Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
The Baker case was a screw up by us admitting guilt remember, or is convenient to forget that fact?
It's not about whether Baker was innocent or guilty.
He was found guilty - we can debate the merits of that decisoin separately.
What I am on about and obviously not expressing it clearly is this.
Having found Baker guilty - they decided to suspend him for 7 weeks. They knew he had carry over points and his recoerd so they passed a sentence that was 7 games.
Having found Hall guilty of his charge they suspended him for 7 games. They knew his history etc and gave him 7 games - the same penalty they gave Baker.
My outrage is that the Tribunal has seen fit to equate what Hall did with what Baker was found guilty of!
Dan Warna wrote:baker should never have been found guilty
no video evidence and this rubbish about duty of care, doesn't apply when targetting xavier, ball, reiwoldt....
Total agree Dan, Baker should never have been found guilty but have a look at the advice and his mouth piece. Thank god he has gone.
With similar advice and the same mouth piece, Hall may have coped 20 weeks.
That i believe is the difference.
So true.
I think I'm going to give this one last try and then give up.
Forget about whether Baker was guilty or not.
HE WAS FOUND GUILTY of the charge that was levelled at him.
The tribunal then decided his penalty for that charge should be n 4 games plus his carry over points which means 7 games.
The tribunal found Hall guilty of the charge against him and decided he should serve a 7 game suspension. It doesn't matter how they arrived at the figure. They decided he should be suspended for 7 games - the same as Baker.
One person was found guilty of 'stopping' on the field.
The other player was found guilty of King Hitting an opponent.
The Tribunal thinks both offences deserve the same penalty.
Plugger obviuosly agrees with them.
No i dont but what should have Hall got compared to Baker. You say 10 I say if you thought Bakes was not guilty you should think at least 25 because Bakes got 7 for being not guity. that is why you cannot compare cases. How many should Maxwell have got compared to Bakes. Under your system at least 12 weeks.
No i dont but what should have Hall got compared to Baker. You say 10 I say if you thought Bakes was not guilty you should think at least 25 because Bakes got 7 for being not guity. that is why you cannot compare cases. How many should Maxwell have got compared to Bakes. Under your system at least 12 weeks.[/quote]
No i dont but what should have Hall got compared to Baker. You say 10 I say if you thought Bakes was not guilty you should think at least 25 because Bakes got 7 for being not guity. that is why you cannot compare cases. How many should Maxwell have got compared to Bakes. Under your system at least 12 weeks.
You just won't answer the question directly.
Baker was guilty -got 7
Hall was guilty - got 7
Were the offences worth the same penalty?[/quote][/quote]
No they were not but why only 10 for Hall then if you compare it to Bakes who is not guilty. I dont understand. And Maxwell compared to Bakes. How many. Please give me an idea. Even Mooney compared to Bakes. Mooney did it so he must get 7 surely. Gamble on Dal must be 9-10 compared to Bakes surely. Yes bakes was badly advised and was given a harsh 4 week penalty because of it but that case is over now.
No i dont but what should have Hall got compared to Baker. You say 10 I say if you thought Bakes was not guilty you should think at least 25 because Bakes got 7 for being not guity. that is why you cannot compare cases. How many should Maxwell have got compared to Bakes. Under your system at least 12 weeks.
You just won't answer the question directly.
Baker was guilty -got 7
Hall was guilty - got 7
Were the offences worth the same penalty?
No they were not but why only 10 for Hall then if you compare it to Bakes who is not guilty. I dont understand. And Maxwell compared to Bakes. How many. Please give me an idea. Even Mooney compared to Bakes. Mooney did it so he must get 7 surely. Gamble on Dal must be 9-10 compared to Bakes surely. Yes bakes was badly advised and was given a harsh 4 week penalty because of it but that case is over now.[/quote][/quote][/quote]
Well hallelujah,
Hidden amongst all that obfuscation is an answer to the question.
Sainternist wrote:Should be made to serve the suspension after he recovers from his broken wrist.
Maybe if that was how he broke his wrist.
But it's almost a little too convenient that he'll be sidelined with injury anyway during the impending suspension. It's almost as though the AFL are just giving him a slap on the wrist
The mut gets to play in the '05 GF, after he clearly was guilty of striking and now fortunes smile on him again. Stinks to high heaven.
Last edited by Sainternist on Tue 15 Apr 2008 10:48pm, edited 1 time in total.
No i dont but what should have Hall got compared to Baker. You say 10 I say if you thought Bakes was not guilty you should think at least 25 because Bakes got 7 for being not guity. that is why you cannot compare cases. How many should Maxwell have got compared to Bakes. Under your system at least 12 weeks.
You just won't answer the question directly.
Baker was guilty -got 7
Hall was guilty - got 7
Were the offences worth the same penalty?
No they were not but why only 10 for Hall then if you compare it to Bakes who is not guilty. I dont understand. And Maxwell compared to Bakes. How many. Please give me an idea. Even Mooney compared to Bakes. Mooney did it so he must get 7 surely. Gamble on Dal must be 9-10 compared to Bakes surely. Yes bakes was badly advised and was given a harsh 4 week penalty because of it but that case is over now.
Well hallelujah,
Hidden amongst all that obfuscation is an answer to the question.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
Most pundits predicted 6-8. He got 7 (Bakes got 4 + a 3 game loading). So, his comeback game is against us. Luck of the draw. I would prefer we beat them with him in the side !!
