Our Admin are gutless

[Dr Spaceman]

Maybe we should just play footy?

Apparently we should ask the AFL how they'd like us to play...so we dont upset anyone at HQ...

I reckon they'd probably say play within the rules and don't whack opponents in the head when the cameras are watching.

If the players were even 0.001% as concerned about the events of the last week as some of the posters here, I'd be selling the house and putting the lot on the Dees.

Thankfully I think the Saints are focussed and are "home"

Good point cause its the players this thread and supporters are asking to stand up and make public their views on the treatment of our club..................isnt it?

No

[Bernard Shakey]

Maybe we should just play footy?

Apparently we should ask the AFL how they'd like us to play...so we dont upset anyone at HQ... :roll:

I reckon they'd probably say play within the rules and don't whack opponents in the head when the cameras are watching.

Yes cause that works for Jack Riewoldt.....Barry Hall 05........Brisbane Lions.........

Maybe theyd just come up with a new rule midweek, tell no one they are gonna be tough and wait for the good old saints to limp out before smacking them?

You're not reading posts anymore are you? Just seeing what you want to see. Here's my last post.

"I reckon they'd probably say play within the rules and don't whack opponents in the head when the cameras are watching."

Please note the mention of the word "head". I don't think Jack or Barry whacked anyone in the head in the incidents you refer to.

[Teflon]

Maybe we should just play footy?

Apparently we should ask the AFL how they'd like us to play...so we dont upset anyone at HQ...

I reckon they'd probably say play within the rules and don't whack opponents in the head when the cameras are watching.

Yes cause that works for Jack Riewoldt.....Barry Hall 05........Brisbane Lions.........

Maybe theyd just come up with a new rule midweek, tell no one they are gonna be tough and wait for the good old saints to limp out before smacking them?

You're not reading posts anymore are you? Just seeing what you want to see. Here's my last post.

"I reckon they'd probably say play within the rules and don't whack opponents in the head when the cameras are watching."

Please note the mention of the word "head". I don't think Jack or Barry whacked anyone in the head in the incidents you refer to.

Apologies, its just so hard making sense of semantic driven dribble - I mean Baker was ONLY suspended for hitting an opponent in the head was he? or is he the FIRST player ever rubbed our for supposedly hitting an injured opponent? - hence the reference to Riewoldt/Brisbane???

I mean if you're going to refer to the incident why not refer to the WHOLE incident?

Regardless, I guess we could always use Chris Judd as a shining example of how to whack a player in the head, cut him open and get off with it....if that suits you?

[Sainterman]

Maybe we should just play footy?

Apparently we should ask the AFL how they'd like us to play...so we dont upset anyone at HQ...

I reckon they'd probably say play within the rules and don't whack opponents in the head when the cameras are watching.

Yes cause that works for Jack Riewoldt.....Barry Hall 05........Brisbane Lions.........

Maybe theyd just come up with a new rule midweek, tell no one they are gonna be tough and wait for the good old saints to limp out before smacking them?

You're not reading posts anymore are you? Just seeing what you want to see. Here's my last post.

"I reckon they'd probably say play within the rules and don't whack opponents in the head when the cameras are watching."

Please note the mention of the word "head". I don't think Jack or Barry whacked anyone in the head in the incidents you refer to.

Apologies, its just so hard making sense of semantic driven dribble - I mean Baker was ONLY suspended for hitting an opponent in the head was he? or is he the FIRST player ever rubbed our for supposedly hitting an injured opponent? - hence the reference to Riewoldt/Brisbane???

I mean if you're going to refer to the incident why not refer to the WHOLE incident?

Regardless, I guess we could always use Chris Judd as a shining example of how to whack a player in the head, cut him open and get off with it....if that suits you?

Teflon I don't think it is worth wasting your time on this anymore. I am/was of your opinion too, but I think like we believe more could have been done, others are of the opinion that staying quiet was better for the overall picture. I think we needed to stand up more and still do no matter how many BS and Saint75 repeat posts I read.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

An telling article, "watershed" decision with Bakes...

I think what will be interesting is to see how much this changes the game, or will we only see it for the next few weeks and then back to what is was before last week. Based on history I suspect the latter, and in this case, I actually hope it does turn out that way. I like the tough, niggling, hard at side of footy, and with this change, on top of the bump virtually being outlawed before it, we are losing what i think is a very important ingredient in what makes the game so popular.

Poor old Bakes is the example. Unfair, unjust...and well it makes the game itself unmanly!

[Dr Spaceman]

If the players were even 0.001% as concerned about the events of the last week as some of the posters here, I'd be selling the house and putting the lot on the Dees.

Thankfully I think the Saints are focussed and are "home"

Good point cause its the players this thread and supporters are asking to stand up and make public their views on the treatment of our club..................isnt it?

Teflon, I'm not buying into the whole argument about what the club administrators should have done or shouldn't have done. Everyone has their own views on that. I for one am comfortable with the approach we've taken, even if I'm still crapped off with the penalty Bakes got. But that's just me.

My point was solely that the players, from all accounts, have got over it and are focused on the job at hand. And that's a credit to the professionalism of the coaching & playing group.

[Teflon]

Sainterman its still doesnt address the fundamental question: These 'off the ball' incidents of the limp severity of Baker thus far have amounted to "not enough force to constitute a strike" - see Judd.

Last week the MRP panel saw a chance to nab a guy with 50% loading on him, from a club that notoriously wont stand up and they took it.

