Baker - 2 Weeks

[Spook]

Ben Johnson had a previous record including carry over points, but he got a two match reduction because he was able to enter an early plea.

Explain that to me smart arse?

I think it is because Johnson plead guilty last time and Baker plead not guilty to 2 offenses.... is that how the rule works?

 

[jbazzle]

Two weeks for stopping and having some idiot run into you is reasonable in my opinion.


But 7 isn't. The ludicrousianity (I just made that up) of this is compounded by the fact that he has points based on an ATTEMPTED strike.



Bah.

dont forget that big bitch that was standing on his ankle...

 

[thewhippersnapper]

I think it is because Johnson plead guilty last time and Baker plead not guilty to 2 offenses.... is that how the rule works?

nope, Baker couldn't plead guilty because he was charged by the tribunal and not the match review panel. tough break but hey...that's what happens when you snipe someone 100m off the ball (it's not caught on camera)

 

[JeffDunne]

I think it is because Johnson plead guilty last time and Baker plead not guilty to 2 offenses.... is that how the rule works?

Not from my understanding.

 

[JeffDunne]

nope, Baker couldn't plead guilty because he was charged by the tribunal and not the match review panel. tough break but hey...that's what happens when you snipe someone 100m off the ball (it's not caught on camera)

Now it's 100m off the ball?

Hell, why don't we just give him a 5 year suspension because nuff-nuff's like yourself don't like him?

 

[Hawk-in-syd]

Ben Johnson had a previous record including carry over points, but he got a two match reduction because he was able to enter an early plea.

Explain that to me smart arse?

Face it they wouldn't have taken the early plea anyway. Remember that they think the tribunal got the guilty verdic wrong hence the appeal. Stkilda have stuffed this up. How about venting at the real knobs in this process the stkilda admin not the tribunal.

 

[realdeal]

This whole thread is stupid..
Baker couldnt give an early guilty plea because it went straight to the tribunal instead of through the review board. so its a redundant topic anyway. get your facts right first.

Instead of everyone saying this and that about Baker try and
1. Imagine a player off your own team in the same position (what would u say then?) or
2. Think about how ridiculous and inconsistant this tribunal is and how we can get is better.

The AFL under dimwit and AA is a farce.

 

[Hawkk]

No. You can't really rationalise it, apart from saying that it's a quirk in the system that disadvantages behind-play snipers.

It's a bit like Saddam Hussein's inhumane execution.
Something's not quite right, but it's hard to feel much sympathy

Exactly.

Its a filler suspension, its like the umpire that gives a square up free kick for a mistake made earlier in the game...

 

[BIGBEZ]

Im not exactly a fan of baker, but he should never of got suspended, farmer was negligent also, baker suffered bruising to his head, no way in the world could that havehappened if he was out to hurt farmer!
What if baker went down as well? Both reported?

 

[ndot]

AFL suspended him to avoid the embarassment of a guy getting away with a gutless hit off the ball, due to their laughable lack of full ground camera footage.

no one hates freo more than me, but they lost farmer, a crucial player for the rest of the game... in a game where their season was on the line. an act like that off the ball basically amounts to CHEATING on the saints behalf and therefore must be penalised.

a ridiculous situation not having footage. the AFL should never let this happen again.

 

[JeffDunne]

lol, so now St Kilda cheated?

Are they giving drugs away in Perth these days or does the city simply have more than their fair share of morons?

 

[since82eags]

This whole thread is stupid..
Baker couldnt give an early guilty plea because it went straight to the tribunal instead of through the review board. so its a redundant topic anyway. get your facts right first.

Instead of everyone saying this and that about Baker try and
1. Imagine a player off your own team in the same position (what would u say then?) or
2. Think about how ridiculous and inconsistant this tribunal is and how we can get is better.

The AFL under dimwit and AA is a farce.

We do our unethical stuff off the field.

 

[sarbear]

lol, so now St Kilda cheated?

Are they giving drugs away in Perth these days or does the city simply have more than their fair share of morons?

I have a serious question, im not having a go at you in any way shape or form. I would be pissed if it was a player from my team as well.

Are you pissed at freo or Jeff in this at all?

or are you pissed at the inconsistency of the AFL and the Tribunal system that cant seem to get it right no matter what they do?

I really dont understand why there is any point being pissed at freo and jeff when they were called to give evidence and didnt offer to give evidence (which didnt have any impact anyway cos neither of them saw anything). I can understand you being pissed at the AFL because to suspend a guy for 4 weeks without video evidence is a big call to make.

 

[King Elvis]

i hate all this previous record shit. do the crime to the time. hes done plenty

Bloody oath; 7 weeks instead of 2 because of history is bullshit.

Judge each incident individually.

 

[Kempie]

Bloody oath; 7 weeks instead of 2 because of history is bullshit.

Judge each incident individually.

No.

For better or worse, the AFL/tribunal decided that Baker's idea of how to play the game was not how they wanted the game to be played, and to be seen to be played.

Given that Baker's both a recidivist and a terribly slow learner, they decided to throw the book at him.

Look on the positive side - he may yet get a clue as a result of this.