CONFIRMED: We are appealing

[Brewer]

Can we still name Baker in the team pending the result of the appeal? If not, then he would presumably be forced to miss the game against the Eagles regardless of the outcome of the appeal.

A really interesting point. When is the deadline for naming the team?

[JeffDunne]

I have a feeling the club will try and prove the trainer was lying.

If we can do that, I expect not only to have the sentenced overturned on appeal but to sue the lying sack of s***.

clearly been mentioned that tribunal weighted their decision on what Baker actually said.

No it's not clear.

It's clear they were instructed to base their decision on what he said - it's pretty clear they didn't.

[JeffDunne]

Can we still name Baker in the team pending the result of the appeal? If not, then he would presumably be forced to miss the game against the Eagles regardless of the outcome of the appeal.

A really interesting point. When is the deadline for naming the team?

We can name him in the team.

[matrix]

just heard on sky news australia that the appeal will be heard at 5.30 tomorrow

[chook23]

I have a feeling the club will try and prove the trainer was lying.

If we can do that, I expect not only to have the sentenced overturned on appeal but to sue the lying sack of s***.

clearly been mentioned that tribunal weighted their decision on what Baker actually said.

No it's not clear.

It's clear they were instructed to base their decision on what he said - it's pretty clear they didn't.

what?

They (jury panel of 3) were instructed (Chairman) to take into account both versions but which one was more likely..............jury weighted towards baker version.........but used the fact that he instigated contact wanting to block.......to satisfy recklessly(deemed/proven -high contact in jury view) thus in their view the charge of rough condcut...

Totally disagree..........yes a block.............yes high contact......yes of the ball.............freekick (if seen by ump)...

clash of heads accidental.......

[St. Luke]

I wonder if Freo want to head back to the Dome and take that free??? I mean, it's only fair!

[Leo.J]

Bottom line is they said he initiated contact.......like every player who has ever applied a shepherd has done.
And every forward who has put on a 'screen' so another forward can lead into space.
Nothing indicates it is anything other then a free kick.

Agreed, but I think they need to argue as to who initiated the contact. And that the AFL assumed that Bakers block intended to make contact.

...The jury, Wayne Henwood, Emmett Dunne and Wayne Schimmelbusch, said after the marathon hearing that it had based the guilty finding on the tough Saint's admission that he deliberately blocked Fremantle forward Jeff Farmer in an off-the-ball clash at Telstra Dome on Saturday....

"I stopped in my path and Jeffrey kept running and I blocked his path just to stop him getting into the forward 50," Baker said. "I felt contact on the back and the back of my head. I stumbled and continued forward."

From what I understand Baker attempted to block Farmer, well he appears to have successfully blocked Farmer, but was contact intended, and did Baker initiate contact just because he blocked Farmer?

A block doesn't necessarily have to invovle contact. It only involves contact if the person being blocked doesn't see it.

If I stand in your way, but you see me, you then change course and avoid contact, yet I still blocked you.

If you don't see me you then collide with me. But was the blockers intended purpose to cause a collision or to stop his opponent from running it that direction.

Does the person who doesn't see the blocker initiate contact?

Look at the charging rule from basket ball. Its deemed a charge if the person with the ball collides with an opponent provided the opponent is stationary, so it is deemed that the ball carrier has initiated the contact.

Farmer obviously didn't see Baker, but that doesn't mean that he didn't initiate the contact.

If I don't see a road block while driving my car and crash into it, I've initiated the contact, I didn't see it, but its still my fault. The road blocks purpose is to divert traffic not cause collisions.

If I smash into a road block, I'm up sh!t creek, but I still iniated the contact with a stationary object.

Another example would be if a full back stands in front of a full forward when the ball is in the centre of the ground, the full back's purpose is to block his run, once the full back stands in position, if contact is made the full forward has initiated contact, not the full back. So using the tribunal's logic in this case if the FF crashes in the FB and breaks his nose the FB is at fault and can be charged for blocking off the ball. This happens at least 20 times a game (minus the broken nose of course).

IMO this is what they need to base their appeal on who initiated contact, and that the AFL assumes that Baker initiated contact by putting on a block.

[Mr X from the West]

This will have to be a very carefully crafted appeal to get Bakes off.

I suspect that we will have to prove that Bakes was not culpable (negligent, reckless or otherwise) in blocking "Farmer" and that he could not reasonably have foreseen that his actions would have caused the damage that it ultimately did. I don't think any argument about Farmer's "contributory negligence" will be enough to get Bakes off altogether.

We need a bloody good silk or else we lose.

