CONFIRMED: We are appealing

[OnTheFence]

Straight from the AFL Tribunal's own handbook, with situation applicable to Baker's actions highlighted.

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]

How many threads are you going to cut and paste this crap on, sore balls?

[OnTheFence]

If you were paying attention MrX you would know it was 2.

And describing this as crap after all the rubbish so called tribunal experts on this forum have spouted is ludicrous.

[Mr X from the West]

Take some advice, sore balls, and I'm sure I speak for all fun loving Saints supporters on this site - PISS OFF BACK TO YOUR FENCE.

[Dal_Santos_Gal]

If you were paying attention MrX you would know it was 2.

And describing this as crap after all the rubbish so called tribunal experts on this forum have spouted is ludicrous.

Well what do you know we have a TROLL !!
Why don't you flock back over to fockerland and cry in your spilt milk because you didn't go home with the 4 points and the fact you have no CHANCE in hell of playing finals footy this year.

[OnTheFence]

MrX from the West, with this fixation you seem to have on sore balls, you wouldn't be Daniel Kerr by any chance would you?

Or did you snag your balls on the rabbit-proof fence on your way to the game on Saturday? You did go didn't you?

Big claim that, speaking on behalf of everyone on the forum, what a proud puppy you must be!

[Mr Magic]

Dear splinterupthear$e

What is so difficult to understand?
None of the crap you posted is relevant!

Baker's testimony, which was accepted by the Tribunal, was that he did not lay a shepherd or bump or tackle or anything else. He 'blocked' which means he stopped dead in his tracks and Farmer cannoned into him.

This is not disputed by the Tribunal.

Therefore, Baker did not hit Farmer - Farmer hit Baker.

Is that in plain enough English for you?

[OnTheFence]

Mr Magic have you actually played football?

[Dal_Santos_Gal]

Dear splinterupthear$e

What is so difficult to understand?
None of the crap you posted is relevant!

Baker's testimony, which was accepted by the Tribunal, was that he did not lay a shepherd or bump or tackle or anything else. He 'blocked' which means he stopped dead in his tracks and Farmer cannoned into him.

This is not disputed by the Tribunal.

Therefore, Baker did not hit Farmer - Farmer hit Baker.

Is that in plain enough English for you?

LOL Mr Magic
If you haven't noticed it appears a lot of fockers supporters are struggling to understand what happened on Saturday afternoon.
See when you only have an IQ of around 1 maybe 2..... I guess even learning that freo freooo O theme song would be hard.

[OnTheFence]

Dal_Santos_Gal, I think you should move on.

[Oh When the Saints]

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?

Not allowed to be named.

If time was frozen, Baker is banned from playing football in a registered competition for 7 matches.

It's like if someone is found guilty of murder and appeals ... they are not allowed to resume their life until the appeal ... they are remanded, and the time is deducted from their sentence.

[Mr Magic]

Mr Magic have you actually played football?

Mr Splinterupthear$e

Yes I have.

Relevance?

[Dal_Santos_Gal]

Dal_Santos_Gal, I think you should move on.

excuse me, I barrack for the saints, you don't and you have only 15 posts... and you are telling me to move on..... think again troll

[stinger]

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

[stinger]

If you were paying attention MrX you would know it was 2.

And describing this as crap after all the rubbish so called tribunal experts on this forum have spouted is ludicrous.

f*** off troll......

[luckysaint]

how long is this going to take???

[Solar]

how long is this going to take???

is tomorrow night at 5:30

thankgod we are taking it to appeal.....

[brown-coat]

[luckysaint]

how long is this going to take???

is tomorrow night at 5:30

thankgod we are taking it to appeal.....

Bloody hell i thought appeals were the night after. Does this affect our ability to name him in our team sheets just in case he gets off?

[OnTheFence]

Mr Magic have you actually played football?

Mr Splinterupthear$e

Yes I have.

Relevance?

The relevance is Mr Magic (please note that I have the courtesy to address you correctly, and that the fence my name refers to is metal and has no splinters) that you should therefore know that what Baker did, a long way off the ball, is by no means excusable and never has been and never will be considered acceptable in our game.

[aussierules0k]

[stinger]

Mr Magic have you actually played football?

Mr Splinterupthear$e

Yes I have.

Relevance?

The relevance is Mr Magic (please note that I have the courtesy to address you correctly, and that the fence my name refers to is metal and has no splinters) that you should therefore know that what Baker did, a long way off the ball, is by no means excusable and never has been and never will be considered acceptable in our game.

you obviously didn't see my earlier post numbnuts....must be related to farmer........he also has poor eyesight...so i have copied it for you you fool.......






f*** off troll......


......

[Dis Believer]

The relevance is that what Baker did,is by no means excusable and never has been and never will be considered acceptable in our game.

Excuse me Mr SplintersuptheAr$e, but what did Baker do exactly? The problem is that no-one really knows, Baker by his own admission was merely blocking Farmers run! That is completely acceptable in our game and always has been! I played the game as well and that is standard procedure everywhere our great game is played!!!!!

And therein lays the rub - he shouldn't be found guilty because there is no evidence, and he did nothing against the rules.

[Teflon]

[quote="OnTheFence"]Straight from the AFL Tribunal's own handbook, with situation applicable to Baker's actions highlighted.

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€

[Leo.J]

...that what Baker did, a long way off the ball, is by no means excusable and never has been and never will be considered acceptable in our game.

What did he do that was so unexceptable?

According to the tribunal he made contact by blocking Farmer.

...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....

And this is what they agreed occured...

"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."

Whelan got off with a similar action in round 1, yet he was within 15m of the play, this being the only difference as far as the tribunal is concerned.

* Contact between Melbourne's Matthew Whelan and St Kilda's Luke Ball. It was the view of the panel that Whelan ran eight-to-10 metres from in front of Ball. Just before contact was made, Whelan turned his body to shepherd his teammate, resulting in contact between his back and Ball's chest. The momentum of the contact resulted in an accidental head clash. Under the tribunal guidelines, this was an accidental head clash.

And accident is an accident in play or not, is it not?