Baker - Has been charged

[taz]

this may constitute a breach of natural justice and due process

although he has been charged with rough conduct ......without any evidence he doesn't know the case he has to answer

[saintsRrising]

Mike On The Couch states that it is due to Freo Official saying that Bakes did something?????


I mean Fair Dinkum...how could that be reliable or conclusive..

As he was an official....he could not have been near......

[saintsRrising]

So because a Freo Official says bakes did something...the AFL bends to their whim...

What a joke

[Saints Premiers 2008]

the hatred continues

imagine what it would be like in a few years if we play a prelim somewhere...

[satchmo]

He better pray they've got a good witness protection plan.

[Riewoldting]

I hope this is the case, but if you can be found guilty of attempting to strike you can be found guilty of have someone run up you ar$e

Yes, but attempting to strike is an offence as set out in Law 19.3.3(i) of the Laws of Australian Football.

Rough conduct is also an offence, as set out in Law 19.3.3(g)(vii):

" ... intentionally, recklessly or negligently ... engaging in rough conduct against an opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable ...".

The wording of the law indicates that it contemplates circumstances in which intentional, reckless or negligent rough conduct against an opponent is nevertheless "reasonable".

There are a number of situations in which the ordinary, reasonable person would nevertheless intentionally, recklessly or negligently engage in play which is "rough", yet remains reasonable. For example:

- backing into a pack to take a mark and making contact with the front side of an opponent
- diving across an opponent's leg to lay a smother
- tackling an opponent and throwing him forcefully to the ground.

These are reasonable actions because the primary intention of the player is to gain a competitive advantage over his opponent, not to cause injury.

Another way in which players attempt to gain a competitive advantage is by breaking a tag. One of the best ways in which to break a tag (where the tagging player is playing very close) is to run, stop, run off, stop, run off, stop, and so on. This breaks the tagging player's rhythm and concentration and forces an interruption to their gait, which can be enough for the tagged player to break free and win a possession unimpeded.

A foreseeable consequence of such a tactic is that the tagging player might collide with the tagged player. However, this does not make the tactic any less reasonable. It is an entirely legitimate method of breaking a tag.

What is far less foreseeable is the consequence of the tagging player colliding with the tagged player in circumstances where the tagger is so reckless or negligent as to his own safety that he collides with the tagged player with enough force to cause himself serious injury.

In those circumstances, it might be arguable that the tagged player's "stop-start" tactic is rough play. Although this argument can be made out, the tagged player has a ready defence under Law 19.3.3(g)(vii); that is, the rough conduct was "reasonable" in the circumstances.

For those of you with short memories, there is a precedent. In a 2003 case almost identical on its facts, Brodie Holland broke his nose in a similar incident. No report was laid on the day and Holland could not remember what had caused the injury. An investigation by the AFL revealed that Scott Camporeale had stopped suddenly and there had been a clash of heads.

In finding that there was insufficient evidence to lay a charge against Camporeale, investigations officer John Coburn said that no player interviewed had contradicted Camporeale and took into account the fact that no Collingwood player "immediately" remonstrated with Camporeale afterwards.

Interestingly, Demetriou backed Coburn's findings:

"Buckley went to Brodie Holland and said, 'What happened?' And he said, 'It was Camporeale' . . . On reflection, after Brodie Holland had gathered his thoughts, he has agreed that he has run into the back of Scott Camporeale," Demetriou said on 3AW. "It is an unfortunate incident. There wasn't anyone else who saw it but the proper process has been conducted and we haven't just interviewed the two players concerned, we have interviewed several players from both teams and they have all verified the same story."

Coburn interviewed umpires, players and officials of both clubs. There was limited video footage of the incidents, Channel Nine having fewer cameras than usual at the game because of the reconstruction of the MCG.

And both clubs were happy with the result of the investigation:

"We are very happy. It has been thoroughly investigated, they spoke to various players and found that there was no case to answer," Collingwood's chief executive Greg Swann said.

Remember, this was the chief executive of the club whose player's nose had been broken. "Very happy", he was.

