Baker charged with 'unduly rough play'

[bangko-bangko]

Round 8 in 2005. Judd had 7 possessions and got reported.

Since then Judd has been amongst our best in each game v Saints (23 possessions & 28 possessions in the 2 games he has played). He was injured for the game this year.

In the 2004 game in which we were flogged by 100+ points, Judd was our second leading possession getter and our second best player (behind Cousins).

In 2003, Judd had 2 ordinary games v the Saints (that was Judds second year).

So since the end of 2003 (when Judd was 19) Baker has beaten him once. Thats ownership for you!

We will both look forward to Friday night then

 

[Oh When the Saints]

Neither Nixon's evidence nor the trainer's evidence should have been admitted ... they lack credibility because of potential bias.

Basically, all the AFL have is:

1. Knowledge that Baker was playing on Farmer
2. Footage of Farmer lying on the ground with Baker 30m away
3. Baker's testimony that he stopped to block Farmer and they clashed heads
4. Farmer's testimony that he can't remember anything ... but remembers no-one was in front of him.

It's a "he said ... she said" case at this stage ...


The AFL must prove that the contact made by Baker was of a nature that warrants suspension.

This has not been proved IMO.

 

[West Coast 06]

From memory Baker didn't play on Judd that day. That was the game after Judd was suspended for wacking Baker in the head. Baker played on Cousins.

Yeah, well Cousins got 27 possessions that game so that was a good move hey?

 

[Fabulous]

I think the point is why would his evidence be reguarded at the tribunal?

He manages 13 Saints players, one Docker and one Eagle, therefore it is safe to say he is about as unbiased as a Freo trainer.

At least the Freo trainer has an honorable profession.....he is a teacher

 

[Impunity!]

ZOMG the thread has turned into Baker >>> Judd thread!

FWIW Baker >>> Judd.

 

[bangko-bangko]

Yeah, well Cousins got 27 possessions that game so that was a good move hey?

The eagles did win by 20 goals!

 

[Eagle87]

And the time before that Judd got 7 possessions and a weeks holiday.

West Coast have played 3 games v Saints since the game 2 and a half years ago in which Judd struggled and got reported.

Judd played in 2 of them both last year.

23 possessions in one and 28 posessions (and 3 goals) in the other.

Before that in 2004, Judd was our second best player when we were belted.

You have to go back to 2003 when Judd was 19 to find a time when Judd had another ordinary game v the Saints.

This is pretty easy to follow.

 

[Carn the Coasters]

The eagles did win by 20 goals!

18 points.

 

[spice18]

Neither Nixon's evidence nor the trainer's evidence should have been admitted ... they lack credibility because of potential bias.

Basically, all the AFL have is:

1. Knowledge that Baker was playing on Farmer
2. Footage of Farmer lying on the ground with Baker 30m away
3. Baker's testimony that he stopped to block Farmer and they clashed heads
4. Farmer's testimony that he can't remember anything ... but remembers no-one was in front of him.

It's a "he said ... she said" case at this stage ...


The AFL must prove that the contact made by Baker was of a nature that warrants suspension.

This has not been proved IMO.

Initiated contact that resulted in serious injury to another player. Evidence sketchy but we don't want thugs in our game and the little muffin should be suspended because I'm sure most people really know what happened.

 

[bangko-bangko]

West Coast have played 3 games v Saints since the game 2 and a half years ago in which Judd struggled and got reported.

Judd played in 2 of them both last year.

23 possessions in one and 28 posessions (and 3 goals) in the other.

Before that in 2004, Judd was our second best player when we were belted.

You have to go back to 2003 when Judd was 19 to find a time when Judd had another ordinary game v the Saints.

This is pretty easy to follow.

Baker didn't play on Judd in the first game last year and was injured in the second. So according to your facts Baker has beaten Judd every time they have played but you dismiss the majority of them because Judd was too young!!!

 

[West Coast 06]

The eagles did win by 20 goals!

Eighteen points actually, but I like your version better!

 

[sumavich]

Initiated contact that resulted in serious injury to another player. Evidence sketchy but we don't want thugs in our game and the little muffin should be suspended because I'm sure most people really know what happened.

