If Baker's Appeal Fails ........
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- Devilhead
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8278
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 135 times
- Been thanked: 1151 times
If Baker's Appeal Fails ........
the AFL would have set a precedent whereby
an accidental head clash which causes serious injury whilst blocking a players path to the ball (re: Gia on Kosi / Whelan on Ball) is OK if you are within 5 - 10 metres of the ball.
whereas
an accidental head clash which causes serious injury whilst blocking a players path to the ball (re: Baker on Farmer) is NOT OK if you are NOT within 5 - 10 metres of the ball.
In effect if Baker's appeal fails this what the AFL are saying
The shocking injuries that both Kosi and Ball received were by the length of the Flemington straight far worse than the crappy blood nose that Farmer sustained
YET
due to the fact they were 50 metres off the ball ACCIDENTAL suddenly becomes ROUGH CONDUCT / ON PURPOSE / INTENTIONAL / PLANNED / CONTRIVED
Fair enough I will be the first to say that Baker illegally blocked Farmer's path to the ball (warranting a free kick) but to absolutely screw Baker because they accidentally clashed heads is a jucking foke.
That said Baker should not be in the situation he is in because our defence counsel should never have allowed Baker to admit that he illegally blocked Farmer. All he had to say was that he was running watching the ball, he stopped and suddenly Farmer ran into the back of him and they clashed heads. It seriously seems that our defence cousel did not do their homework with regards to AFL rules and it sadly seems that the majority of us would have done a better job in defending his Baker's actions!!!!!
One very confused and rightly p1ssed off Devilhead
an accidental head clash which causes serious injury whilst blocking a players path to the ball (re: Gia on Kosi / Whelan on Ball) is OK if you are within 5 - 10 metres of the ball.
whereas
an accidental head clash which causes serious injury whilst blocking a players path to the ball (re: Baker on Farmer) is NOT OK if you are NOT within 5 - 10 metres of the ball.
In effect if Baker's appeal fails this what the AFL are saying
The shocking injuries that both Kosi and Ball received were by the length of the Flemington straight far worse than the crappy blood nose that Farmer sustained
YET
due to the fact they were 50 metres off the ball ACCIDENTAL suddenly becomes ROUGH CONDUCT / ON PURPOSE / INTENTIONAL / PLANNED / CONTRIVED
Fair enough I will be the first to say that Baker illegally blocked Farmer's path to the ball (warranting a free kick) but to absolutely screw Baker because they accidentally clashed heads is a jucking foke.
That said Baker should not be in the situation he is in because our defence counsel should never have allowed Baker to admit that he illegally blocked Farmer. All he had to say was that he was running watching the ball, he stopped and suddenly Farmer ran into the back of him and they clashed heads. It seriously seems that our defence cousel did not do their homework with regards to AFL rules and it sadly seems that the majority of us would have done a better job in defending his Baker's actions!!!!!
One very confused and rightly p1ssed off Devilhead
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!
- St. Luke
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5268
- Joined: Wed 17 Mar 2004 12:34pm
- Location: Hiding at Telstra Dome!
Re: If Baker's Appeal Fails ........
And this is the whole thing. They have no evidence to suggest it was anything other than an accident (and more on the part of Farmer than Baker!!) but feel vindicated on the grounds that Bakes has a poor track record at the tribunal.Devilhead wrote: Fair enough I will be the first to say that Baker illegally blocked Farmer's path to the ball (warranting a free kick) but to absolutely screw Baker because they accidentally clashed heads is a jucking foke.
Can anyone produce what Baker has done previously? His tribunal record perhaps??
I am still annoyed to the hilt about it! If he doesn't get off this thing tonight....
When they created LENNY HAYES (in the shadow of Harvs) they forgot to break the mold (again)- hence the Supremely Incredible Jack Steven!!
- Enrico_Misso
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11662
- Joined: Tue 13 Jun 2006 12:11am
- Location: Moorabbin Chapter of The Royal Society of Hagiographers
- Has thanked: 315 times
- Been thanked: 720 times
If his appeal fails ....
Why not hang some banners on the front row of level 3 behind the goals - ie in full camera view - with some blunt messages.
"Tribunal a sham"
"Baker crucified"
"Suspend Dimwit"
"7 weeks for what?"
"Innocent till proven guilty"
etc etc
Why not hang some banners on the front row of level 3 behind the goals - ie in full camera view - with some blunt messages.
"Tribunal a sham"
"Baker crucified"
"Suspend Dimwit"
"7 weeks for what?"
"Innocent till proven guilty"
etc etc
The rest of Australia can wander mask-free, socialise, eat out, no curfews, no zoning, no police rings of steel, no illogical inconsistent rules.
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
- Grimfang
- Club Player
- Posts: 1431
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 9:30am
- Location: Tecoma, Vic.
- Been thanked: 1 time
Has anyone seen the exact wording of the charge? Looking at one of the appeal grounds,
it appears that there was more detail to the charge than just "rough conduct".The crux of Baker's argument, contained within the notice of appeal, is that "the tribunal erred in allowing my account of events to form the basis of the charge, when the version of events that formed the basis of the charge that I came to the tribunal to meet was contradictory to mine". Put simply, the tribunal discounted all the evidence on which the charge was based but found Baker guilty anyway.
Taken from Baker has four points with appeal
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons; for you are a quick and tasty morsel.
You cant hang them..youll be asked to remove them..BUT..people on the Wing on Level 1 can hold signs up when the ball is near the boundary!Enrico_Misso wrote:If his appeal fails ....
Why not hang some banners on the front row of level 3 behind the goals - ie in full camera view - with some blunt messages.
"Tribunal a sham"
"Baker crucified"
"Suspend Dimwit"
"7 weeks for what?"
"Innocent till proven guilty"
etc etc
THE BUBBLE HAS BURST
2011 player sponsor
- riccardo
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6952
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:44am
- Location: Jason Gram - Michael Tuck Medalist 2008
If it fails I'll be very close to giving up the game all together.
The rules have made the game slow, boring, negative and frankly unwatchable, and the vastly lop sided playing field in favour of the interstate club and the "Big 3" in Vic means the little guy like us will never, ever get an even break.
I am disgusted by the AFL at the moment after the last few years of horrendous decisions. As Owen Hart said "Enough is enough, and its time for a change".
The rules have made the game slow, boring, negative and frankly unwatchable, and the vastly lop sided playing field in favour of the interstate club and the "Big 3" in Vic means the little guy like us will never, ever get an even break.
I am disgusted by the AFL at the moment after the last few years of horrendous decisions. As Owen Hart said "Enough is enough, and its time for a change".
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2502
- Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2005 9:11pm
- Location: Behind the goal, South Road end
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 35 times
Had the incident occurred in exactly the same way, but with Farmer uninjured and Baker having sustained a fracture to the back of the skull, what would the verdict have been?
Just as it's always the players' fault when they make contact with an umpire, is it always Baker's fault when someone runs into him?
Just as it's always the players' fault when they make contact with an umpire, is it always Baker's fault when someone runs into him?