Who is suprised

[Mr Magic]

What is Bakes alleged to have done?
If the Freo Official claims he saw Bakes strike/punch Farmer then the charge would be 'striking' and not 'rough conduct'.

So what is alleged?

[satchmo]

So what is alleged?

dementiou hasn't decided yet.

[plugger66]

Yes as usual the AFL are picking on us. They hate the Saints. We get the worst decisions. What rubbish. No wonder we are so negitive.

[satchmo]

Yes as usual the AFL are picking on us. They hate the Saints. We get the worst decisions. What rubbish. No wonder we are so negitive.

There's more evidence to support that than there is to support a charge against Baker.

[plugger66]

Yes as usual the AFL are picking on us. They hate the Saints. We get the worst decisions. What rubbish. No wonder we are so negitive.

There's more evidence to support that than there is to support a charge against Baker.

Has he been found guilty. No. Have you seen the evidence because if you had can you please tell me.

[Gilbert The Great]

the afl will take any chance they get to screw st kilda around.

[satchmo]

Have you seen the evidence because if you had can you please tell me.

That's the problem right there plugger, show us the evidence
If it stands up let him hang.

I'm a waitin...

[plugger66]

Have you seen the evidence because if you had can you please tell me.

That's the problem right there plugger, show us the evidence
If it stands up let him hang.

I'm a waitin...

That is why it is going to the tribunal. We will see the evidence and if he didnt do anything he will get off.

[satchmo]

That is why it is going to the tribunal. We will see the evidence and if he didnt do anything he will get off.

Fair enough, nice to see that you have faith in the process.

Do you think that he will get off if the evidence consists of 1 freo official saying he saw Baker hit Farmer ?

[plugger66]

That is why it is going to the tribunal. We will see the evidence and if he didnt do anything he will get off.

Fair enough, nice to see that you have faith in the process.

Do you think that he will get off if the evidence consists of 1 freo official saying he saw Baker hit Farmer ?

If that is all they have. Yes if we have some good legal work. I do not for one minute subscribe to the theory we get a raw deal at the tribunal or anywhere else in the AFL. That is just emotional rubbish. People were saying Johnson would get off because it was the pies. He got the biggest suspension for years.

[Riewoldting]

What is Bakes alleged to have done?
If the Freo Official claims he saw Bakes strike/punch Farmer then the charge would be 'striking' and not 'rough conduct'.

So what is alleged?

PRECISELY Mr Magic!

I'd say he saw exactly the same thing as M Voss: Baker and Farmer running towards a contest -

then looked away -

then looked back and saw Farmer on the deck and Bakes 15m away.

In the absence of any other reasonable likelihood, the logical conclusion is that Baker snotted Farmer.

But there is another reasonable likelihood: an accidental clash from Baker stopping suddenly.

In the infamous words of Johnny Cochrane: "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit."

[satchmo]

I do not for one minute subscribe to the theory we get a raw deal at the tribunal or anywhere else in the AFL. That is just emotional rubbish.

Once again I admire you faith in the process, but I don't share it.

Two of our players have received severe head injuries (fractured skull, and swelling on the brain) due to head high tackles and in both case no charges.
I could accept it if the players were charged and the actions were considered by the tribunal and cleared.

But when the AFL claims it is taking a tough stance against head high tackles and does nothing in a severe case it's a joke.

Johnson goes because of the potential danger of his actions, what about the actual damage done to our players ?

I have no faith in the process whatsoever.

[plugger66]

I do not for one minute subscribe to the theory we get a raw deal at the tribunal or anywhere else in the AFL. That is just emotional rubbish.

Once again I admire you faith in the process, but I don't share it.

Two of our players have received severe head injuries (fractured skull, and swelling on the brain) due to head high tackles and in both case no charges.
I could accept it if the players were charged and the actions were considered by the tribunal and cleared.

But when the AFL claims it is taking a tough stance against head high tackles and does nothing in a severe case it's a joke.

Johnson goes because of the potential danger of his actions, what about the actual damage done to our players ?

