Baker charged with 'unduly rough play'

Remove this Banner Ad

Farmer ends up on the ground with concussion and a broken nose. If nothng happens on account of there being no video of the event, the tribunal is being totally negligent. There are other ways of determining what occured. Eye-witnesses, cross examination of players, examiniation of injuries and probable cause.

There is an explanation. It is the tribunal's duty to seek this explanation.

If the tribunal concludes that the explanation is a behind the play hit, the culprit should be suspended for 10-12 weeks.
 
Re: Saints hitman caught in the act

It's not hearsay, if he saw it then he's a witness and will be asked to tell the tribunal what he saw. If he didn't see it then it's pointless him being there.

It's ridiculous that things have got to a point where players get off charges due to there being no video evidence, it wasn't that long ago that not all games were even televised.

Yes but an UMPIRE normally cited an incident. What next Some Dockers bogan whos pissed sitting at home watching the game on tv can ring up the AFL and bring charges against Baker?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Farmer ends up on the ground with concussion and a broken nose. If nothng happens on account of there being no video of the event, the tribunal is being totally negligent. There are other ways of determining what occured. Eye-witnesses, cross examination of players, examiniation of injuries and probable cause.

There is an explanation. It is the tribunal's duty to seek this explanation.

If the tribunal concludes that the explanation is a behind the play hit, the culprit should be suspended for 10-12 weeks.

Exactly...
 
Re: Saints hitman caught in the act

yea and im sure that people got away with much more off the ball activity then. when the games arnt televised then an umpire can report a player...idiot


You're right, the umpire can report a player. And the match review panel can also refer a case to the tribunal if they feel that there is a case to answer. So what's your point cos you really didn't make it clear.
 
Re: Saints hitman caught in the act

Yes but an UMPIRE normally cited an incident. What next Some Dockers bogan whos pissed sitting at home watching the game on tv can ring up the AFL and bring charges against Baker?


The AFL has the power to refer a case directly to the tribunal where witnesses to the incident are called. If Baker did nothing wrong then he shouldn't be too concerned but it seems that some people did see something and thats what the tribunal hearing is supposed to determine.
 
Re: Saints hitman caught in the act

Yes but an UMPIRE normally cited an incident. What next Some Dockers bogan whos pissed sitting at home watching the game on tv can ring up the AFL and bring charges against Baker?

If he sees it on TV then there will be video footage, wont there?

Anyway, Vossy says he saw it. Will he be subpoenaed?
 
Re: Saints hitman caught in the act

think it sfairly clear mate. its either caught on video, seen by an umpire or theres no reasonable evidence
 
Re: Saints hitman caught in the act

What a load of shit, only umpires and video footage should be used as evidence.
Theoretically it is still possible for an incident to be missed by both umpires and cameras.

So really they still need to have procedures in place to cover incidents that fall into that category.
 
Re: Saints hitman caught in the act

Voss claims to have seen the hit.
As a listed player with BrisVegas he could be called before the tribunal.

Also regarding why...I heard it was Bakers van Farmer assaulted a while back...and he loves that van.

In all honesty if Baker snotted Farmer and nobody saw it good bloody luck to him...Farmer is no saint (pardon the pun) and he would have been asking for it.
 
Re: Saints hitman caught in the act

think it sfairly clear mate. its either caught on video, seen by an umpire or theres no reasonable evidence

(Can't believe I'm going to defend Baker...)

Where did this supposedly take place? From the radio commentary (haven't been able to watch the game yet) it sounded like it happened in/near to the goalsquare. What was the goal umpire doing? Don't they still have the authority to report players? Surely he would've seen *something* if this were the case...? :confused:
 
Re: Saints hitman caught in the act

(Can't believe I'm going to defend Baker...)

Where did this supposedly take place? From the radio commentary (haven't been able to watch the game yet) it sounded like it happened in/near to the goalsquare. What was the goal umpire doing? Don't they still have the authority to report players? Surely he would've seen *something* if this were the case...? :confused:
Centre square apparently.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Re: Saints hitman caught in the act

think it sfairly clear mate. its either caught on video, seen by an umpire or theres no reasonable evidence


What garbage. If an offense occurs and there are witnesses it goes to the tribunal and they make a decision on the facts presented. Maybe Baker is guilty, maybe not, but it needs to go to the tribunal.
 
Re: Saints hitman caught in the act

think it sfairly clear mate. its either caught on video, seen by an umpire or theres no reasonable evidence

What a ridiculous statement. A player comes off the ground bloody and dazed, with the ball nowhere in sight, and we're supposed to believe nothing happened because it wasn't caught on TV and not seen by an umpire?

It should be up to the tribunal to assess the credibility of any evidence (including statements by witnesses) against any explanation that Baker provides.

The AFL should be fully supported in investigating any incidents that occur behind play that are not caught on video or seen by an umpire, but where there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed (i.e. identifiable injury to a player).

If you do the crime, you should expect to do the time.
 
Re: Saints hitman caught in the act

What a ridiculous statement. A player comes off the ground bloody and dazed, with the ball nowhere in sight, and we're supposed to believe nothing happened because it wasn't caught on TV and not seen by an umpire?

It should be up to the tribunal to assess the credibility of any evidence (including statements by witnesses) against any explanation that Baker provides.

The AFL should be fully supported in investigating any incidents that occur behind play that are not caught on video or seen by an umpire, but where there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed (i.e. identifiable injury to a player).

If you do the crime, you should expect to do the time.

Exactly right.
 
Re: Saints hitman caught in the act

(Can't believe I'm going to defend Baker...)

Where did this supposedly take place? From the radio commentary (haven't been able to watch the game yet) it sounded like it happened in/near to the goalsquare. What was the goal umpire doing? Don't they still have the authority to report players? Surely he would've seen *something* if this were the case...? :confused:
At the edge of the centre square. Or at least that's where Farmer ended up face down on the grass. I was at the ground, and that's all that I can say for sure.

Freo were flooding back at the time, and Farmer and Baker were pretty much the only players in Freo's forward half, so the goal umpire may have seen something. The fact that everyone was pushing back also lends some credence to the story I have heard put about that Baker stopped and blocked Farmer and there was a clash of heads.

I'll also say that, regardless of what happened, unless there is video evidence, or evidence from one of the umpires (goal, boundary or field) then Baker shouldn't have a case to answer. I know that Fremantle runners, trainers and other club staff are completely trustworthy and only ever tell the truth, but I wouldn't ever want to be in a position where a Freo player faced suspension based on the word of someone in the employ of one of the other clubs.
 
Re: Saints hitman caught in the act

A player comes off the ground bloody and dazed, with the ball nowhere in sight, and we're supposed to believe nothing happened because it wasn't caught on TV and not seen by an umpire?

Scrap that - he didn't come off bloody and dazed, but was forced off with a broken nose, lacerated upper lip and concussion (according to today's Herald Sun)!
 
Re: Saints hitman caught in the act

Scrap that - he didn't come off bloody and dazed, but was forced off with a broken nose, lacerated upper lip and concussion (according to today's Herald Sun)!


sounds like he tripped over his feet and face planted.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Baker charged with 'unduly rough play'

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top