Our Admin are gutless

[rodgerfox]

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....??

Probably somewhere in between the 3 flags he's won.

[rodgerfox]

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.

Who said it was brave?


And since when is it a crime to do something that isn't brave on a footy field??

[Solar]

I look forward to bringing this up at the AGM, who we employ as our lawyers and if we are happy with their track record.

Perhaps the club and lawyers know that the tribunal was NEVER going to listen otherwise. It's kangaroo court, obvious now.

How we did not jut take this further is shocking..... RF hits it on the head, none of he strikes were as hard as the judd hit yet all three were found guilty. Add in the hand punch (vision of riewoldt in the dream time match is enough) and it is balck and white. They wanted him to cop a certain amount of weeks and it did not matter what we said.

BTW this whole loading is the stupidist thing in history....

Imagine a person was found guilty of a serious crime. Then got a speeding ticket but because of the earlier crime they get 20 years for going 3 km's over the limit. Bizzarre!!

[joffaboy]

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.

All you understood was weasel words from the MRP.

Pear had had an injured hand, Riewoldt attacked that injured hand and Riewoldt attacked that hand. So the understanding was that Pears had an injury and Riewoldt attacked that injury.

No can the MRP tell us exactly when Baker knew Johnson had an injured hand?

When was it diagnosed? Did that doagnosis come up on the big screen? is Baker a doctor?

Maybe Johnson faked a so called injury. Maybe at the time his hand was numb from wanking.

Who the F*** knows - certainly not the MRP. But they take two incidents which are exactly the same and deem that one is misconduct and one is just a bit of fun, an bit of a play.

And I am not inferring anything, you have swallowed those weasel words hook line and sinker.

Maybe you should go and apply for a job at the AFL, they would love your way of orthodox thinking.

[joffaboy]

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

Yeah you are probably right - they will probably cancel my membership. that will show me how tough and uncompromising they are.

Too bad they couldn't show that type of fight to protect and defend a player whom has had his integrity and manliness questioned by representatives of the governing body.

Nice message sent to the playing group.

Players, get publicly vilified by all und sundry, have an AFL appointed Sc question your veracity and manliness, get a thousand weeks that threatens your career, added into the fact that you get weeks for a hand tap that just a coupel of weeks prior was let go be the MRP, and what will we do.

Release a statement.

Seems like you are cool with that.

So be it.

[SainterK]

And I am not inferring anything, you have swallowed those weasel words hook line and sinker.

Maybe you should go and apply for a job at the AFL, they would love your way of orthodox thinking.

Hope rolling your eyes at me makes you feel so much better....

I am as sad as you are, but I cannot pretend that Bakes would be only serving about 5-6 weeks had he not had such a bad record.

[joffaboy]

And I am not inferring anything, you have swallowed those weasel words hook line and sinker.

Maybe you should go and apply for a job at the AFL, they would love your way of orthodox thinking.

Hope rolling your eyes at me makes you feel so much better....

I am as sad as you are, but I cannot pretend that Bakes would be only serving about 5-6 weeks had he not had such a bad record.

Its not about his record. Too bad.

It is about the only thing the club challenged, the incredibly pathetic charge of misconduct, they allowed the player to be completely humiliated and wont go into bat for him.

You bring to the table BS weasle words that wouldn't hold a drop of water in any objectively convened forum and say move on.

Seems to be a theme running through this club. From the top down.

[Milan Faletic]

To the posters who are clearly and understandably angry about the Baker situation.

If you are feeling that way.......

Imagine how Steven Baker is feeling?????

He is shattered.

What about channelling some of the anger and sending Bakes a positive message of support on the sticky.

Show our team warrior that you care about him and support him.

A one minute message might do more for him and he is the person suspended.

He is receiving the messages.

http://www.saintsational.com/forum/view ... hp?t=62694

[SainterK]

And I am not inferring anything, you have swallowed those weasel words hook line and sinker.

Maybe you should go and apply for a job at the AFL, they would love your way of orthodox thinking.

Hope rolling your eyes at me makes you feel so much better....

I am as sad as you are, but I cannot pretend that Bakes would be only serving about 5-6 weeks had he not had such a bad record.

Its not about his record. Too bad.

