The little germ got everything he deserved. No sympathy whatsoever. Dogs acts. Pity though the MRP aren't consistent, seems if your name is Chris Judd you can get away with whatever you like.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Baker faces 12-match ban; Johnson four
- Thread starter Premiers2007
- Start date
- Tagged users None
No, I assure I can be serious. Why would we encourage this sort of thuggish behavior? The situation you are describing is completely different to the deliberate and cynical attempt by Baker to hurt an injured player.
The Candlestick Maker by P.R. Miller
Played first in a paddock by a muddy forlorn brook
Borrowed from the Micks, the Poms and then Djabwurrung Marngrook
It flows like the fervour of a nicean saviour
You know the Baker?
"He's the Butcher!"
Then who's the Candlestick Maker?
Is it Chris who sank his elbow deep
Withdrew it covered in meringue from the Pavlova's cheek?
Is it Michael and Scott who sought out to feast
On the Big Roo's flanks that sank to his feet?
Or is it his cousin they may one day judge the better
Though he put the fruit of the pear tree to its welcome back tester?
"No" said Bourke Street, "Even Spring Street sees the sheep's wolf beneath."
The one who makes the candles,
Doesn't make candles
He makes teeth.
Played first in a paddock by a muddy forlorn brook
Borrowed from the Micks, the Poms and then Djabwurrung Marngrook
It flows like the fervour of a nicean saviour
You know the Baker?
"He's the Butcher!"
Then who's the Candlestick Maker?
Is it Chris who sank his elbow deep
Withdrew it covered in meringue from the Pavlova's cheek?
Is it Michael and Scott who sought out to feast
On the Big Roo's flanks that sank to his feet?
Or is it his cousin they may one day judge the better
Though he put the fruit of the pear tree to its welcome back tester?
"No" said Bourke Street, "Even Spring Street sees the sheep's wolf beneath."
The one who makes the candles,
Doesn't make candles
He makes teeth.
Good / Bad records are determined by previous penalties. So players who are let off lightly are likely to be let off lightly again, while players who were dealt with severely are likely to be dealt with severely again.
It is really the incident against farmer ( blocking ) that caused this to be so severe for Baker. I don't think there would be much discussion if he had copped 6 weeks.
TheGodDelusion
Team Captain
EFA. The irony about that is that penalty was itself loaded up due to 3 charges in the previous 12 months. He's a recidivist.
Badder than Leroy Brown, meaner than a junkyard dog.
TheGodDelusion
Team Captain
Ha! Pay that.
I purposely put in the action ( Blocking ) rather than the Charge ( rough conduct ). It was a pretty stiff penalty for what boiled down to stopping in front of the other player.
Off The Couch
TheBrownDog
- Oct 4, 2007
- 51,005
- 68,482
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I don't think Jeffrey's jaw thought it was a stiff penalty considering there wasn't a football in sight at the time.
If he ran into a goal post would you make Subiaco play with a missing goal post for seven weeks.
We all saw what Johnson did to Baker's eye on Friday, so its a bit of a stretch to say the most important thing in one case is the action and in another the most important thing is the injury.
Off The Couch
TheBrownDog
- Oct 4, 2007
- 51,005
- 68,482
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
WCE would probably consider that a bonus
Didn't say I agreed with the outcome, just said that Jeffrey's jaw would beg to differ. FWIW I thought SJ got off extremely lightly considering that he got three weeks for TWO incidents both of which resulted in Baker having to leave the field - but then I would be accused once again (I am afterall a hawk supporter) of conspiracy theories if I thought it was for any other reason.
