremantle Forward line.

If our QC didn't 'advise' him to say that he is not worth a pinch of Goat dung. I have been around the Courts for 18 years and I could do a better job than some of these QC's. Some of them are so bad it is not funny and are the worst value for money for a profession on the planet bar none.

[PurpleJesus]

Absolutely spot on - great example. So - who changed the interpretations since then?? Awareness and expectation of contact. It is a body contact sport and blocking is allowable as a defender.

Unfortunately, precedents aren't allowed at the tribunal. One of the more stupid rules they have in place.