The timings amazing isnt it?

[Sainterman]

Sainterman its still doesnt address the fundamental question: These 'off the ball' incidents of the limp severity of Baker thus far have amounted to "not enough force to constitute a strike" - see Judd.

Last week the MRP panel saw a chance to nab a guy with 50% loading on him, from a club that notoriously wont stand up and they took it.

The timings amazing isnt it?

I totally agree. I see people are saying he made the contact and therefore gave the impetus for this whole debacle to be able to happen. What I don't like about it is that under the previous interpretations there was not enough force in any of the strikes, perhaps bar one, yet he was outed on all of them. The inconsistency and timing of it all were and are ludicrous.

I had pretty much dropped out of this thread, but it is disappointing to see others not even able to walk a mile in another posters shoes, but rather stubbornly stick to one viewpoint. But in the end, each to their own.

I am now looking forward to the rest of the year and to see if maybe it is our turn. We have worked hard and deserve the rewards. I think it is a shame that such a great win on the weekend has been overshadowed by all of this. Will be nice to have the Saints back out there on Sunday so we can move on, and hopefully take another step towards the true dream.

[Mr Magic]

The issue apparently is what you can /can't use at the Tribunal to argue your case.

The Club challenged one of the 'striking' charges becasue they believed that the 'vision' supported their connotation that contact was not made to the head, and therefore they could get the charge (and penalty) downgraded.
Upon arrival they were shown 'high resolution' footage which clearly showed that contact was made to the head, so they dropped their challenge.

The real problem for the Club was the fact that you cannot contest 'contact intensity' at the Tribunal, because you're not allowed to use precedents.
We weren't allowed to show examples of other incidents where the MRP deemed the contact to be 'insufficient force'.

Once the MRP determined that the 'force' used was sufficient to constitute a reportable offence, Baker was stuffed.

IMO, that's the reason they didn't challenge the 3 striking charges - under the current rules there was nothing to use to try and overturn them.

In hindsight, maybe a statement from the Club poiniting this out would have placated us and informed teh football world of teh Club's anger?

[Eastern]

The issue apparently is what you can /can't use at the Tribunal to argue your case.

The Club challenged one of the 'striking' charges becasue they believed that the 'vision' supported their connotation that contact was not made to the head, and therefore they could get the charge (and penalty) downgraded.
Upon arrival they were shown 'high resolution' footage which clearly showed that contact was made to the head, so they dropped their challenge.

The real problem for the Club was the fact that you cannot contest 'contact intensity' at the Tribunal, because you're not allowed to use precedents.
We weren't allowed to show examples of other incidents where the MRP deemed the contact to be 'insufficient force'.

Once the MRP determined that the 'force' used was sufficient to constitute a reportable offence, Baker was stuffed.

IMO, that's the reason they didn't challenge the 3 striking charges - under the current rules there was nothing to use to try and overturn them.

In hindsight, maybe a statement from the Club poiniting this out would have placated us and informed teh football world of teh Club's anger?

The only problem with that is that it would be perceived as highlighting the inefficiencies and/or the incompetence of the MRP and tribunal systems. We all know that Demetriou & Anderson like to have the final say, and the tactics they sometimes employ to acheive same !!

[saint tezza]

Well I am with Teflon.

I believe the club is derelict in its duty to Bakes by not taking every course of action open to it either afl approved or not if that be an independant court ect;

I dont know the legalities of restraint of trade or discrimination when it comes to sporting bodies and maybe there is nothing that can be done but when it comes to sentencing penalties there is no doubt that Steven Baker is being treated unfairly read discriminated against as compared to Chris Judd , Jack Rewoldt ect.

Once again The Stkilda Administration lies down like a meek lamb......Yes I know he did the wrong thing but the penalty far outweighs the crime as compared to other players who have transgressed in similar fashion this year.

I support Stkilda but we still have a jelly livered administration.

Some things never change.

[Teflon]

The issue apparently is what you can /can't use at the Tribunal to argue your case.

The Club challenged one of the 'striking' charges becasue they believed that the 'vision' supported their connotation that contact was not made to the head, and therefore they could get the charge (and penalty) downgraded.
Upon arrival they were shown 'high resolution' footage which clearly showed that contact was made to the head, so they dropped their challenge.

The real problem for the Club was the fact that you cannot contest 'contact intensity' at the Tribunal, because you're not allowed to use precedents.
We weren't allowed to show examples of other incidents where the MRP deemed the contact to be 'insufficient force'.

Once the MRP determined that the 'force' used was sufficient to constitute a reportable offence, Baker was stuffed.

IMO, that's the reason they didn't challenge the 3 striking charges - under the current rules there was nothing to use to try and overturn them.

In hindsight, maybe a statement from the Club poiniting this out would have placated us and informed teh football world of teh Club's anger?

Thanks Magic for clearing that up as I wasnt aware of that.

However, it would have been great if the club have spelt that out. Regardless of the system and timings to all of a sudden determine "low grade" punches as constituting enough force......it still leaves the very ordinary defence of Baker from the attack Tinney launched against him and his actions.

I listened to Clarkson on radio today have a fair dinkum crack at Brereton on radio for calling Sam Mitchells leadership ibnto question.....I hate the moron.....but I couldnt help think.....geez he OR his club would have no trouble standing up and speaking out if it was one of their players.

Anyway, I guess its time to move on...........just leaves a rotten taste in the mouth.