Steven Baker found guilty

[Rootheday]

Didn't Baker stop short and Farmer ran into the back of his head with his nose?

 

[jbazzle]

So that's your summation after your afternoon skinful is it? Without a hint of bias I'm assuming too?

Baker is a dirty pig. He's whacked another player behind play. He got seven weeks which is about the right penalty for a bloke that has always been more concerned with playing the man instead of the ball.

Idiots like Baker are the reason why some parents want to stop their children playing football. He is a disgrace and copped what he had coming to him. Dirty, sniping thug.

some parents are stupid!

 

[saintsownthedome]

So that's your summation after your afternoon skinful is it? Without a hint of bias I'm assuming too?

Baker is a dirty pig. He's whacked another player behind play. He got seven weeks which is about the right penalty for a bloke that has always been more concerned with playing the man instead of the ball.

Idiots like Baker are the reason why some parents want to stop their children playing football. He is a disgrace and copped what he had coming to him. Dirty, sniping thug.

Careful mate or we might have to draw a line in the sand

 

[joeblow2]

Re: Baker found guilty, what a disgrace

Before you all get carried away don't forget the 6 weeks Brereton got for belting Frawley. Any video there? King hit? Glass houses? Karma!

What's that got to do with Baker? Tool.

 

[Cheeseman]

I think you're being deliberately naive about this.

He is being 100% accurate actually.

 

[kosi_23]

So that's your summation after your afternoon skinful is it? Without a hint of bias I'm assuming too?

Baker is a dirty pig. He's whacked another player behind play. He got seven weeks which is about the right penalty for a bloke that has always been more concerned with playing the man instead of the ball.

Idiots like Baker are the reason why some parents want to stop their children playing football. He is a disgrace and copped what he had coming to him. Dirty, sniping thug.

How do you know? Theres no concrete evidence to prove he did. Maybe he did, but maybe he didnt.

 

[bfra]

I can't believe all the surprise at this. The NRL absolutely smash their players at the tribunal for thug acts and here we are with a behind the play incident in which a players face has been smashed in and everyone is squealing.

Im delighted the AFL is finally coming down hard on these incidents. The game needs some real discipline and sense of fair play. The half time melees must also be wiped out for the sake of the kids watching the game.

Your highlighted comment is the whole problem, they seem to pick and chose when they will come down hard, and when they will turn a blind eye or go soft. The fact that the tribunal doesn't use precedence allows them to make up decisions on the run.

 

[Juddism]

Re: Baker found guilty, what a disgrace

excatly what I said in another forum, 5-7 weeks if he's lucky and it was dead on the cash. It doesn't matter that there was no witness, the injuries speak for themselves and Baker admits being involved.

 

[rfctigerarmy]

No. He got 7 fines of 7,777 dollars to be paid in 7 days.

Thanks YOTC. Saved me a lot of time! I owe you one.

 

[dockers_bengals]

I made this up, but this is how you get to 7 games.

Steven Baker, St Kilda, has been charged with engaging in rough conduct against Jeff Farmer, Fremantle, during the third quarter of the Round Twenty match between St Kilda and Fremantle, played at Telstra Dome on Saturday August 18, 2007.


The incident was assessed as reckless conduct (two points), high impact (three points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of seven activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Four offence, drawing 450 demerit points and a four-match sanction. He has an existing poor record of four matches suspended within the last three years, which increases his penalty by 40 per cent to 630 demerit points. He has also 155 residual points carried over from within the last 12 months, increasing the penalty to 785 points and a seven-match sanction.



I don't think anybody disputed it was a shepherd gone wrong, it can't be accidental since a shepherd that far off the ball is illegal every time, therefore it's reportable.

From the radio they said he admited running into Farmer and the trainer said that jeff was blocking his view but got hit in the head by baker above bakers waist,sounds like a elbow.He got 4 weeks before the rest is added which looks fine to me

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Didn't Baker stop short and Farmer ran into the back of his head with his nose?

Shit, they've nailed the wrong man. Surely Farmer should have been suspended for striking Baker's fist (elbow, whatever) with his nose?

 

[sainter35]

Take it all the way to court Saints - its time we stopped getting screwed by whacky f@rked up AFL decisions (see sirengate...normally game stops when umpire says so has done for 100 yrs......just not that game???)

 

[Cassius_Clay]

Didn't Baker stop short and Farmer ran into the back of his head with his nose?

That makes total sense. Players do that all the time...

 

[Oh When the Saints]

I counted at least 14 callers to SEN today who all claimed that Baker had nothing to answer for.

At least three claimed to be Western Australian's/Fremantle supporters.

I also spoke to two people after the game, one of whom was a Fremantle supporter, who said Baker had nothing to answer for.

How does the AFL account for these eyewitness accounts?

 

[spoljar]

Terrible decision. Anyone knows that Farmer actually punched himself in the face while Baker was just standing next to him innocently!

 

[.::|-ShimmyToTheLeft-|::.]

i dont think behind play has any relevance anymore

barry hall anyone?



no evidence
+pure heresay
-------------
7 week suspension

 

[beaver's army]

Bout time he got done for all the behind the play hits. He is a sniper and deserves all he gets.

