Our Admin are gutless

[rodgerfox]

If I think about it without rose coloured glasses on, I am not sure he was made an example of.

Two things really nailed him...

Most of his contact was to the Steve Johnson's face, which is actually most unusual for Bakes.

He had a bad record, though initially angry, I think we all would of copped the suspension handed out had it not increased significantly as a result of this.

Two words...

Chris. Judd.

Sure, he got off....but that should be more concerning to Steve Johnson, not Steven Baker.

Why?

Judd struck someone hard enough in the head to draw blood = no crime.

Baker struck someone in the head with no injury to the player at all = GUILTY!


The sums just don't add up .

[SainterK]

Guys, you might not agree with the time, but Baker certainly did the crime.

What on earth has the fact he crossed the line, got to do with St Kilda being compromised?

They appealed, there was even more high definition vision of Johnson hitting Steve Johnson in the face at the tribunal, was he supposed to deny it?

Because other players have done the same 'crime' and have been cleared because the exact same people that hung Baker, declared their acts not to be crimes at all.

Why did Baker do the crime, if when other blokes do it, it isn't a crime?

That's why this is just so freakin' outrageous.


And secondly, most people are outraged by the time. That's the biggst issue. He copped 12 for ****'s sake!!!

Other guys got cleared for the same stuff - and got 12!!!

I looked into this a little, so I had a better understanding.

If you're referring to Pears and Riewoldt, Pears had broken his hand weeks earlier, and returned from injury. The MRP looked at it as they were obviously not happy with Jack targetting the bandage because of the image, but could only look at it as a striking charge given it was not a fresh injury, so it was deemed insufficient impact.

Steve Johnson broke his hand, was in obvious discomfort, and Baker hit it. He was charged with misconduct, because he was aware of the fresh injury.

There were 4 and 1 elbow thrown on Friday night, all of them were reported and charged.

You need to look at what his suspension would of been without the 50% loading.

[IcanKickit]

And secondly, most people are outraged by the time. That's the biggst issue. He copped 12 for ****'s sake!!!

Other guys got cleared for the same stuff - and gazrat got 12!!!

just hit him much harder next time bakes .

[joffaboy]

Completely disagree. He did the crime. Completely excessive penalty? Yes, but penalty was warranted. And frankly, it was a pretty stupid effort, given the number of cameras and his prior penalties as baggage.

So you have no problem with the club letting Baker out to dry and having his character assasinated and him being insulted in the public domain.

And why should Baker be pinged for a tap on a players hand when no other player EVER HAS?

Where was this outrage when Riewoldt did it to Pears a couple of weeks back?

So you are happy that the club has abandoned Baker and wont respond to the attack on his integrity?

Right o.

Perhaps someone innocent of the crime? The only shot they had was overturning the hand-slap. And IMO the MRP got that wrong. But they gave it a crack, and infortunately lost. So it goes.

Nothing to do with the crime. It is about protecting the palyers integrity, but you seem to think it is OK to go out and bleed for the jumper but not support him when he has been vilified in the public domain.

Great.

Fkn gutless wimps.

Now that's OTT ...

[/quote]

yes you are right, Fkn gutless lackey boy ****lickers of the AFl would be more appropriate.

[markp]

You cant punch opposition players in the face.

Mooney got 3, and Bakes did what he did at least twice, plus the hand thing, plus loading.

It truly sucks... but there it is.

[MCG-Unit]

Guys, you might not agree with the time, but Baker certainly did the crime.

What on earth has the fact he crossed the line, got to do with St Kilda being compromised?

They appealed, there was even more high definition vision of Johnson hitting Steve Johnson in the face at the tribunal, was he supposed to deny it?

Yes Baker did the crime, but as others have said, other similar incidents were not penalised - Judd on Pavlich, who needed 5 stitches to his face, Hall's headlock, Jack Riewoldt hitting an injured player.......

