A question of reasonableness: basis for appeal

[Riewoldting]

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.

No.

There are three gaps in your logic: namely, (1) that Baker admitted to making contact with Farmer, but the contact to which he admitted was not the contact that broke Farmer’s nose; (2) you lump reportable offences (headbutt, striking) in with non-reportable offences (stop and prop more than 5m from the ball) in determining whether Baker caused injury to Farmer; and (3) severity of damage is relevant only to questions of penalties, not to questions of guilt.

In terms of willed acts and intent, all the evidence shows is that Baker deliberately and with intent laid a shepherd on Farmer, NOT that he deliberately and with intent broke Farmer’s nose.

So Baker deliberately and with intent performed a legal act, the unintended consequence of which was a serious injury to Farmer.

When I say “a legal actâ€

[Mr Magic]

Your post seems reasonable to me

Why not email it to the Club?
I'm sure they could use all the help we can give them.

[saintsRrising]

I think the whole appeal comes down to what is reasonable.

.

Well put Riewoldting.


However on this one line...I think the AFL jave set the appeals up now such that you have to put up something "fresh" rather than appealing the determination.



If so we need some fresh evidence or a factor that was not considered.



Does anyone know what the rules of appeal are??

[Brewer]

Beautifully put Riewoldting.

Unfortunately to comprehend it, you need a certain level of intelligence to process it any further than 'Farmer + bloody nose = lock up the Saints', so our friend from Freo simply won't be able to understand it.

He and his mob have already demonstrated they have a very weak and simplistic grasp of the complexities of the subject.

[Mr X from the West]

As I said in another post, we're going to need a bloody good silk on this appeal.

Question - who sits on the appeal? Is it a panel? Are any of them legal folk?

[saint patrick]

Excellent summation Riewoldting Rumpole

Its just so frustrating that many people including some media can't see the injustice of this decision.
As you rightly point out stopping and propping isn't an offence in itself[a frree kick perhaps!] and what control did Baker have to prevent Farmer slamming into him...

The staggering point is the Tribunal accepted Bakers version yet still thought he acted recklessly....he was convicted on his perceived character olone....FFS there was no vision and very poor evidence on the Fremantle side surely a player derserves the benefit of the doubt...

the extent of the injury is irrelevant...he may have done more damage just hitting the ground,

Still can't believe this farce and if he doesn't get off Iwould love to see the club test this out in a court of law...just the most flawed,flimsy case in the history of this Kangeroo court and given past decisions[mainly involving our club]thats saying something

[yipper]

I think the whole appeal comes down to what is reasonable.

.

Well put Riewoldting.


However on this one line...I think the AFL jave set the appeals up now such that you have to put up something "fresh" rather than appealing the determination.



If so we need some fresh evidence or a factor that was not considered.



Does anyone know what the rules of appeal are??

You can appeal on the basis that the Tribunal erred in reaching a particular verdict based on the evidence presented and the process followed. St.Kilda would argue that - given the testimonies from Baker (with corroboration from an independant witness) up against the poor testimony which contradicted each other from the Freo camp - the Tribunal could not have possibly reached the verdict that they have.

[aussiejones]

On SEN I heard something similar .
"he was convicted on his perceived character alone."

Also , the bloody photos and medical evidence of the Farmer injueies played a part .

Baker is described as a hard nut , has been reported before .....
in this instance given his reputation and the injuries .... GUILTY.

The AFL cannot 'clean up the game ' ( less blood & injury ) to appease the mums with kiddies playing footy by using this case as an example .

Farmer could well have been badly injured in the pack , or by a player falling on his leg etc , but no report would ensue.

This case is clearly not justice.

Also , I believe the AFL wants to cut out behind the play incidents and last weeks game gave them an opportunity at Bakers expense.

Finally , just imagine it was Harvey or Gram or Voss in Bakers situation do you think there would have been the same result ?

[OnTheFence]

Moan and bitch as much as you like. Try to explain how an orange is actually an apple, but this information straight from the AFL Tribunal's own handbook shoots your argument down cold. I have highlighted the clauses which apply to Baker's case in particular.

1.2 Other bumps to the head or neck
A number of submissions on this subject supported a stronger stance against head-high bumps and clarification of what constitutes a reportable bump. In 2007, any bump causing forceful contact to be made to an opponent’s head or neck will be reportable for rough conduct, unless the player did not have a realistic alternative to:
a. Contest the ball;
b. Tackle; or
c. Shepherd in a manner which was reasonable in the circumstances.
A definition has been added as follows:
“A player shall engage in rough conduct which in the circumstances is unreasonable where in bumping an opponent he causes forceful contact to be made to an opponent’s head or neck. Unless intentional or reckless such conduct shall be deemed to be negligent unless the player did not have a realistic alternative to:
a. Contest the ball;
b. Tackle; or
c. Shepherd in a manner which was reasonable in the circumstances.â€

[Mr X from the West]

On the Fence (ala "sore balls").