 

[sainters]

Disgraceful.

 

[Oh When the Saints]

The tribunal have stated that they believe Baker when he said it was not intentional, and he didn't know anything have happened to Farmer.

But they state that his action in "stopping" was reckless, and deserved a 4 week suspension.

Add three for his bad record ...


Stopping is now a reportable offence!

 

[JeffDunne]

Didn't Baker stop short and Farmer ran into the back of his head with his nose?

Yep.

7 weeks.

 

[G.O.B]

Will people ever get it right?
Baker DID NOT receive 7 weeks for this incident.
Without having seen the official breakdown it would seem that he has received 4 games for this particular incident while the other 3 are added on due to carry over points and a bad record.
He had 155 carry over points which almost equates to 2 games FFS.

This has nothing to do with whether he is guilty or not as I have not seen the incident or viewed the evidence.

 

[Rootheday]

They say that Baker was sporting a huge lump on his head confirming it was a clash of heads at the tribunal.. how can that be anyone's fault especially if there is no video on the incident? This would get laughed out in a court of law

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,22279411%5E20322,00.html

 

[Footylover1]

This is from sportal.

St Kilda's finals hopes have been rocked after star tagger Steven Baker was hit with the heaviest suspension of the 2007 AFL season on Tuesday night following his off the ball collision with Fremantle's Jeff Farmer.

Baker, who shared the Saints' best and fairest in 2005, was suspended for seven matches for an incident which left Farmer with a broken nose and concussion.

This was despite supportive evidence from leading player manager and former St Kilda player Ricky Nixon, who told the tribunal he saw the incident while watching Saturday's match at Telstra Dome from a corporate box.

The incident was not captured on video and was seen by few of the 24,000 spectators in attendance.

Nixon corroborated Baker's evidence that he had merely tried to block Farmer as the pair ran into the Dockers' forward line.

"I saw 100 other blocks like that (during the Saints-Dockers match) and probably 1000 on the weekend," he said.

"As a former half-back flanker (like Baker) I would try to block the run of a half-forward flanker (like Farmer) to get to the ball."

Baker told the tribunal that Farmer had merely run into the back of him as he stepped into his path to prevent him running into the forward line.

"My intention (in blocking Farmer) was to stay goal side of him and to stop him getting the ball," he said.

However Baker conceded the ball was more than five metres away when he blocked Farmer and conceded his actions warranted a free-kick but not a report.

In contrast Farmer said he standing watching the play when he felt someone make contact 'to the right hand side of his face.'

But he was unable to tell the tribunal who had made contact with him.

"Basically I was watching the play and the next thing I remember contact was made to my face and then I remember being on the ground on all fours."

Farmer then needed assistance to leave the field and did not play the rest of the game and is in doubt for this week's game against his former club Melbourne.

Fremantle trainer Barry Kirkwood also gave evidence telling the tribunal that Baker ran in from about 20 metres away from Farmer from 'a diagonal direction' and made contact with him.

But he was unable to tell the tribunal what form of contact Baker made because his view at the moment of impact was obscured.

However AFL tribunal counsel Andrew Tinney successfully argued that no matter whether the three man jury believed Farmer's version of events or Baker's version of events (and in handing down their decision jury chairman Wayne Henwood said they accepted Baker's version) that the contact still equated to rough conduct because it was unnecessary in the circumstances given that it occurred so far off the ball.

The jury agreed and after a deliberation of about 30 minutes found Baker guilty of engaging in rough conduct in a reckless manner.

They also found that the impact was high and the contact was high equating to a base tally of 425 points or a four game suspension.

But because of Baker's recent tribunal record this was increased to 722.5 points or a seven match ban because he had a carry over of 127 points for two striking offences from earlier this year while his base tally was increased by 40 per cent because of a total of four weeks in previous suspensions over the past three seasons.

The suspension means the tough tagger will not only miss the Saints' last two home and away games - which they need to win to hold onto eighth spot - but also all of the club's finals campaign if they make it regardless of how they fare in September.

And even if the Saints make it to the grand final, Baker will still be missing from the opening game of next season.

His penalty is even higher than that handed down to Collingwood's Ben Johnson, who copped six matches for his frightening head-high bump on Melbourne's Daniel Bell, and to Byron Pickett for a similar offence during the 2005 pre-season competition while Collingwood's Brodie Holland also copped six matches for rough conduct for his shirt-front on now retired Bulldog Brett Montgomery during last year's elimination final.

 

[rickyp]

Re: Baker found guilty, what a disgrace

What's that got to do with Baker? Tool.

Are you serious? the no video evidence means nothing?

Why is everyone saying 7 weeks? he got 4 weeks + 3 for bad record, seems a fair deal for me. Besides, what more proof do you need than what happened to Farmer.

 

[dockers_bengals]

Take it all the way to court Saints - its time we stopped getting screwed by whacky f@rked up AFL decisions (see sirengate...normally game stops when umpire says so has done for 100 yrs......just not that game???)

And so what was the facts again?
If the saints challenge it what will they get?one or two weeks less?He did say he ran into him(reportable)3 weeks from poor record so good luck.