Did the club appeal the King suspension ? How the heck did he get 4 weeks for that incident
From the outside, it appeared the club didn't give a shyster about King

What did the club do about having 6 interstate matches this year ?
Supporters want to see their club stand up for itself and it's players

[SainterK]

Look I love Baker too, but you cannot ignore that the last 10 times he has been reported, he has pleaded guilty. He has 50% loading, he has a bad record, he has to be more careful

[SainterK]

Guys, you might not agree with the time, but Baker certainly did the crime.

What on earth has the fact he crossed the line, got to do with St Kilda being compromised?

They appealed, there was even more high definition vision of Johnson hitting Steve Johnson in the face at the tribunal, was he supposed to deny it?

Yes Baker did the crime, but as others have said, other similar incidents were not penalised - Judd on Pavlich, who needed 5 stitches to his face, Hall's headlock, Jack Riewoldt hitting an injured player.......

Did the club appeal the King suspension ? How the heck did he get 4 weeks for that incident
From the outside, it appeared the club didn't give a shyster about King

What did the club do about having 6 interstate matches this year ?
Supporters want to see their club stand up for itself and it's players

I tried to explain the Pears/Riewoldt one above...

Halls headlock and Scott Thompsons fine, now that should of served as a warning to taggers/defenders/run with players.

[joffaboy]

If you're referring to Pears and Riewoldt, Pears had broken his hand weeks earlier, and returned from injury. The MRP looked at it as they were obviously not happy with Jack targetting the bandage because of the image, but could only look at it as a striking charge given it was not a fresh injury, so it was deemed insufficient impact.

Steve Johnson broke his hand, was in obvious discomfort, and Baker hit it. He was charged with misconduct, because he was aware of the fresh injury.

That is just complete BS.

Riewoldt KNEW Pears had an injury, it had been done weeks ago had been diagnosed by a doctor and was known to all and sundry.

So why wasn't that misconduct because it was BEYOND DOUBT that Riewoldt knew Pears had an injury.

Now this "fresh" injury. What a load of BS double talk

Did Johnson carry out an Xray on to the field? Had it been diagnosed as an injury? Why was Johnson on the field if he was injured?

This goes to the hear of the corrupt nature of the AFL and the MRP.

Why was Riewoldts NOT misconduct when he knew of Pears injury, and why WAS it misconduct when it is not know at the time if Johnson had an injury?

It is absolutely ludicrious. An injury is an njury.

But send it to our bunch of gutless squibs known as the Admin and they will use it to justify not defending the integrity and character of Baker any further.

This club is a rabble and s.hits me no end.

[Saint Bev]

Its not worth the repercussions for 2 games. Whether we like it or not, Bakes has a history, he knows that, we all know that.

The big picture is more important.

[joffaboy]

yes thats right, lets burn Baker, because of the big picture.

The Admin would be wrapt in this type of attitude.

At least Bakers dad stood up for his son, wouldn't get any support from this pissweak club.

[matrix]

im STILL pissed at the farmer incident
that was the start of the stitch up imo


theyve been hanging for this
and now here it is

and what did the club do then (farmer incident?)
and what are they gonna do now?

bugger all

[SainterK]

If you're referring to Pears and Riewoldt, Pears had broken his hand weeks earlier, and returned from injury. The MRP looked at it as they were obviously not happy with Jack targetting the bandage because of the image, but could only look at it as a striking charge given it was not a fresh injury, so it was deemed insufficient impact.

Steve Johnson broke his hand, was in obvious discomfort, and Baker hit it. He was charged with misconduct, because he was aware of the fresh injury.

That is just complete BS.

Riewoldt KNEW Pears had an injury, it had been done weeks ago had been diagnosed by a doctor and was known to all and sundry.

So why wasn't that misconduct because it was BEYOND DOUBT that Riewoldt knew Pears had an injury.

Now this "fresh" injury. What a load of BS double talk

Did Johnson carry out an Xray on to the field? Had it been diagnosed as an injury? Why was Johnson on the field if he was injured?

