Bakes on Harvey = No case to answer

[howlinwolf]

Apparently no clear video of this incident so no case to answer for Bakes.

Can't recall the incident though.

Scarlett = one week. Seems lucky.

Mooney = one week. Glad he's been made accountable.

Osborne = one week. How does Kosi get 3 and he gets 1 ?

Shiels = one week. Seems lucky too for a premeditated strike.

[GrumpyOne]

Shiels = one week. Seems lucky too for a remeditated strike.

Thought about it twice I gather.

[degruch]

Shiels = one week. Seems lucky too for a remeditated strike.

Thought about it twice I gather.

That's what I assumed too.

Anyway, no video footage? Lucky Bakes didn't get 10 weeks.

[Saint Bev]

So I guess that means Harvey got off his trip report?

[plugger66]

How did Bakes get off. He is a Saints player and we know they are after us.

[Moccha]

How did Bakes get off. He is a Saints player and we know they are after us.

The AFL accepted the money under the table

[plugger66]

How did Bakes get off. He is a Saints player and we know they are after us.

The AFL accepted the money under the table

About time. They obviously have accepted other clubs money for years.

[degruch]

How did Bakes get off. He is a Saints player and we know they are after us.

We do seem to be the 'watershed' team for tribunal decisions, I'm sure you'll agree.

(1) Kosi's cracked skull sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down (excuse the pun) on head high bumps (ignoring Maxwell during last years NAB Cup). The ruling lays dormant for 5 years until Kosi's recent high contact bump generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension - deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(2) West's behind play 'elimination' of Xavier Clarke sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down on off the ball behind play bumps. The ruling lays dormant for 3 years until Steven King's offball block generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension. Again, possibly deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(3) Baker suspended for a total of 8 weeks, despite no report, footage, witnesses and a statement from Jeff Farmer more-or-less confirming Baker's version of events, despite being found NOT GUILTY of the charge. The AFL seems to circumvent it's own rules in an attempt to remove the player in question from the game, rather than the play.
(4) Zac Dawson is suspended for 3 weeks for unduly rough play against an opponent, yet Jacob Surjan was not suspended for the exact same unduly rough play the following week. Once again, whilst the suspension may be deserved, the ruling was oddly inconsistant.

You explain your way out of these 4, I'll get started on some more.

[plugger66]

How did Bakes get off. He is a Saints player and we know they are after us.

We do seem to be the 'watershed' team for tribunal decisions, I'm sure you'll agree.

(1) Kosi's cracked skull sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down (excuse the pun) on head high bumps (ignoring Maxwell during last years NAB Cup). The ruling lays dormant for 5 years until Kosi's recent high contact bump generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension - deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(2) West's behind play 'elimination' of Xavier Clarke sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down on off the ball behind play bumps. The ruling lays dormant for 3 years until Steven King's offball block generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension. Again, possibly deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(3) Baker suspended for a total of 8 weeks, despite no report, footage, witnesses and a statement from Jeff Farmer more-or-less confirming Baker's version of events, despite being found NOT GUILTY of the charge. The AFL seems to circumvent it's own rules in an attempt to remove the player in question from the game, rather than the play.
(4) Zac Dawson is suspended for 3 weeks for unduly rough play against an opponent, yet Jacob Surjan was not suspended for the exact same unduly rough play the following week. Once again, whilst the suspension may be deserved, the ruling was oddly inconsistant.

You explain your way out of these 4, I'll get started on some more.

Just maybe as Saints supporters we remember ours. Go onto another football board and they will have ones that are strange as well. Do you honestly think we get these bad decisions because the AFL have it in for us. Now that is illogical but then again you think Geelong get 4 to 5 wins a year because of umpires. Is your neck ok?

[degruch]

How did Bakes get off. He is a Saints player and we know they are after us.

We do seem to be the 'watershed' team for tribunal decisions, I'm sure you'll agree.