I have no faith in the process whatsoever.

Ball ran into a guy standing still. He should have had better vision. Gia would have been reported this year under the new rules and probably should have last year anyway. Any club could come up with poor tribunal decisions. I would love to know any logical reason why Bakes will be suspended if he didnt do it.

[saintspremiers]

That is why it is going to the tribunal. We will see the evidence and if he didnt do anything he will get off.

Fair enough, nice to see that you have faith in the process.

Do you think that he will get off if the evidence consists of 1 freo official saying he saw Baker hit Farmer ?

If that is all they have. Yes if we have some good legal work. I do not for one minute subscribe to the theory we get a raw deal at the tribunal or anywhere else in the AFL. That is just emotional rubbish. People were saying Johnson would get off because it was the pies. He got the biggest suspension for years.

Collingwood haven't as yet taken the Johnson case to the tribunal, where no doubt he'll cop the full 8 weeks.

They will then appeal the decision, and it will get reduced to about 3 weeks due to some legal bulltish from a QC, plus a privately made threat from Eddie that the pre season game in Dubai sponsored by Emirates won't go ahead if he's not a happy man....etc etc...

We've seen that sort of thing before haven't we???

It's all about how important you and your team is in the eyes of the AFL.

If you don't believe that plugger, well each to their own, but it seems virtually everyone else on here subscribes to that view.

[plugger66]

That is why it is going to the tribunal. We will see the evidence and if he didnt do anything he will get off.

Fair enough, nice to see that you have faith in the process.

Do you think that he will get off if the evidence consists of 1 freo official saying he saw Baker hit Farmer ?

If that is all they have. Yes if we have some good legal work. I do not for one minute subscribe to the theory we get a raw deal at the tribunal or anywhere else in the AFL. That is just emotional rubbish. People were saying Johnson would get off because it was the pies. He got the biggest suspension for years.

Collingwood haven't as yet taken the Johnson case to the tribunal, where no doubt he'll cop the full 8 weeks.

They will then appeal the decision, and it will get reduced to about 3 weeks due to some legal bulltish from a QC, plus a threat from Eddie that the pre season game in Dubai sponsored by Emirates won't go ahead if he's not a happy man....etc etc...

We've seen that sort of thing before haven't we???

Never. under the new tribunal process there has not been an appeal get up and the pies I doubt will take that case anywhere. Did Rocca or Cloke get off before the Grand Finals.

[satchmo]

Any club could come up with poor tribunal decisions.

And that's why I have no faith in the process.

[westcoastwizard]

Bakers charge is a joke I agree there is no video evidence. The AFL cannot based their charge on what a Fremantle Officisal said. They should charge Baker if there was an UNBIAS person who witnessed the incident.

But your club will fight the charge.

[saintspremiers]

Bakers charge is a joke I agree there is no video evidence. The AFL cannot based their charge on what a Fremantle Officisal said. They should charge Baker if there was an UNBIAS person who witnessed the incident.

But your club will fight the charge.

cheers for that.

Nice to see a West Coaster going into bat for us.

I guess you hate Freo and hate Farmer way more than we ever will!

[Solar]

Yes if we have some good legal work. I do not for one minute subscribe to the theory we get a raw deal at the tribunal or anywhere else in the AFL. That is just emotional rubbish.

hayes getting thrown into the fence up at the gabba, dal elbowed in the head by lloyd, maguire getting hit in the guts by hall..... thats just off my tired head.

yet baker gets done for kicking because a guy was standing on his leg and attempting to strike a guy that he could not actually hit.

This is on top of allowing corruption in the umpiring ranks with whispers in the sky, awarding points because of "natural justice" despite the actual AFL rules..... do I need to go on....

nah plugger, lets just hold hands and sing "The AFL is always right..... "

how many times do you want us to be bent over plugger.... I'm glad you have faith in whats left of this great game because I am close to giving up!