It is about the only thing the club challenged, the incredibly pathetic charge of misconduct, they allowed the player to be completely humiliated and wont go into bat for him.

You bring to the table BS weasle words that wouldn't hold a drop of water in any objectively convened forum and say move on.

Seems to be a theme running through this club. From the top down.

I never told you to move on, I just answered a question you posed and won't do so again

[matrix]

steady on joff

sainterk is only having an opinion

[Harvey To Hayes]

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.

If that is indeed the interpretation then that is a bloody joke. Both players hit an opponent's injured arm/hand in an attempt to inconvenience and/or annoy. To say that one is reportable because the injury is 'fresh' and the other is okay makes no sense whatsoever. If SJ had been injured the week before and Bakes did the same thing I guarantee they still would have charged him. The AFL has no integrity at all. The sooner Demetriou dies (he'll never quit) the better...

[joffaboy]

steady on joff

sainterk is only having an opinion

Wasn't having a go at SainterK, I was having a go at the BS explanation from the MRp about the Riewoldt "decision" with Pears the other week.

Apparently sometimes its misconduct sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it misconduct if you dont know a player is injured, and sometimes it is not when you do know a player has had an injury.

Apparently Riewoldt is a shining light and Baker is unmanly.

Weasel words is apt.

[SainterK]

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.

If that is indeed the interpretation then that is a bloody joke. Both players hit an opponent's injured arm/hand in an attempt to inconvenience and/or annoy. To say that one is reportable because the injury is 'fresh' and the other is okay makes no sense whatsoever. If SJ had been injured the week before and Bakes did the same thing I guarantee they still would have charged him. The AFL has no integrity at all. The sooner Demetriou dies (he'll never quit) the better...

It's not the official wording from the MRP Harvey to Hayes, because he was never reported or charged.

The MRP actual wording was as follows

Contact between Richmond’s Jack Riewoldt and Essendon’s Tayte Pears from the first quarter of Saturday’s match was assessed. The panel said the force used was below that required to constitute a reportable offence. No further action was taken.

It wasn't looked at as a misconduct charge, it was looked as a punch in the hand.

[Harvey To Hayes]

It wasn't looked at as a misconduct charge, it was looked as a punch in the hand.

Why?

[Mr Magic]

A question?

If a player's past histroy is used by the MRP to determine his penalty,
why then cannot precedence be used at the Tribunal if you challenge that penalty?

Surely if history is being used for the penalty, then history should be allowed to fight that penalty?

[SainterK]

It wasn't looked at as a misconduct charge, it was looked as a punch in the hand.

Why?

That's the whole point isn't it...

Unlike most people, I believe they wanted to, otherwise why on earth was it looked at in the first place...

[Milan Faletic]

A question?

If a player's past histroy is used by the MRP to determine his penalty,
why then cannot precedence be used at the Tribunal if you challenge that penalty?

Surely if history is being used for the penalty, then history should be allowed to fight that penalty?

You have hit the nail on the head, MM.

They would argue that precedence and past record are separate legal terms.

Precedence is a previous sentence given to an identical offence so it does not apply to the offender but to the offence.

Past record is about the offender's record regardless of the offence.

However, they seem to combine legalese with their own set of rules which seems to be inconsistent. So maybe it is time that they use lawyers and make it more formal, because this is an employment tribunal.

It needs to be cleaned up.

[JacksonsGirl]

Bit of an over reaction guys.

We need to remember, last night St.Kilda put up a very strong argument. Used the right angles, provided a very good case and were quite unlucky.

Baker has already pleaded guilty to 3 of the charges, where he clearly did punch Johnson.

So he had 7 weeks regardless of what we did.

To take further action today would be unlikely to succeed, highly expensive and distracting to the playing group for the benefit of 2 weeks.

The club is filthy, and Baker should not have copped 7 weeks, but he was shafted by a poorly argued case in 2007 which led to a heavy loading, and once the AFL made the assesment of the incident he was stuffed, regardless of what we did.

He got reemed by the initial verdict, but not much we can do about it now.

People might say that's weak, but it's just the facts of the matter. Baker was screwed the moment the verdict came out Monday afternoon. Club is right behind him, but couldn't do much more.

[Thinline]

A question?

If a player's past histroy is used by the MRP to determine his penalty,
why then cannot precedence be used at the Tribunal if you challenge that penalty?