None of your highlighted text is relevant to Baker's case. There is NO EVIDENCE to indicate that Baker, in applying his block, could and should have reasonably foreseen that his head would have made contact with Farmer's head and cause the damage that it ultimately did. Surely that's common sense - why would Baker ram his head into Farmer's?

The degree of force is disputable - who created the force? Baker (doubt it) or Farmer (who was travelling at a fair rate of knots when he banged his head into Baker).

[OnTheFence]

On the Fence (ala "sore balls").

None of your highlighted text is relevant to Baker's case. There is NO EVIDENCE to indicate that Baker, in applying his block, could and should have reasonably foreseen that his head would have made contact with Farmer's head and cause the damage that it ultimately did. Surely that's common sense - why would Baker ram his head into Farmer's?

The degree of force is disputable - who created the force? Baker (doubt it) or Farmer (who was travelling at a fair rate of knots when he banged his head into Baker).

Read carefully, or get someone to read it to you slowly.

...causes forceful contact to be made.... no question about whether it was reasonably foreseen or any such words, he caused it by initiating the contact.

[satchmo]

On the Fence (ala "sore balls").

None of your highlighted text is relevant to Baker's case. There is NO EVIDENCE to indicate that Baker, in applying his block, could and should have reasonably foreseen that his head would have made contact with Farmer's head and cause the damage that it ultimately did. Surely that's common sense - why would Baker ram his head into Farmer's?

The degree of force is disputable - who created the force? Baker (doubt it) or Farmer (who was travelling at a fair rate of knots when he banged his head into Baker).

Read carefully, or get someone to read it to you slowly.

...causes forceful contact to be made.... no question about whether it was reasonably foreseen or any such words, he caused it by initiating the contact.

So why wasn't whelan cited, why wasn't gianserracusa cited ?
If there was consistancy I would cop it, but those two weren't even charged, let alone penalised.

[Mr X from the West]

On the Fence (ala "sore balls").

None of your highlighted text is relevant to Baker's case. There is NO EVIDENCE to indicate that Baker, in applying his block, could and should have reasonably foreseen that his head would have made contact with Farmer's head and cause the damage that it ultimately did. Surely that's common sense - why would Baker ram his head into Farmer's?

The degree of force is disputable - who created the force? Baker (doubt it) or Farmer (who was travelling at a fair rate of knots when he banged his head into Baker).

Read carefully, or get someone to read it to you slowly.

...causes forceful contact to be made.... no question about whether it was reasonably foreseen or any such words, he caused it by initiating the contact.

What? Baker caused it, did he, by ramming the back of his head into Farmer's head?

[rodgerfox]

On the Fence (ala "sore balls").

None of your highlighted text is relevant to Baker's case. There is NO EVIDENCE to indicate that Baker, in applying his block, could and should have reasonably foreseen that his head would have made contact with Farmer's head and cause the damage that it ultimately did. Surely that's common sense - why would Baker ram his head into Farmer's?

The degree of force is disputable - who created the force? Baker (doubt it) or Farmer (who was travelling at a fair rate of knots when he banged his head into Baker).

Read carefully, or get someone to read it to you slowly.

...causes forceful contact to be made.... no question about whether it was reasonably foreseen or any such words, he caused it by initiating the contact.

Are you saying that Farmer should be reported for collecting Bakes?

[OnTheFence]

Rodgerfox, the most obvious difference as I see it is that both players were considered to be actively involved in the passage of play.

[rodgerfox]

Rodgerfox, the most obvious difference as I see it is that both players were considered to be actively involved in the passage of play.

Hypothetically, if Baker had have been concussed in the collision - do you think Farmer should/would have been suspended?

[Behind Play]

Can any one tell me if any one from the AFL made a statement, especially Andrew..........he seems to always have an opinion.

Haven't heard a thing all day.

[OnTheFence]

Rodgerfox, the most obvious difference as I see it is that both players were considered to be actively involved in the passage of play.

Hypothetically, if Baker had have been concussed in the collision - do you think Farmer should/would have been suspended?

Hypothetically, if Baker had been concussed as well as Farmer, play on.

If Baker had been concussed and Farmer had run off, in the same circumstances with nothing to prove what had happened, Farmer would be in serious trouble.

The issue here is that Baker put himself in it by acknowledging that he initiated the contact.

[rogerwa]

roo look forward to seeing you dressed up in your wig & gown next time we visit the civic

reckon if i ever get in the chyt (likely to happen)you & kiki will get me off all charges

[Hurricane]

All I want to know is how the hell can someone get 7 weeks (or suspended at all) when the is no video footage and everyone that saw it has a differant story AND a Collingwood player that delivered a hit on an opposing player that the AntiFunLeague has decided will be hit with massive peneltys gets a lesser suspension.

Besides if any sane person were in charge of the tribunal they would give Bakes a freakin medal for putting that little jerk on his ass.

BANG BANG

[saintrod]

Agree with your post Riewoldting.

However IMO I don't think we will get any satisfaction out of the flawed AFL appeal process and to effectively present the sort of arguments you are advancing we may need to pursue them through the courts - an action I would strongly support.