7 seems about right to me for what he did. It was one punch; a p!ssweak act, yes, but 7 weeks is a third of a season. His injury is irrelevant in the context of his penalty; injuries do not effect any one else's penalty, so should also not effect Hall's.
I agree Baker was shafted!
But the incidents are not comparable, and for that matter neither is West on X.
Is tugger66 a real person or a computer generated program who's pre- programmed default position is to apologize for absolutely any rule, law, regulation, position of authority, FAIR DINKUM?
So robotized, like a good well trained servile underling, I bet you've never jay walked in your entire life, you probably even confront jaywalkers and see it as your civil duty to go out of your way to inform them of the council bylaws and regulations, regarding crossing the road when the lights are not green, even if there isn't a car to be seen for a country mile.
Something is happening, but you don't know what it is, do you Mr Jones!
barks4eva wrote:Is tugger66 a real person or a computer generated program who's pre- programmed default position is to apologize for absolutely any rule, law, regulation, position of authority, FAIR DINKUM?
So robotized, like a good well trained servile underling, I bet you've never jay walked in your entire life, you probably even confront jaywalkers and see it as your civil duty to go out of your way to inform them of the council bylaws and regulations, regarding crossing the road when the lights are not green, even if there isn't a car to be seen for a country mile.
Something is happening, but you don't know what it is, do you Mr Jones!
FAIR DINKUM
So Stewie Loewe is on the take. You know nothing about me. I could be a murderer so you should watch out because you would be easy to find at the footy. Just look for someone who chants GT name over and over again and has ruck stats written on his arm to quote to the poor person sitting next to you.
barks4eva wrote:Is tugger66 a real person or a computer generated program who's pre- programmed default position is to apologize for absolutely any rule, law, regulation, position of authority, FAIR DINKUM?
So robotized, like a good well trained servile underling, I bet you've never jay walked in your entire life, you probably even confront jaywalkers and see it as your civil duty to go out of your way to inform them of the council bylaws and regulations, regarding crossing the road when the lights are not green, even if there isn't a car to be seen for a country mile.
Something is happening, but you don't know what it is, do you Mr Jones!
FAIR DINKUM
I don’t agree with Plugger66 on this topic.
But at least he argues logic, addresses individual posts and doesn’t spam the same garbage to every issue.
barks4eva wrote:Is tugger66 a real person or a computer generated program who's pre- programmed default position is to apologize for absolutely any rule, law, regulation, position of authority, FAIR DINKUM?
So robotized, like a good well trained servile underling, I bet you've never jay walked in your entire life, you probably even confront jaywalkers and see it as your civil duty to go out of your way to inform them of the council bylaws and regulations, regarding crossing the road when the lights are not green, even if there isn't a car to be seen for a country mile.
Something is happening, but you don't know what it is, do you Mr Jones!
FAIR DINKUM
I don’t agree with Plugger66 on this topic.
But at least he argues logic, addresses individual posts and doesn’t spam the same garbage to every issue.
Thanks Shaggy. Look forward to our next discussion.
barks4eva wrote:Is tugger66 a real person or a computer generated program who's pre- programmed default position is to apologize for absolutely any rule, law, regulation, position of authority, FAIR DINKUM?
So robotized, like a good well trained servile underling, I bet you've never jay walked in your entire life, you probably even confront jaywalkers and see it as your civil duty to go out of your way to inform them of the council bylaws and regulations, regarding crossing the road when the lights are not green, even if there isn't a car to be seen for a country mile.
Something is happening, but you don't know what it is, do you Mr Jones!
FAIR DINKUM
So Stewie Loewe is on the take. You know nothing about me. I could be a murderer so you should watch out because you would be easy to find at the footy. Just look for someone who chants GT name over and over again and has ruck stats written on his arm to quote to the poor person sitting next to you.
How much are you willing to pay to point him out? I could be persuaded !!
My whole point in bringing up Baker as an example is that virtually every offence by any other AFL player seems to get swept out the door with either little or no penalty! It seriously drives me to the verge of lunacy trying to work it out! Baker has been done (and the example of Alessio) for some pretty soft actions (IMO) which had it been committed by player from another club would have been clearly thrown out the door! Mark my words, had Baker done what Hall had done he'd have been turfed out of the game for 14weeks!! I'm dirty on the Baker penalty - BLOODY DIRTY ON IT! The biggest question is, how many weeks will Bakes cop for ANY sort of offence next time?? He's a tagger for godsakes! He's always going to be under some scrutiny at some stage or another!
Last edited by St. Luke on Tue 15 Apr 2008 11:52pm, edited 1 time in total.
When they created LENNY HAYES (in the shadow of Harvs) they forgot to break the mold (again)- hence the Supremely Incredible Jack Steven!!
Why do you care so much, it's pathetic. Hall is a has been anyway. I'd rather he was in the team and max can just embarrass him. Baker has earned his penalties on the whole. He'll be back shortly. He may not be in the best 22 anyway.
Get over it.
StKilda needs a gameplan that the players believe in. Maybe if we had this we wouldn't care about stupid Hall so much. Has anyone ever hated the football more than now? Lyon has killed all attacking football - that's the problem. We now defend qtr time leads. We even seem to defend half time deficits. Now there is a plan. I doubt half the side knows wtf they should be doing.
Football is booming and we are dithering about like Richmond do. It s***s the hell out of me.