Dirty, away from the play, Got To Go !!!

 

[jbazzle]

Initiated contact that resulted in serious injury to another player. Evidence sketchy but we don't want thugs in our game and the little muffin should be suspended because I'm sure most people really know what happened.

please do enlighten us all! what did really happen?

 

[sedders]

Neither Nixon's evidence nor the trainer's evidence should have been admitted ... they lack credibility because of potential bias.

Basically, all the AFL have is:

1. Knowledge that Baker was playing on Farmer
2. Footage of Farmer lying on the ground with Baker 30m away
3. Baker's testimony that he stopped to block Farmer and they clashed heads
4. Farmer's testimony that he can't remember anything ... but remembers no-one was in front of him.

It's a "he said ... she said" case at this stage ...


The AFL must prove that the contact made by Baker was of a nature that warrants suspension.

This has not been proved IMO.

by bakers own admittion he initiated contact by blocking farmer. this was off the ball and not required as part of the play. The fact that farmer was carried off suggests that he was reckless in his blocking action. This was not in play, head high contact and medium impact. I think his own version of events has done him in.

Even if he gets 1 point he will get a week due to his absurd carrier over points situation.

 

[Carn the Coasters]

Baker didn't play on Judd in the first game last year and was injured in the second. So according to your facts Baker has beaten Judd every time they have played but you dismiss the majority of them because Judd was too young!!!

So in other words, Baker has beaten Judd once in the last 4 years. Looks like the poster who said 'once' was right then.

 

[Oh When the Saints]

by bakers own admittion he initiated contact by blocking farmer. this was off the ball and not required as part of the play. The fact that farmer was carried off suggests that he was reckless in his blocking action. This was not in play, head high contact and medium impact. I think his own version of events has done him in.

Even if he gets 1 point he will get a week due to his absurd carrier over points situation.

The evidence is circumstantial, and from it you have constructed a possible sequence of events.

It may or may not have happened this way, and certainly it would not be enough in a court of law.


I wish he didn't have the carry-over points ... then they could slap him with a reprimand and be done with it.

Should have just made him serve the extra week earlier in the year.

 

[sedders]

The evidence is circumstantial, and from it you have constructed a possible sequence of events.

It may or may not have happened this way, and certainly it would not be enough in a court of law.


I wish he didn't have the carry-over points ... then they could slap him with a reprimand and be done with it.

Should have just made him serve the extra week earlier in the year.

not really, the evidence was straight from baker's mouth, he deliberately made a block and contact was made to his shoulder and back of his head.

the blood and concussion are evidence that the block was both reckless, head high and medium impact.

the lack of footage show that it was not in play.

seems to be lots of evidence to me

 

[bangko-bangko]

So in other words, Baker has beaten Judd once in the last 4 years. Looks like the poster who said 'once' was right then.

Ahhh No! there were three or four games prior to that but apparently Judd was too young so they don't count.

 

[wal]

The AFL has set up the whole review / tribunal system up based on Video evidence. It there is no video footage, good luck to Baker, he walks free.

 

[pazza]

So it has come down to one person's word against anothers.

Even Farmer himself has contrdicted his own evidence, so there goes that out the window...

 

[Impunity!]

The AFL has set up the whole review / tribunal system up based on Video evidence. It there is no video footage, good luck to Baker, he walks free.

What about the Headland/Selwood thing? There was video footage of Headland thumping Selly, however it was oral evidence not captured on video (the he said/she said debacle) which decided the outcome.

 

[Snakeman66]

not really, the evidence was straight from baker's mouth, he deliberately made a block and contact was made to his shoulder and back of his head.

the blood and concussion are evidence that the block was both reckless, head high and medium impact.

the lack of footage show that it was not in play.

seems to be lots of evidence to me

The Barry Hall case 2005 preliminary final means that being within 20 km's from the ground constitutes being in play.


Farmer was being tagged. Lack of awareness???

 

[Oh When the Saints]

Decision in about 15 minutes ...

 

[Ron]

Guilty.

Season over Bakes

 

[sedders]

guilty lol