However my gut feeling is the club won't do it for fear of getting the AFL off-side and being screwed in any number of ways by the AFL after the event whether it be the draw eg consecutive Perth, Brisbane and Perth matches, above normal number of twilght matches etc , some special review of the club, targetted fines.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

The issue here is that Baker put himself in it by acknowledging that he initiated the contact.

This may be the case. Does anyone know if Baker's admission included him saying he was seeking contact, or whether he simply claimed to be trying to stop Farmer from entering the forward 50?

One might argue the onus was on Farmer to not run into Baker. The alleged bump on the back of Baker's head would seem to imply Baker was not watching Farmer at the time.

The rules posted are interesting. The questions I would be asking on appeal (now that there's a clear view of what the charge is):
1. Whether the tribunal can clearly see the onus of the head high contact being a consequence of Baker's block (and block/shepherd will probably be symantically important here).
2. Whether Farmer can be proven to have been vulnerable.
3. Whether Baker can be reasonably expected to have seen Farmer as vulnerable.
4. Most of all, Was Baker's Block/Shepherd reasonable in the circumstance (see Reiwoldting's post, 1.2c of rules). If so, can it be shown that Baker had a realistic alternative, and/or can it be shown that Baker was negligent in his duty of care to prevent contact to the head.

As someone posted yesterday, there seems to be a strong send of post hoc ergo propter hoc (it happens after therefore because of it) in this case. While I have no idea what Baker's actual chances on appeal are (and not just because the AFL tribunal is so unpredictable!), I remain stunned that with no concrete evidence, Baker, based on his own testimony has had handed down one of the strongest punishments in a decade. Essentially, on the basis that Farmer has a blood nose and concussion following a shepherd, that as far as anyone can tell was a 100 times a game type offering.

[meher baba]

The issue here is that Baker put himself in it by acknowledging that he initiated the contact.

This may be the case. Does anyone know if Baker's admission included him saying he was seeking contact, or whether he simply claimed to be trying to stop Farmer from entering the forward 50?

One might argue the onus was on Farmer to not run into Baker. The alleged bump on the back of Baker's head would seem to imply Baker was not watching Farmer at the time.

The rules posted are interesting. The questions I would be asking on appeal (now that there's a clear view of what the charge is):
1. Whether the tribunal can clearly see the onus of the head high contact being a consequence of Baker's block (and block/shepherd will probably be symantically important here).
2. Whether Farmer can be proven to have been vulnerable.
3. Whether Baker can be reasonably expected to have seen Farmer as vulnerable.
4. Most of all, Was Baker's Block/Shepherd reasonable in the circumstance (see Reiwoldting's post, 1.2c of rules). If so, can it be shown that Baker had a realistic alternative, and/or can it be shown that Baker was negligent in his duty of care to prevent contact to the head.

As someone posted yesterday, there seems to be a strong send of post hoc ergo propter hoc (it happens after therefore because of it) in this case. While I have no idea what Baker's actual chances on appeal are (and not just because the AFL tribunal is so unpredictable!), I remain stunned that with no concrete evidence, Baker, based on his own testimony has had handed down one of the strongest punishments in a decade. Essentially, on the basis that Farmer has a blood nose and concussion following a shepherd, that as far as anyone can tell was a 100 times a game type offering.

Didn't Baker admit that he had made an illegal shepherd? So isn't he rubbed out by

The onus is placed on a player who elects to bump to do so legitimately. He has a duty to avoid significant contact to an opponent’s head or neck where reasonably possible.

By definition he made a bump that was not "legitimate" and therefore not "reasonable". And it resulted in "significant contact to an opponent's head or neck".

We have no hope with an appeal on the Tribunal's ruling. It's specious, as they have deemed the "unreasonableness" in this case to be the fact that the shepherd was illegal, but the rules appear to give them the opportunity to do so.

Where the appeal has some hope is that the MRP does not routinely refer illegal shepherds off the ball which lead to head injuries through accidental clashes to the Tribunal. It would surely be possible for the Club to find examples of cases where this had happened. Then the problem for the AFL becomes that the MRP made an "unreasonable" referral of Bakes to the Tribunal, because it was given false evidence by someone who was lying or deluded that Baker had deliberately attacked Farmer's head. In defending himself against this false evidence, Baker told the truth and thereby incriminated himself against another charge. The only way he could have avoided doing this was to lie: as the former AFL prosecutor has publicly admitted. This was therefore a denial of natural justice.

Surely this is the only line of argument that has any chance of working (and my money is still on our appeal being dismissed).

[meher baba]

A further thought: Bakes can perhaps argue that what he meant by "block" in his evidence was not a bump or a shepherd, but simply an attempt to run towards the ball along the same line as Farmer.

[Riewoldting]

Well "block" in its ordinary means "to prevent access to".

So that's all he is admitting to ... standing in someone's way.

If I stand in someone's way on a city street, I haven't bumped, charged or shepherded them or initiated contact. I've simply blocked access.

If they got their back up and charged into me ... but came off second best ... well, more fool them.