Baker about to get slammed...

Mr Magic · Post: # 948796Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 6:56pm

JacksonsGirl wrote:Pretty sure we are going to contest all 4.

Hey, JG - have you finally converted?

No longer a tige?

saintbrat · Post: # 948797Post **saintbrat** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 6:56pm

JacksonsGirl wrote:Pretty sure we are going to contest all 4.

I'm trusting your source/s....

BUT can I trust the AFL tribunal

mullet · Post: # 948801Post **mullet** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 6:57pm

Are the AFL serious...this then must change football forever. No longer can there be any niggle or tagging in the AFL. With this decision those days are gone.

It would change football forever if they applied this to all players, however they dont. It depends who you are. Their rules are ridiculous, and they need someone to challenge them. Legally this should set a precedent, but the AFL dont answer to anyone so make it up as they go along.

Would not happen in any other sport

Sainterman · Post: # 948806Post **Sainterman** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 6:58pm

http://www.saints.com.au/season2010/new ... fault.aspx

Breakdown of the charges above.

St. Luke · Post: # 948808Post **St. Luke** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 6:59pm

I for one am not surprised! The tribunal must have salivated at the prospect of using Baker as an AFL scapegoat in light of the recent spate of mistakes made by the MRC! P1SS-POOR from them! Just typical!! The Saints need to appeal! There has just been too many getting off their charges lately for us NOT TO HAVE A SHOT at getting Bakes off!

philip · Post: # 948814Post **philip** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 7:00pm

JacksonsGirl wrote:Pretty sure we are going to contest all 4.

I'd hope so.

If not, I would get a ticket together and challenge the Board.

This is a bloody disgrace.

philip

bigred · Post: # 948815Post **bigred** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 7:00pm

Getting pretty bored with this competition.

Mr Magic · Post: # 948816Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 7:00pm

saintbrat wrote:
JacksonsGirl wrote:Pretty sure we are going to contest all 4.
I'm trusting your source/s....

BUT can I trust the AFL tribunal

Well one of the charges is the striking of the hand - the same as Jack Reiwoldt did a few weeks back.
Was he charged/suspended?
No, so that would seem to be a relatively simple one to get thrown out to start with.

Given the number of cases that have been deemed to be 'insufficient force to constitute a strike', including Judd's elbow on Pavlich last week, I would think from the vision I've seen the other 3 charges would all fall within that definition.

We'll probably go to the Tribunal first and they'll probably state that you cannot use other examples as a defense, which means we may end up having to take it to the 'Appeals Board' to get any satisfaction.

lurker#134 · Post: # 948817Post **lurker#134** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 7:00pm

markp · Post: # 948818Post **markp** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 7:01pm

Diabolical.

mullet · Post: # 948821Post **mullet** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 7:03pm

How come Geelong charges are assessed as low impact, but all bakes are high impact. SJ opened up bakers eye, we have all seen the pictures

Dr Spaceman · Mon 28 Jun 2010 7:05pm

Forget Plugger, Dyer, Hall, Brereton, Mal Brown etc.

Steven Baker is a ruthless thug who must be stopped if the AFL is to survive!!!

degruch · Post: # 948825Post **degruch** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 7:05pm

Sainterman wrote:http://www.saints.com.au/season2010/new ... fault.aspx

Breakdown of the charges above.

OK, so it's 4 striking charges, totalling 7 weeks...not 9, or 14. Would like to know what all these 'level 3' striking charges are for...obviously, watching TV like many of us, I only saw what I believe was the second incident between the two, and if it was a 'level 3 strike I'd be flabbergasted...Barry Hall's strike on Staker must have been a 'level 12' in comparison.

Can't see why the club wouldn't challenge all of them to be honest.

saintnick12 · Mon 28 Jun 2010 7:08pm

Worst case of trial by media since Lindy

Unbelieveable

St DAC · Post: # 948836Post **St DAC** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 7:09pm

mullet wrote:How come Geelong charges are assessed as low impact, but all bakes are high impact. SJ opened up bakers eye, we have all seen the pictures

All 4 were assessed as low impact.

mullet · Post: # 948840Post **mullet** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 7:10pm

Dr Spaceman wrote:Forget Plugger, Dyer, Hall, Brereton, Mal Brown etc.

Steven Baker is a ruthless thug who must be stopped if the AFL is to survive!!!

Unfortunately this is the opinion of all opposition supporters going by the comments on the HS website.

degruch · Post: # 948844Post **degruch** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 7:11pm

St DAC wrote:
mullet wrote:How come Geelong charges are assessed as low impact, but all bakes are high impact. SJ opened up bakers eye, we have all seen the pictures
All 4 were assessed as low impact.

They were too...my eyes were merging low impact and high contact.

degruch · Post: # 948847Post **degruch** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 7:12pm

mullet wrote:
Dr Spaceman wrote:Forget Plugger, Dyer, Hall, Brereton, Mal Brown etc.

Steven Baker is a ruthless thug who must be stopped if the AFL is to survive!!!
Unfortunately this is the opinion of all opposition supporters going by the comments on the HS website.

Must be a Victorian thing, hardly rated a mention amongst 'foreign' supporters over here around the watercooler.

mullet · Post: # 948858Post **mullet** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 7:15pm

degruch wrote:
St DAC wrote:
mullet wrote:How come Geelong charges are assessed as low impact, but all bakes are high impact. SJ opened up bakers eye, we have all seen the pictures
All 4 were assessed as low impact.
They were too...my eyes were merging low impact and high contact.

Yeah sorry, I guess I cant see straight from rage.

I cant agree that SJ's impact wasnt worse than low though

St DAC · Post: # 948868Post **St DAC** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 7:17pm

mullet wrote:I cant agree that SJ's impact wasnt worse than low though

His elbow was assessed as medium impact. The punch to the head was deemed low.

mullet · Post: # 948869Post **mullet** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 7:17pm

degruch wrote:
mullet wrote:
Dr Spaceman wrote:Forget Plugger, Dyer, Hall, Brereton, Mal Brown etc.

Steven Baker is a ruthless thug who must be stopped if the AFL is to survive!!!
Unfortunately this is the opinion of all opposition supporters going by the comments on the HS website.
Must be a Victorian thing, hardly rated a mention amongst 'foreign' supporters over here around the watercooler.

Yep couldnt believe what I was reading. 9/10 said he deserved what he got and he is the dirtiest player going around.

Ralphy · Post: # 948873Post **Ralphy** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 7:17pm

lurker#134 wrote:

Mate i have used your photo to post over facebook and to bakes is that ok?

lurker#134 · Post: # 948904Post **lurker#134** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 7:30pm

Go for your life Ralphy

IcanKickit · Post: # 948912Post **IcanKickit** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 7:33pm

Worst case of trial by media since gazrat's banning

Unbelieveable

12 weeks for what ?

AP Erebus · Post: # 948927Post **AP Erebus** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 7:38pm

I disagree with the jumper punches, but I completely agree with the injured hand hitting being penalised.

We all decried the treatment of Roo, this is exactly the same.

But the jumper punches are a f****** joke.