Can anyone spot a trend ?

Enrico_Misso · Thu 23 Aug 2007 10:03pm

1) 100+kg of Allessio stands on Baker's shin bone leaving stop marks. Bakes instinctively attempts to push him off with the other leg and gets charged and suspended for "kicking".

2) Baker swings fist, doesn't connect, gets suspended for "attempting" to strike.

3) Baker gets 7 weeks on a vague charge with no consistent eye-witness account and no suggestion of a strike.

SaintDippa · Thu 23 Aug 2007 10:04pm

Flares are back in?

HSVKing · Post: # 441068Post **HSVKing** » Thu 23 Aug 2007 10:04pm

They were all at Telstra Dome?

SaintBot · Post: # 441069Post **SaintBot** » Thu 23 Aug 2007 10:05pm

HSVKing wrote:They were all at Telstra Dome?

the 'attempted' was at the G i thought

Eastern · Post: # 441071Post **Eastern** » Thu 23 Aug 2007 10:06pm

Hey E M !!

Are you suggesting that Steven Baker has been victimised

!!

saintspremiers · Thu 23 Aug 2007 10:08pm

Eastern wrote:Hey E M !!

Are you suggesting that Steven Baker has been victimised !!

DAS SPRECHEN IST VERBOTEN IN DIE AFL!!!!!

(not perfect German, but you get the gist!!)

HSVKing · Post: # 441082Post **HSVKing** » Thu 23 Aug 2007 10:10pm

SaintBot wrote:
HSVKing wrote:They were all at Telstra Dome?
the 'attempted' was at the G i thought

Yes... The player in question was at the MCG...

But Bakes was at the Dome...

saint patrick · Thu 23 Aug 2007 10:11pm

saintspremiers wrote:
Eastern wrote:Hey E M !!

Are you suggesting that Steven Baker has been victimised !!
DAS SPRECHEN IST VERBOTEN IN DIE AFL!!!!!

(not perfect German, but you get the gist!!)

donner uen blitzen..achtung ...Ze Baker dunkauf ..Ze dead man valking

Enrico_Misso · Thu 23 Aug 2007 10:13pm

saintspremiers wrote: DAS SPRECHEN IST VERBOTEN IN DIE AFL!!!!!

(not perfect German, but you get the gist!!)

BÃ¤cker ist durch das facist AFL Regime geschraubt worden.

Unforgiven · Thu 23 Aug 2007 10:15pm

reputation. The AFL is fixed. I mean a sport where Barry Hall can punch and get nothing, and bakes can miss someone at gets weeks. It's a corrupt system.

saint patrick · Thu 23 Aug 2007 10:16pm

Enrico_Misso wrote:
saintspremiers wrote: DAS SPRECHEN IST VERBOTEN IN DIE AFL!!!!!

(not perfect German, but you get the gist!!)
BÃ¤cker ist durch das facist AFL Regime geschraubt worden.

Yavole herr commandant....Hiel Dimietrio

Apu · Post: # 441344Post **Apu** » Fri 24 Aug 2007 7:57am

SaintDippa wrote:Flares are back in?

Gold

Dan Warna · Post: # 441397Post **Dan Warna** » Fri 24 Aug 2007 10:25am

flare? Im getting a tactical nuke for AFL house

then again when battling Vlad how do you kill that which is already DEAD??!!!

meher baba · Fri 24 Aug 2007 10:39am

As I have posted on other threads, Baker has a major image problem. He is generally seen as a sniper who constantly cheats behind play in order to keep star players quiet during a game.

Almost the entire football world away from our club and its supporters believe that Baker king hit Farmer behind play as part of Baker's usual modus operandum of niggling which, on this occasion, got a bit out of hand.

They see the Tribunal as having simply used the rules in whichever way they could to get a known cheat and petty thug off the field for as long as possible. And they are silently (or not so silently) applauding the outcome.

