Email in regards to Saints/Baker's Ban

[Darkhour]

I'm pissed off again.. Does anyone know some email addresses that i can send off an email to in regards to Baker's Ban? I composed a short piece to send to the Footy Show but does anyone else have some input/stats etc?


-------------------------------

Dear Sam, James and the Hairy Man.

Now I know it would take a humble man to follow this through considering the immediate circumstances, but I cannot think of anyone else other than yourself Sam who might at least give this topic the media attention it deserves.

There must be some way to force an investigation into the AFL's handling of umpiring and related affairs in regards to the St Kilda Football Club in recent years. It it unbelievable that St Kilda and Steven Baker have to endure so much underhandedness from certain peoples within the AFL. Whether its the umpiring 'Whispers in the Sky' or 'SirenGate' debacles, Bakers bans or the 'Free Kick Against' count constantly lopsided in consistency and number.

Steven Baker I believe has been made an 'example of' by the MRP on the last three occasions they have deemed the need to penalise Baker for no more or less than most other players display within games. Judd can persistently 'get off' with contact to other players, and other players can test the injuries of other players (Reiwoldt/Pears), but not Baker.

Someone, or people, at the AFL are targeting Baker/St Kilda and its beyond belief that it continues to occur without accountability. Someone, a newspaper, the AFL, a football show needs to do some snooping and research the facts and stats in regards to umpiring and St Kilda because something doesn't smell right.

Cheers,
Darkhour

 

[sauce_head]

Can't say I disagree. If Baker's offences were consistently given such sanctions when applied to other players then this would be unreasonable. But they are not and therefore your email is reasonable.

Won't docany good, but may as well see what happens. The defence for Judd will be that he is a playmaker and Baker is just negative. The one that still pisses me off is the Farmer incident - no evidence of intention, just a scapegoat to hang out to dry. And don't even get me started on Freo. Suddenly an umpires decision is not final, even when signed by both umpires and submitted. Yes, that actually occurred for betting purposes officially from the AFL. They had time to stop that and didn't, yet they could reverse a decision days later.

They are pathetic. The only thing that remotely makes them look good is FIFA, and that is certainly no bragging right.

Fukerz.

 

[AFaiL]

Just one thing - Riewoldt getting attention from the Lions created the injury rule.

A betetr example would be jack riewoldt having a crack at Pears

Let's not forget gherig getting his (well known) damaged hands punched- but i wonder if that was pre or post riewoldts shoulder

email away, but it will fall on deaf ears. the afl is a dictatorship

 

[Squizz]

The VFL/AFL is a beast.

Tried to run the Dogs out of the game.

Succeeded with Fitzroy, just before the era of big money from TV deals. Think the AFL made a $207m profit last year (but it was down by $8m ).

Closed Waverley, which many saw as the people's ground.

I had money on the Freo win (didn't rate our chances at Launceston), so imagine how happy I was when the AFL announced a draw - only to reverse the decision. Of course, the TAB did not honour the bet, as they (probably rightly) pointed to the AFL jumping the gun when they knew Freo was going to appeal.

When I was younger, I ran on the ground from the outer wing at Waverley as the players were leaving the ground (along with 2,000 others). A security guard king hit me from behind, with a nice amount of blood drawn. Another security guard came up and said they'd seen what happened, and that it was very wrong. Think I was in la-la land and said something about him punching like a pussy, but inquiries to the AFL resulted in a comment along the lines of "well, you shouldn't have been on the ground in the first place". I responded "geez, I'm glad they don't carry a gun".

Baker is seen by Andy D and the other blockheads as a negative in the game. Judd Jack Riewoldt Baker

Actually I can visualise Andy D as the obese dribbling homosexual emporer in the stands with the thumbs up or down.

 

[Darkhour]

What gets me, is that St Kilda seems to be set upon like no other club... I was at the game Friday night thinking how much Geelong were playing like thugs, elbowing and punching our players to the heads and the bigscreen would replay the Mooney one.. the crowd would be booing for the rest of the match...

what comes out of the match?!.. St Kilda was playing rough.. St Kilda this.. Baker that.. Geelong wern't on top of their game.. missing players.. Johnson provocated.. Mooney is a good bloke who would have realised his mistake..

FFS.. where does it stop... St Kilda has to take a stand for once against the AFL because they just push us around like we're little kids.. this I guarantee would not happen if we were Collingwood...

 

[Darkhour]

well I've just sent a copy of this email to the following email addresses and i urge everyone to do the same... get behind Baker and your club St Kilda!

reception@saints.com.au,

patrickk@afl.com.au,

hssport@heraldsun.com.au,

sportfan@heraldsun.com.au,

newsdesk@theage.com.au,

info@channel7.com

+ Sam's Mailbag

 

[raybees]

Its my opinion that Baker was unjustly treated by the tribunal. Its so obviously "wrong" when compared to other events that occur in other games on a weekly basis. If Steven Johnson had a broken hand and decided to play, then he should expect that the hand can be contacted within the scope of the rules. There should be no special undefined allowance for running onto the field with an injury. The only issue IMO is the punches to the face, but the gut punches can be seen many times during any game of AFL football. The MRP are similar to the umpires. Select rules for select players. StKilda should fight this with everything they have.

 

[Squizz]

All Saints fans (and people who dislike injustice) need to get on board and vote today - the AFL reads the papers.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...das-steven-baker/story-e6frf9jf-1225884874765

http://www.theage.com.au/polls/steven-baker-suspended/20100628-zeo0.html

 

[Darkhour]

yes everyone need to vote..

where was the AFL when Hall gave Maguire that punch to the solarplexes?

seriously.. media beatup on Baker when the focus should be on Cats players instead.. great way to divert attention..

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The system accumulates.
It was a travesty when he got 7 weeks last time.
This time when evaluating his penalty they take into account his history - most recently a 7 week penalty.

 

[Plugger35]

All Saints fans (and people who dislike injustice) need to get on board and vote today - the AFL reads the papers.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...das-steven-baker/story-e6frf9jf-1225884874765

http://www.theage.com.au/polls/steven-baker-suspended/20100628-zeo0.html

I've already voted in those polls. I've noticed more people are voting no to whether the Baker suspension is too tough, which a few articles have commented on like it's a justification for the suspension being OK.

Do these muppets realise that the majority of people are voting no because they are opposition supporters that are just glad to see an important player from a premiership contender rubbed out (the same mentality you see from the idiots on this forum). Of course these idiots will say no whether they think the suspension is right or wrong. It's probably only Saints supporters and a handful of sensible opposition supporters voting yes to it being too harsh.

I've got to say I'm disappointed that the media hasn't gone harder at the AFL over this, have to wonder whether they are too scared of upsetting the AFL. Apart from Grant Thomas at the HUN and another article at The Age there hasn't been much criticism.

I guess it's up to Saints supporters to maintain the rage over this as we can't rely on the media or the rest of the public to stick up for us.

 

[Darkhour]

Good to see St Kilda will contest 2 of the charges, and so they should. The AFL should not be allowed to get away with allowing Baker to be a habitual scapegoat for their own inadequacies..

I too believe the poll is indicative of how much support Baker has considering we are but 1 club out of 16. A lot of opposition supporters will have voted simply out of spite and to exclude Baker from playing.. Such a high percentage of votes against his suspension bodes well in demonstrating the lack of justice attributed in this case..