(1) Kosi's cracked skull sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down (excuse the pun) on head high bumps (ignoring Maxwell during last years NAB Cup). The ruling lays dormant for 5 years until Kosi's recent high contact bump generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension - deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(2) West's behind play 'elimination' of Xavier Clarke sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down on off the ball behind play bumps. The ruling lays dormant for 3 years until Steven King's offball block generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension. Again, possibly deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(3) Baker suspended for a total of 8 weeks, despite no report, footage, witnesses and a statement from Jeff Farmer more-or-less confirming Baker's version of events, despite being found NOT GUILTY of the charge. The AFL seems to circumvent it's own rules in an attempt to remove the player in question from the game, rather than the play.
(4) Zac Dawson is suspended for 3 weeks for unduly rough play against an opponent, yet Jacob Surjan was not suspended for the exact same unduly rough play the following week. Once again, whilst the suspension may be deserved, the ruling was oddly inconsistant.

You explain your way out of these 4, I'll get started on some more.

Just maybe as Saints supporters we remember ours. Go onto another football board and they will have ones that are strange as well. Do you honestly think we get these bad decisions because the AFL have it in for us. Now that is illogical but then again you think Geelong get 4 to 5 wins a year because of umpires. Is your neck ok?

Have there been any other St Kilda suspensions over the last 5 years? They always seem to be 'controversial'. I guess we could add Kosi's jumper punch suspension for comparison against Judd's jumper punch non-suspension of the same era, any others left? Sure, every club endures odd suspensions/non-suspensions (ask a Port supporter about how fare Brennan's 1 week headbutt suspension was), but we seem to have the most odd, under the most bizarre circumstances, very frequently.

Run your concept that Geelong play under the same rules as the rest of the comp past any number of non-Geelong (and probably a few Geelong supporters, truth be told) support and watch them fall over laughing.

[plugger66]

How did Bakes get off. He is a Saints player and we know they are after us.

We do seem to be the 'watershed' team for tribunal decisions, I'm sure you'll agree.

(1) Kosi's cracked skull sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down (excuse the pun) on head high bumps (ignoring Maxwell during last years NAB Cup). The ruling lays dormant for 5 years until Kosi's recent high contact bump generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension - deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(2) West's behind play 'elimination' of Xavier Clarke sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down on off the ball behind play bumps. The ruling lays dormant for 3 years until Steven King's offball block generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension. Again, possibly deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(3) Baker suspended for a total of 8 weeks, despite no report, footage, witnesses and a statement from Jeff Farmer more-or-less confirming Baker's version of events, despite being found NOT GUILTY of the charge. The AFL seems to circumvent it's own rules in an attempt to remove the player in question from the game, rather than the play.
(4) Zac Dawson is suspended for 3 weeks for unduly rough play against an opponent, yet Jacob Surjan was not suspended for the exact same unduly rough play the following week. Once again, whilst the suspension may be deserved, the ruling was oddly inconsistant.

You explain your way out of these 4, I'll get started on some more.

Just maybe as Saints supporters we remember ours. Go onto another football board and they will have ones that are strange as well. Do you honestly think we get these bad decisions because the AFL have it in for us. Now that is illogical but then again you think Geelong get 4 to 5 wins a year because of umpires. Is your neck ok?

Have there been any other St Kilda suspensions over the last 5 years? They always seem to be 'controversial'. I guess we could add Kosi's jumper punch suspension for comparison against Judd's jumper punch non-suspension of the same era, any others left? Sure, every club endures odd suspensions/non-suspensions (ask a Port supporter about how fare Brennan's 1 week headbutt suspension was), but we seem to have the most odd, under the most bizarre circumstances, very frequently.

Run your concept that Geelong play under the same rules as the rest of the comp past any number of non-Geelong (and probably a few Geelong supporters, truth be told) support and watch them fall over laughing.

You are right supporters would laugh. 4 or 5 wins a year because of umpiring is funny.

[degruch]

How did Bakes get off. He is a Saints player and we know they are after us.

We do seem to be the 'watershed' team for tribunal decisions, I'm sure you'll agree.

