PurpleJesus wrote:I'm looking at it like this, at the most basic level. Fact 1: Baker admitted to making contact with Farmer. Fact 2: Said contact broke Farmer's nose and concussed him to the point he couldn't stand up by himself, let alone walk off the ground.
Fact 1: Two players made contact with each other. Fact 2: Farmer came off worse. That in itself proves nothing, and it certainly does not prove that Baker was more careless than Farmer. In fact the opposite - Farmer should have looked where he was going, after all he rear-ended Baker didn't he? Baker was looking the other way, how can he be more at fault?
PurpleJesus wrote:The conclusion I draw from that is that whatever Baker did, whether it was to stop and prop, headbutt, or full on punch Farmer in the face, was severe enough that it caused enough damage to force Jeff from the ground and put him in doubt for a game a week later. You cause that sort of damage, you deserve to be suspended whether the evidence is video or witness accounts.
Rubbish. Baker is entitled to stop running if he wants. If Farmer is dumb enough to run into the back of someone, then he is an idiot and certainly should not be entitled to a presumption of the moral high ground which is what you seem to be espousing. Injuries alone are not grounds for punishment. It's about INTENT.
PurpleJesus wrote:One of those "impartial witnesses" you speak of, Michael Voss, who saw the incident while commentating the game, said immediately afterwards that Bakker would hope there was no behind the goals footage because he would go otherwise.
Voss is an idiot, and saw nothing. Watch the replay. He immediately says he didn't see it, then later makes a stupid comment assuming Baker's guilt, then later corrects himself and admits once again he didn't see the incident but simply assumed it was bad. Assumption is not good enough for a conviction.
PurpleJesus wrote:And if the incident in question is no more severe than 50 other incidents in a game, why do we fail to see 50 other players carried from the ground broken nosed, concussed and barely conscious? If nothing else, the severity of Farmer's injuries prove your statement to be incorrect.
Again, rubbish. Forget this idea of 'revenge' where injuries alone somehow prove intent. THEY DO NOT. Perhaps Farmer was just stupider, or was slower to react than the other 50 incidents, or tripped over his bootlace at the same time and headbutted the ground. Perhaps he's just got a weaker head.
PurpleJesus wrote:Well we already know that Baker initiated intentional contact with Farmer, that much is not in dispute (Baker has admitted as much). That contact caused Farmer's injuries, therefore Baker is responsible for them.
Once again, complete twaddle. Do some legal research, you cannot draw such a long bow and attribute all subsequent injuries to the initial event - otherwise you could find yourself charged with murder for sneezing on a plane. How Farmer actually sustained the injuries has not been proven to be directly due to Baker's recklessness. Baker bumped Farmer - fair enough. Give Farmer a free kick. If Farmer's glass nose starts bleeding, he gets concussion, or he goes berserk and decides to beat up his missus, vandalise cars or give all his money to scientology, Baker is not responisble for that - Baker is responsible for the bump UNLESS you can prove undue force, recklessness or malicious intent.
YOU CAN'T, so his penalty should be decided on the known facts alone and not by joining the dots with guesswork and prejudice.