Surely if history is being used for the penalty, then history should be allowed to fight that penalty?

You have hit the nail on the head, MM.

They would argue that precedence and past record are separate legal terms.

Precedence is a previous sentence given to an identical offence so it does not apply to the offender but to the offence.

Past record is about the offender's record regardless of the offence.

However, they seem to combine legalese with their own set of rules which seems to be inconsistent. So maybe it is time that they use lawyers and make it more formal, because this is an employment tribunal.

It needs to be cleaned up.

The system is clearly designed to get things through quickly and effortlessly. In itself that's a grand vision. Problem is, it's inconsistencies like the one MM points out that make the whole thing a sham.

The problem is there's no accountability. MRP can act or not act depending on how they feel on a particular day or, more importantly, in accordance with directions they are given from elsewhere.

Silly stuff.

[Saint Bev]

It could work in our favour. If Mooney does his block leading into the finals and has overhanding points, we get the last laugh.

[maverick]

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.

So explain to me how Bakes knew he was injured?

[Sainternist]

I agree 100% with joffaboy's OP.

They have simply let Steven Baker (and the club) down, by not questioning a very corrupt system. The yes men have FAILED again.

THOROUGHLY CHEESED OFF!

[saint75]

Pick you lip up you lot. We are all effin' furious about the decision, but you are taking your frustration on the wrong people.

The facts are this:

1) Baker DID hit SJ and as the AFL wished to make a stand on taggers. We all expected 2-4 weeks (with the loading). He got 9 because the AFL wanted to send out a statement on this. Very wrong, but there was NOTHING that was going to change that verdict.

2) Baker was screwed with the loading because of the Farmers incident. THAT was the fight we should have taken further. The new administration had nothing to do with that decision so we have to move on from that.

Now you experts out there, what legal argument would you used to fight this? How would you have fought it and where would you have presented the case to? The Supreme Court? What were the pros and cons of doing this? Not so easy to answer those questions, is it? Especially considering we don't have all the facts in front of us.

The ONLY chance that Baker had was to risk the 12 week ban and try to have all the charges merged into one and lessened. The Tribunal WAS NOT going to let that happen and we need Baker for the finals. The hand one was a long shot as well. As you cannot use precedent, they didn't have much left to argue.

If you are all so damn mad, how about you protest out the front of AFL house? Lobby behind the scenes to enforce change to the MRP. THIS is where the issue lies, not with whether or not St Kilda should have taken this further.

Joffa, pretty disappointed with your tantrum. Very easy to call an organisation 'gutless' on a forum whilst you are sitting behind a computer. Time to bury the anger or at least bottle it until we meet the filth. You can use that anger against there supporters in a couple of weeks time.

[rodgerfox]

Pick you lip up you lot. We are all effin' furious about the decision, but you are taking your frustration on the wrong people.

The facts are this:

1) Baker DID hit SJ and as the AFL wished to make a stand on taggers. We all expected 2-4 weeks (with the loading). He got 9 because the AFL wanted to send out a statement on this. Very wrong, but there was NOTHING that was going to change that verdict.

I'd argue that that is why we should fight like hell against this.

Why does Baker cop this 'statement'? Why Baker? Why us? Why this week?

Stand up and tell the AFL to get f****d and make their 'statement' on someone else.


That's why I'm piissed about this (among many other things). We need to cop the statement yet again.

We've been on the receiving end of too many of these flash in the pan statements.

[Solar]

Pick you lip up you lot. We are all effin' furious about the decision, but you are taking your frustration on the wrong people.

The facts are this:

1) Baker DID hit SJ and as the AFL wished to make a stand on taggers. We all expected 2-4 weeks (with the loading). He got 9 because the AFL wanted to send out a statement on this. Very wrong, but there was NOTHING that was going to change that verdict.

I'd argue that that is why we should fight like hell against this.

Why does Baker cop this 'statement'? Why Baker? Why us? Why this week?

Stand up and tell the AFL to get f****d and make their 'statement' on someone else.


That's why I'm piissed about this (among many other things). We need to cop the statement yet again.

We've been on the receiving end of too many of these flash in the pan statements.

agreed, could have changed a whole year through making a STATEMENT