(1) Kosi's cracked skull sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down (excuse the pun) on head high bumps (ignoring Maxwell during last years NAB Cup). The ruling lays dormant for 5 years until Kosi's recent high contact bump generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension - deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(2) West's behind play 'elimination' of Xavier Clarke sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down on off the ball behind play bumps. The ruling lays dormant for 3 years until Steven King's offball block generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension. Again, possibly deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(3) Baker suspended for a total of 8 weeks, despite no report, footage, witnesses and a statement from Jeff Farmer more-or-less confirming Baker's version of events, despite being found NOT GUILTY of the charge. The AFL seems to circumvent it's own rules in an attempt to remove the player in question from the game, rather than the play.
(4) Zac Dawson is suspended for 3 weeks for unduly rough play against an opponent, yet Jacob Surjan was not suspended for the exact same unduly rough play the following week. Once again, whilst the suspension may be deserved, the ruling was oddly inconsistant.

You explain your way out of these 4, I'll get started on some more.

Just maybe as Saints supporters we remember ours. Go onto another football board and they will have ones that are strange as well. Do you honestly think we get these bad decisions because the AFL have it in for us. Now that is illogical but then again you think Geelong get 4 to 5 wins a year because of umpires. Is your neck ok?

Have there been any other St Kilda suspensions over the last 5 years? They always seem to be 'controversial'. I guess we could add Kosi's jumper punch suspension for comparison against Judd's jumper punch non-suspension of the same era, any others left? Sure, every club endures odd suspensions/non-suspensions (ask a Port supporter about how fare Brennan's 1 week headbutt suspension was), but we seem to have the most odd, under the most bizarre circumstances, very frequently.

Run your concept that Geelong play under the same rules as the rest of the comp past any number of non-Geelong (and probably a few Geelong supporters, truth be told) support and watch them fall over laughing.

You are right supporters would laugh. 4 or 5 wins a year because of umpiring is funny.

GAblett can be very damaging when he cannot be pinged for holding the ball and is allowed to forward pass to any Geelong played within a 720 degree radius. I'm sure a few football fans smiled at Stevie Johnson's disposal of the ball in front of goals last week and wondered how many times they'll see that before the Cats subside into the bottom 8 again.

[plugger66]

How did Bakes get off. He is a Saints player and we know they are after us.

We do seem to be the 'watershed' team for tribunal decisions, I'm sure you'll agree.

(1) Kosi's cracked skull sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down (excuse the pun) on head high bumps (ignoring Maxwell during last years NAB Cup). The ruling lays dormant for 5 years until Kosi's recent high contact bump generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension - deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(2) West's behind play 'elimination' of Xavier Clarke sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down on off the ball behind play bumps. The ruling lays dormant for 3 years until Steven King's offball block generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension. Again, possibly deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(3) Baker suspended for a total of 8 weeks, despite no report, footage, witnesses and a statement from Jeff Farmer more-or-less confirming Baker's version of events, despite being found NOT GUILTY of the charge. The AFL seems to circumvent it's own rules in an attempt to remove the player in question from the game, rather than the play.
(4) Zac Dawson is suspended for 3 weeks for unduly rough play against an opponent, yet Jacob Surjan was not suspended for the exact same unduly rough play the following week. Once again, whilst the suspension may be deserved, the ruling was oddly inconsistant.

You explain your way out of these 4, I'll get started on some more.

Just maybe as Saints supporters we remember ours. Go onto another football board and they will have ones that are strange as well. Do you honestly think we get these bad decisions because the AFL have it in for us. Now that is illogical but then again you think Geelong get 4 to 5 wins a year because of umpires. Is your neck ok?

Have there been any other St Kilda suspensions over the last 5 years? They always seem to be 'controversial'. I guess we could add Kosi's jumper punch suspension for comparison against Judd's jumper punch non-suspension of the same era, any others left? Sure, every club endures odd suspensions/non-suspensions (ask a Port supporter about how fare Brennan's 1 week headbutt suspension was), but we seem to have the most odd, under the most bizarre circumstances, very frequently.

Run your concept that Geelong play under the same rules as the rest of the comp past any number of non-Geelong (and probably a few Geelong supporters, truth be told) support and watch them fall over laughing.

You are right supporters would laugh. 4 or 5 wins a year because of umpiring is funny.

GAblett can be very damaging when he cannot be pinged for holding the ball and is allowed to forward pass to any Geelong played within a 720 degree radius. I'm sure a few football fans smiled at Stevie Johnson's disposal of the ball in front of goals last week and wondered how many times they'll see that before the Cats subside into the bottom 8 again.

And they 4 or 5 wins because of those sort of decisions. Didnt know they played so many close games the last few years.