I don't like it any more than any of the rest of you do, but that's the way it is. We need to face facts.

joffaboy · Post: # 441427Post **joffaboy** » Fri 24 Aug 2007 11:05am

saintspremiers wrote:DAS SPRECHEN IST VERBOTEN IN DIE AFL!!!!!

While we are trotting out phrases in other languages.

O Genki desu ka?

Loses something in translation from Japanese but means "How are you going/feeling?"

And the answer

Genki desu - means something along the lines of "Wouldn't be dead for quids."

Hope that helps.

cowboy18 · Post: # 441451Post **cowboy18** » Fri 24 Aug 2007 11:24am

Well here's my solution in French.

Je ne porte pas le pantalon. Ceci me rend heureux.

spert · Post: # 441456Post **spert** » Fri 24 Aug 2007 11:27am

The more the AFL brings down this kind of outcome, the deeper a credibility hole they dig for themselves. Usually in a legal system its innocent until proven guilty, but in AFL land it's guilty and that's that or if it's an infringment against a ST.Kilda player, especially head-high tackles and deliberate punches, you're innocent, say no more. It is a real trend which is sticking out like a sore thumb.

kalsaint · Post: # 441467Post **kalsaint** » Fri 24 Aug 2007 11:35am

meher baba wrote:As I have posted on other threads, Baker has a major image problem. He is generally seen as a sniper who constantly cheats behind play in order to keep star players quiet during a game.

Almost the entire football world away from our club and its supporters believe that Baker king hit Farmer behind play as part of Baker's usual modus operandum of niggling which, on this occasion, got a bit out of hand.

They see the Tribunal as having simply used the rules in whichever way they could to get a known cheat and petty thug off the field for as long as possible. And they are silently (or not so silently) applauding the outcome.

I don't like it any more than any of the rest of you do, but that's the way it is. We need to face facts.

There's no doubt what you say is true. I also do not condone player attacks off the play and in general the AFL has to do something about it.

The wrong doing here is:
1 the lack of evidence in this case,
2 The event itself is not a direct or full blown attack.
3 The outcome from both tribunal and appeals boards are inconsistent.
4 There is too much change to the game,in rules, interprestion and rulings at all levels.
5 There is huge inconsistency in what is applied and what is appropriately discarded.

It is the last 2 items why the club needs to continue this or point 1-5 will escalate. If Bakes is guilty, he should do the time but many precedents set suggest toherwise this time around.

st_Trav_ofWA · Fri 24 Aug 2007 11:41am

meher baba wrote:As I have posted on other threads, Baker has a major image problem. He is generally seen as a sniper who constantly cheats behind play in order to keep star players quiet during a game.

Almost the entire football world away from our club and its supporters believe that Baker king hit Farmer behind play as part of Baker's usual modus operandum of niggling which, on this occasion, got a bit out of hand.

They see the Tribunal as having simply used the rules in whichever way they could to get a known cheat and petty thug off the field for as long as possible. And they are silently (or not so silently) applauding the outcome.

I don't like it any more than any of the rest of you do, but that's the way it is. We need to face facts.

bingo
bakes is not a love player by anyone but us (lets face it we would hate bakes if he played for anyone else except us ) i think bakes needs to now have a good look at the way he plays the game cause its more evident then ever he cant and wont get away with anything every camera is going to be on him every ump is looking in his direction the gig is up time to change bakes you have 7 weeks to do soo

Kate · Post: # 441480Post **Kate** » Fri 24 Aug 2007 11:51am

If the cameras had been on him, he wouldn't have a problem.

meher baba · Fri 24 Aug 2007 12:12pm

Kate wrote:If the cameras had been on him, he wouldn't have a problem.

That's right: they had cameras and observers allocated to watch him in several games in , I think, 2005 and came away with the conclusion that he operated entirely within the rules.

However, the poster is right that Baker needs to have a good hard look at himself: he needs to stop running to melees and throwing punches and he needs to stop retaliating against anything anyone does to him.

There is nothing wrong with him being one of the hard men of the AFL, but he needs to learn to control his emotions.