This goes to the hear of the corrupt nature of the AFL and the MRP.

Why was Riewoldts NOT misconduct when he knew of Pears injury, and why WAS it misconduct when it is not know at the time if Johnson had an injury?

It is absolutely ludicrious. An injury is an njury.

But send it to our bunch of gutless squibs known as the Admin and they will use it to justify not defending the integrity and character of Baker any further.

This club is a rabble and s.hits me no end.

Incorrect, Pears was not injured.

I must say well done on volume of words this morning though

[samoht]

He (Baker) has a bad record, he has to be more careful

Yes .. as they say fate only favours those that help themselves - and we just saw the flip side if you tempt or flirt with fate.

[bigred]

The club should at LEAST.

AT LEAST

Put in a formal complaint against that pea-heart mouth who labelled him a coward.

And it should be announced to all and sundry that we are almighty pissed off about it.

f*** that.

[rodgerfox]

If you're referring to Pears and Riewoldt, Pears had broken his hand weeks earlier, and returned from injury. The MRP looked at it as they were obviously not happy with Jack targetting the bandage because of the image, but could only look at it as a striking charge given it was not a fresh injury, so it was deemed insufficient impact.

Steve Johnson broke his hand, was in obvious discomfort, and Baker hit it. He was charged with misconduct, because he was aware of the fresh injury.

That is just complete BS.

Riewoldt KNEW Pears had an injury, it had been done weeks ago had been diagnosed by a doctor and was known to all and sundry.

So why wasn't that misconduct because it was BEYOND DOUBT that Riewoldt knew Pears had an injury.

Now this "fresh" injury. What a load of BS double talk

Did Johnson carry out an Xray on to the field? Had it been diagnosed as an injury? Why was Johnson on the field if he was injured?

This goes to the hear of the corrupt nature of the AFL and the MRP.

Why was Riewoldts NOT misconduct when he knew of Pears injury, and why WAS it misconduct when it is not know at the time if Johnson had an injury?

It is absolutely ludicrious. An injury is an njury.

But send it to our bunch of gutless squibs known as the Admin and they will use it to justify not defending the integrity and character of Baker any further.

This club is a rabble and s.hits me no end.

Incorrect, Pears was not injured.

I must say well done on volume of words this morning though

How do we know that? Or more to the point - how did Riewoldt know that? He obviously thought it was, otherwise he wouldn't have been whacking it.

As for Bakes, how did he know the extent of Johnson's injury? Johnson wasn't with trainers, and after the 'incident' he contested several contests.


It's just absolutely ludicrous.

[joffaboy]

If you're referring to Pears and Riewoldt, Pears had broken his hand weeks earlier, and returned from injury. The MRP looked at it as they were obviously not happy with Jack targetting the bandage because of the image, but could only look at it as a striking charge given it was not a fresh injury, so it was deemed insufficient impact.

Steve Johnson broke his hand, was in obvious discomfort, and Baker hit it. He was charged with misconduct, because he was aware of the fresh injury.

That is just complete BS.

Riewoldt KNEW Pears had an injury, it had been done weeks ago had been diagnosed by a doctor and was known to all and sundry.

So why wasn't that misconduct because it was BEYOND DOUBT that Riewoldt knew Pears had an injury.

Now this "fresh" injury. What a load of BS double talk

Did Johnson carry out an Xray on to the field? Had it been diagnosed as an injury? Why was Johnson on the field if he was injured?

This goes to the hear of the corrupt nature of the AFL and the MRP.

Why was Riewoldts NOT misconduct when he knew of Pears injury, and why WAS it misconduct when it is not know at the time if Johnson had an injury?

It is absolutely ludicrious. An injury is an njury.

But send it to our bunch of gutless squibs known as the Admin and they will use it to justify not defending the integrity and character of Baker any further.

This club is a rabble and s.hits me no end.

Incorrect, Pears was not injured.

I must say well done on volume of words this morning though

Crap, he had his hand taped.