[degruch]

How did Bakes get off. He is a Saints player and we know they are after us.

We do seem to be the 'watershed' team for tribunal decisions, I'm sure you'll agree.

(1) Kosi's cracked skull sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down (excuse the pun) on head high bumps (ignoring Maxwell during last years NAB Cup). The ruling lays dormant for 5 years until Kosi's recent high contact bump generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension - deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(2) West's behind play 'elimination' of Xavier Clarke sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down on off the ball behind play bumps. The ruling lays dormant for 3 years until Steven King's offball block generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension. Again, possibly deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(3) Baker suspended for a total of 8 weeks, despite no report, footage, witnesses and a statement from Jeff Farmer more-or-less confirming Baker's version of events, despite being found NOT GUILTY of the charge. The AFL seems to circumvent it's own rules in an attempt to remove the player in question from the game, rather than the play.
(4) Zac Dawson is suspended for 3 weeks for unduly rough play against an opponent, yet Jacob Surjan was not suspended for the exact same unduly rough play the following week. Once again, whilst the suspension may be deserved, the ruling was oddly inconsistant.

You explain your way out of these 4, I'll get started on some more.

Just maybe as Saints supporters we remember ours. Go onto another football board and they will have ones that are strange as well. Do you honestly think we get these bad decisions because the AFL have it in for us. Now that is illogical but then again you think Geelong get 4 to 5 wins a year because of umpires. Is your neck ok?

Have there been any other St Kilda suspensions over the last 5 years? They always seem to be 'controversial'. I guess we could add Kosi's jumper punch suspension for comparison against Judd's jumper punch non-suspension of the same era, any others left? Sure, every club endures odd suspensions/non-suspensions (ask a Port supporter about how fare Brennan's 1 week headbutt suspension was), but we seem to have the most odd, under the most bizarre circumstances, very frequently.

Run your concept that Geelong play under the same rules as the rest of the comp past any number of non-Geelong (and probably a few Geelong supporters, truth be told) support and watch them fall over laughing.

You are right supporters would laugh. 4 or 5 wins a year because of umpiring is funny.

GAblett can be very damaging when he cannot be pinged for holding the ball and is allowed to forward pass to any Geelong played within a 720 degree radius. I'm sure a few football fans smiled at Stevie Johnson's disposal of the ball in front of goals last week and wondered how many times they'll see that before the Cats subside into the bottom 8 again.

And they 4 or 5 wins because of those sort of decisions. Didnt know they played so many close games the last few years.

At least 4-5 by under 2 goals last season. I wonder how close Freo will get this weekend...I'm tipping them against the Cats, even though the umpires gidted them a victory against the Hawks (and nice to see some suspensions handed out too - only for how long?).

[St. Luke]

I'd be the first time Bakes got off due to not being caught on video evidence. He got 7 weeks last time it wasn't captured on video.

[plugger66]

So everyone of those was won by the umpires. Well that certainly makes sense. The tribunal must not be in on the cheating that was obviously ordered by the AFL. What about the 2 previous years. How many close ones then that were won the by the umpire. This is a very serious topic. We probably need to take it to the papers. Fancy the AFL making sure the Cats win 4 or 5 a year by telling the umpires to cheat. i am just about to ring Caro. She will love this story.

[degruch]

So everyone of those was won by the umpires. Well that certainly makes sense. The tribunal must not be in on the cheating that was obviously ordered by the AFL. What about the 2 previous years. How many close ones then that were won the by the umpire. This is a very serious topic. We probably need to take it to the papers. Fancy the AFL making sure the Cats win 4 or 5 a year by telling the umpires to cheat. i am just about to ring Caro. She will love this story.

Oooo, you're really on to something here, aren't you? Deflecting much? I don't think the press are into telling the truth as much as the imparial footy observer. Certainly, plenty of questions were asked by the press in each one of the cases I listed above...and Roo's shoulder incident...and Sirengate...and Whispers in the Sky...etc, etc.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Apparently no clear video of this incident so no case to answer for Bakes.

Can't recall the incident though.

Scarlett = one week. Seems lucky.

Mooney = one week. Glad he's been made accountable.

Osborne = one week. How does Kosi get 3 and he gets 1 ?