[plugger66]

Yes if we have some good legal work. I do not for one minute subscribe to the theory we get a raw deal at the tribunal or anywhere else in the AFL. That is just emotional rubbish.

hayes getting thrown into the fence up at the gabba, dal elbowed in the head by lloyd, maguire getting hit in the guts by hall..... thats just off my tired head.

yet baker gets done for kicking because a guy was standing on his leg and attempting to strike a guy that he could not actually hit.

This is on top of allowing corruption in the umpiring ranks with whispers in the sky, awarding points because of "natural justice" despite the actual AFL rules..... do I need to go on....

nah plugger, lets just hold hands and sing "The AFL is always right..... "

how many times do you want us to be bent over plugger.... I'm glad you have faith in whats left of this great game because I am close to giving up!

Give up on a game that has record crowds the best run comp in australia. the highest TV audiences. The most money money coming in from TV rights. I am not being bent over by the AFL. I have nothing to do with them. I just love the game and most of the time how it is being run. Are we doing better that any other codes in Australia. Yes and by a long way. lets just be positive and I pretty sure justice will be done and bakes will play on Friday. If not the evidence will show he hit him.

[Riewoldting]

Bakers charge is a joke I agree there is no video evidence. The AFL cannot based their charge on what a Fremantle Officisal said. They should charge Baker if there was an UNBIAS person who witnessed the incident.

But your club will fight the charge.

All witnesses are biased.

The tribunal has to calculate the probative value of the evidence having regard to the inherent bias of the witness.

[satchmo]

hayes getting thrown into the fence up at the gabba, dal elbowed in the head by lloyd, maguire getting hit in the guts by hall.....

The lloyd one was nasty, and the bastard got off claiming he was try to play like Robert Harvey !!!

Lenny was in the best form of his career until fenced.

[meher baba]

Plugger66

I don't have anywhere as much faith as you in the MRP-Tribunal system: I just can't get over the decisions that allowed Barry Hall to get off in 2005 and Daniel Kerr in 2006.

Nonetheless, I agree with your general point: the AFL is not biased in handlling these sorts of cases, it's just inept and soft (but not in the Johnson case if would seem, thank goodness).

We don't know the detailed evidence that the AFL has, but - if it is as poor as we've heard - then the Tribunal won't have much choice to clear Baker. Tim Lane, Michael Voss and others have forced their hand in sending the matter to the Tribunal IMO. I would have done the same myself if I had been Demetriou or Anderson or whoever (perish the thought).

To me, the fact that they have not allowed Baker to make a plea is a sign that the AFL don't feel very confident that they have a case: but maybe this just shows that I don't understand the system.

The other thing posters on this forum should remember is that, although we all love him, Bakes is no angel and has done some incredibly stupid things on the field. (Some of you go on and on about how good it is that he "shows the flag" - whatever this means - but, to me, he just lets his team mates down by getting himself suspended.)

While people have theories, probably only Bakes himself knows for sure what happened out there on Saturday, and he's clearly not inclined to say much about it. The fact that there is no video evidence doesn't prove that he wasn't guilty, or doesn't have a case to answer.

For all any of us know, it might actually have been a king hit. I'm not saying that it was or it wasn't. But just because there was no video evidence doesn't prove that it wasn't an illegal act.

Personally, I favour the theory that Farmer was hit by a man on the grassy knoll.

[Riewoldting]

Oh and I agree with plugger66 ... no overt bias against St Kilda.

But I don't share his approach that "if he is innocent, the Tribunal will clear him. If he is found guilty, he must have done it".

You gotta be more questioning than that plugger mate.

[cowboy18]

Bakers charge is a joke I agree there is no video evidence. The AFL cannot based their charge on what a Fremantle Officisal said. They should charge Baker if there was an UNBIAS person who witnessed the incident.

But your club will fight the charge.

All witnesses are biased.

The tribunal has to calculate the probative value of the evidence having regard to the inherent bias of the witness.

I assume that's wholly subjective. Which I guess highlights the importance of "real" physical evidence over testimony?

Bah. Marvelous system.