[saintm]

Does the appeals tribunal only have the power to overturn the decision or can they still find Baker guilty but downgrade the punishment?

[Grimfang]

As it stands at the moment, you could mount a case that Farmer saw Baker move into his path and decided to take him out but stuffed it up.

[aussiejones]

Why didnt Farmer see Barker.....

For Farmer to crash his nose into Bakers head ... what , did he have his eyes closed ?
Or did Baker duck in front of Farmer ?

If Farmer had sidstepped baker then no collision .....So how is it Bakers fault ( if Farmer ) doesnt take avoiding action ?

Surely Farmer has to take some responsibility ?

The whole blocking action is part of this body contact sport.
If an injury occurs it , as it often does , then thats part of the risk they all take.

I think the severity of Farmers injury has unduly influenced the tribunat to lay a charge . The AFL has an agenda to keep injury / blood out of the game . Because of the blood / injuury in this 'incident' they have overreacted.

If there was no severe injury , then much less of a penalty .

[SaintHomer]

poor lateral vision is not the fault of baker.

no assessment can be made of the contact because it was not sighted, not even by the freo drinks guy.

they can cite the hit on ball at the start of the year. he missed games, and looked pretty groggy, but no penalty.

[saintspremiers]

lateral vision is what seems to have knifed Baker in this case...had Farmer seen what was coming and braced himself, it would've been a no issue.

It's a bit like the Gino/Kosi clash - Kosi's poor lateral vision/awarness meant he didn't see the head-high bump coming and was poleaxed as a result - and under the old tribunal rules no case to answer for Gino!!!!

It is not like we are saying Bakers deliberately wanted Farmer to be smashed
in this instance.

It would not surprise me if the tribunal figured that is was likely Baker wanted Farmer decked - due to Farmer being Farmer and Baker being Baker.......lots of underlying bias here that is hard for anyone to dislodge from their thought processes, no matter how impartial and fair they'd like to be.

[Mr Magic]

Bakes deserves a medal

[buzfromgronggrong]

Bakes deserves a medal

That has to be the best post I have ever seen!

[Dal_Santos_Gal]

Bakes deserves a medal

That is gold....

I am so glad the club is taking this further, I am sick of the AFL walking all over us.... lets just hope we can put forward a strong enough case and walk away happy for once.

[SaintWodonga]

So we should appeal 7 weeks is almost so far from left field with the evidence and with other cases, it's almost too odd to be true.

I can't see the 7 weeks increasing. May as well apppeal.

[midas_touch]

Well they really have nothing to lose in this appeal. To not take any action would have been a serious cop out. Hopefully, this absolute joke of a verdict will be overturned,

Bakes deserves a medal

Awesome

[Dan Warna]

Are you saying farmer is a girl?

fair call...

(intentional misunderstanding)

funny how st kilda players are punished for not having peripheral vision and freo are protected.

phukctards.

well we will just have to win the 07 and 08 flags then so bakes gets a shot

[osama milne laden]

if Bakes doesn't get off tomorrow night, it'll be sad not seeing him til round 2 next year

[saint patrick]

So we should appeal 7 weeks is almost so far from left field with the evidence and with other cases, it's almost too odd to be true.

I can't see the 7 weeks increasing. May as well apppeal.

Him being found guilty given the lack of credible evidence is the too odd to be true bit...the just make it up as they go along....

UN..F...ING BELIEVABLE

[Gabba]

When the appeal is on, anyone up for burning effigies of Dimwit and Anderson for allowing Baker's trial to take place?

[Mr X from the West]

From Realfooty, attributing comments to Mark Harvey of Dockers:-

"It's not for me to judge," Harvey said flatly.

"Obviously it's a lengthy sentence, so that's why they are appealing."

I've got news for you mark. WE'RE NOT APPEALING TO GET THE SENTENCE REDUCED, YOU IDIOT, WE'RE APPEALING TO GET IT THROWN OUT.

[Dan Warna]

From Realfooty, attributing comments to Mark Harvey of Dockers:-

"It's not for me to judge," Harvey said flatly.

"Obviously it's a lengthy sentence, so that's why they are appealing."

I've got news for you mark. WE'RE NOT APPEALING TO GET THE SENTENCE REDUCED, YOU IDIOT, WE'RE APPEALING TO GET IT THROWN OUT.

meh if you heard mark harvey's post game interview he is the son of cuddles.

[cowboy18]

if Bakes doesn't get off tomorrow night, it'll be sad not seeing him til round 2 next year

I think I like that thinking! All the more reason to go back to back.