Shiels = one week. Seems lucky too for a premeditated strike.

Osborne probably lucky - but as opposed to Kosi, Selwood was at least over the ball, where Kosi ran past to collect Malceski.

For all the talk for 2 rounds (plus preseason) of "inconsistent", I've found the message pretty clear: if you've got any other option and go the bump, head high is going to collect weeks. Based on that, most of the suspensions from the round were pretty predictable.

[saintsRrising]

Freo must be feeling like things are rolling their way at present....

[degruch]

Freo must be feeling like things are rolling their way at present....

Until we beat them by 1 point from a dodgy free kick, awarded in front of goal by a deaf umpire, at the 58th minute mark of the 4th quarter.

[The Craw]

We do seem to be the 'watershed' team for tribunal decisions, I'm sure you'll agree.

(1) Kosi's cracked skull sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down (excuse the pun) on head high bumps (ignoring Maxwell during last years NAB Cup). The ruling lays dormant for 5 years until Kosi's recent high contact bump generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension - deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(2) West's behind play 'elimination' of Xavier Clarke sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down on off the ball behind play bumps. The ruling lays dormant for 3 years until Steven King's offball block generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension. Again, possibly deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(3) Baker suspended for a total of 8 weeks, despite no report, footage, witnesses and a statement from Jeff Farmer more-or-less confirming Baker's version of events, despite being found NOT GUILTY of the charge. The AFL seems to circumvent it's own rules in an attempt to remove the player in question from the game, rather than the play.
(4) Zac Dawson is suspended for 3 weeks for unduly rough play against an opponent, yet Jacob Surjan was not suspended for the exact same unduly rough play the following week. Once again, whilst the suspension may be deserved, the ruling was oddly inconsistant.

You explain your way out of these 4, I'll get started on some more.

(5) you forgot about the moon landing conspiracy ...I think a Saints player was involved somewhere.

[degruch]

We do seem to be the 'watershed' team for tribunal decisions, I'm sure you'll agree.

(1) Kosi's cracked skull sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down (excuse the pun) on head high bumps (ignoring Maxwell during last years NAB Cup). The ruling lays dormant for 5 years until Kosi's recent high contact bump generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension - deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(2) West's behind play 'elimination' of Xavier Clarke sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down on off the ball behind play bumps. The ruling lays dormant for 3 years until Steven King's offball block generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension. Again, possibly deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(3) Baker suspended for a total of 8 weeks, despite no report, footage, witnesses and a statement from Jeff Farmer more-or-less confirming Baker's version of events, despite being found NOT GUILTY of the charge. The AFL seems to circumvent it's own rules in an attempt to remove the player in question from the game, rather than the play.
(4) Zac Dawson is suspended for 3 weeks for unduly rough play against an opponent, yet Jacob Surjan was not suspended for the exact same unduly rough play the following week. Once again, whilst the suspension may be deserved, the ruling was oddly inconsistant.

You explain your way out of these 4, I'll get started on some more.

(5) you forgot about the moon landing conspiracy ...I think a Saints player was involved somewhere.

Craw. You jest. I don't. Plugger has no comeback for any of these points, no-one at the time had a comeback for any of these points (apart from Whispers in the Sky, we were laughed at by plenty of opposition supporters for that one). The suspensions may be just, but why is it that they rarely seem to apply the second our backs are turned? Lets face it, St Kilda have plenty of fodder.

[ace]

How did Bakes get off. He is a Saints player and we know they are after us.

The AFL is having teething problems with the new match review panel members.
Some of them still think they are allowed to make judgements based on the evidence.
They will be brought into line.
This will not happen again.

[ace]

So everyone of those was won by the umpires. Well that certainly makes sense. The tribunal must not be in on the cheating that was obviously ordered by the AFL. What about the 2 previous years. How many close ones then that were won the by the umpire. This is a very serious topic. We probably need to take it to the papers. Fancy the AFL making sure the Cats win 4 or 5 a year by telling the umpires to cheat. i am just about to ring Caro. She will love this story.

Come clean Plugger we all know Caro is your mistress.

[Saint Bev]

Surprised there is no mention of "Sirengate" and "Whispers in the Sky". You can't tell me they weren't dodgey.