So now you are telling me that Riewoldt was trying to re-injure a recently broken hand?

So that is OK? That is not misconduct?

Can you tell me when the doctors diagnosis came out about Johnson? Was it relayed to Baker?

It BS weasel words that you have fallen for hook line and sinker.

[rodgerfox]

He (Baker) has a bad record, he has to be more careful

Yes .. as they say fate only favours those that help themselves - and we just saw the flip side if you tempt or flirt with fate.

Fate?? What the hell?

This has nothing to do with fate at all.


By the way, Judd's been done elbowing, investigated for gouging and done for face raking - yet gets given the all-clear for splitting an unsuspecting opponent's face open.

Fate?? My arrse it's fate.


Baker has been done for an 'attempted jumper punch' (honestly I still haven't gotten over that one), kicking a 110kg bloke who was standing on his ankle, and 7 weeks for Farmer running into the back of him.

This whole 'Baker has a history' shiit bothers me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but including the latest ones he's been suspended for 24 weeks. So prior to the 12 he copped, it was 14 weeks. Take away the unbelievably ridiculous Farmer one, and he's only been outed for 7 weeks over a 10 year career (and clearly even a couple of those were outrageous aswell).

He didn't get himself a history - he's been given a history by the AFL.

[SainterK]

The club should at LEAST.

AT LEAST

Put in a formal complaint against that pea-heart mouth who labelled him a coward.

And it should be announced to all and sundry that we are almighty pissed off about it.

f*** that.

That I agree with

[ralphsmith]

The administration is corrupt.

[samoht]

I think at some stage we should examine how do we prevent this sort of thing (an unnecessary and silly report ) from happening again.

Prevention is always better than cure.

Our team would have been penalised .. even if he got 3 weeks.

Throwing punches behind play is just plain silly.

[SainterK]

JB and RF (I don't want to keep requoting, as JB is using SO many words this morning )

Pears wasn't injured, and you are in denial if you think that Baker didn't know Johnson had an injury.

I have not fallen for anything JB, and I don't like you inferring that, I looked into because I wanted to understand it better.

[saint75]

If I think about it without rose coloured glasses on, I am not sure he was made an example of.

Two things really nailed him...

Most of his contact was to the Steve Johnson's face, which is actually most unusual for Bakes.

He had a bad record, though initially angry, I think we all would of copped the suspension handed out had it not increased significantly as a result of this.

Two words...

Chris. Judd.

Sure, he got off....but that should be more concerning to Steve Johnson, not Steven Baker.

Why?

Judd struck someone hard enough in the head to draw blood = no crime.

Baker struck someone in the head with no injury to the player at all = GUILTY!


The sums just don't add up .

No, they don't add up and you can bet your bottom dollar that there are changes to the MRP at the end of the year. The drums have been beating for awhile. This was the final straw.

[saint75]

On the bright side, Mooney now has a 40% loading hanging over his head and SJ has a 30% loading. Who wants to take bets as to when Mooney loses the plot again....??

[St DAC]

So you have no problem with the club letting Baker out to dry and having his character assasinated and him being insulted in the public domain.

And why should Baker be pinged for a tap on a players hand when no other player EVER HAS?

Where was this outrage when Riewoldt did it to Pears a couple of weeks back?

So you are happy that the club has abandoned Baker and wont respond to the attack on his integrity?

Right o.

I don't agree that that is what they've done. YMMV. They arranged (supposedly) top notch legal talent to represent him. Hardly hanging him out to dry.

Nothing to do with the crime. It is about protecting the palyers integrity, but you seem to think it is OK to go out and bleed for the jumper but not support him when he has been vilified in the public domain.

Great.

How was his integrity impugned? I don't think it especially brave to whack a bloke's sore hand. Reportable? Not IMO. But brave? No.

yes you are right, Fkn gutless lackey boy arselickers of the AFl would be more appropriate.

I reckon you're playing the man there. But it's your dime, so have at it. I just don't have to agree.