"In Brodie's incident, he legitimately didn't know what happened. He knew he got whacked and broke his nose, but he said one minute he was standing there and the ball is sort of on the other side and he was behind Camporeale and the next minute he's on the deck.

"But he didn't know how, whether it was a backhander, a shoulder, an elbow, a fist, he didn't know."

Carlton spokesman Ian Coutts said: "We'll just follow the umpire's decision."

Absolutely no way in the world Baker can go over this. None at all.

[GRAMophone]

At the moment I'm going to believe the 2 or 3 eye witnesses from the crowd who rang SEN this morning and described Bakes stopping suddenly/changing direction with Farmer following resulting in Farmer's head hitting Bakes forcefully. It does sound plausible.

[super dooper]

Remember that he has a week from the double contested report from earlier this season still hanging over his head.

When he is found guilty (the AFL must have already decided to get this far) he will be out for some time.

Some of those past silly acts are catching up to him.

BTW, I think this is a stupid charge by the AFL on the evidence of a listed-player in the media with a vested interest in the outcome of this case.

This greatly reduces St Kilda's chance of finals action and gives Brisbane the chance they need.

The AFL clearly need one of Brisbane or Adelaide in the finals.

Is voss even allowed to front the triburnal as a witness? That would be like Ross Lyon observing a nuetral game and claiming he saw something!!

There were enough bloody umpires out there on saturday trying to make themselves bigger than the game with stupid decisions that none even noticed anything!

Surely, logic would come to save the day.However, the reason i think there has been a delay in the reportings were so that they could find a reason to find him guilty, otherwise it would have been thrown out.

Did anyone see anything in the crowd. In particular people sitting behind the goals as this might have been in ur line of site??

[plugger66]

He has been charged. Bid deal. If he can prove he didnt do it he will be found not gulity. Why should worry yet. lets hear the evidence. Maybe he did hit him and he will get what he deserves. maybe he didnt and he will be found not guity. I think the latter will happen.

[saint66au]

He has been charged. Bid deal. If he can prove he didnt do it he will be found not gulity. Why should worry yet. lets hear the evidence. Maybe he did hit him and he will get what he deserves. maybe he didnt and he will be found not guity. I think the latter will happen.

Umm..so he's guily til proven innocent??????????????

[plugger66]

He has been charged. Bid deal. If he can prove he didnt do it he will be found not gulity. Why should worry yet. lets hear the evidence. Maybe he did hit him and he will get what he deserves. maybe he didnt and he will be found not guity. I think the latter will happen.

Umm..so he's guily til proven innocent??????????????

Well if they say he has he has to say he didnt hit him.

[SaintDippa]

Posted this on the other thread prior to the 08:30 Freo official 'saw it' announcement. Talkabout hypocrisy.


Remember 'Whispers in the Sky'. Four independant witnessness all claiming to have heard the umpire's comments, all disregarded. Case close. Did not happen.

Precedent Set. Unless there is video footage Bakes gets off.

[spert]

Theres' at least two things for sure out of this so far: 1. Farmer left the field dazed and bleeding. 2. Voss not knowing if he saw it (whatever it was he didn't see) or not and saying so publicly in front of tens of thousands of viewers.
Generally as Sainters we see from past the few years:
1. Essendon player standing on Baker's ankle while Baker is on the ground, Baker attempts to kick his leg away and gets rubbed out. (ever had your ankle stood on by a 100kg person..not fun)
2. BHall deliberately punched Goose as seen on video to all, gets cited and gets off due to AFL desperation to allow technicalities to sway the tribunal in order to give an interstate team a chance for a flag, so as they can shore up support in NSW in Sydney's case.
3. Kozi trips a player by having his leg in the way and the (Hawthorn?) player due to momentum falls over it, Kozi rubbed out -oppostion player wandered off not expecting any free kick!
4. Brisbane player (Brown?) trys to strangle Blake -gets off on.. you guessed it, technicality (as per normal interstate team at tribunal)

it goes on and on..of course Baker has no record to be proud of and has disadvantaged our team many times by his actions and being rubbed out..it reminds me of the great wasted talent of Robbie Muir.

I want to see Butters this time get up publicly and demand a fair hearing and be bloody controversial if wants to - declare full support for Baker and The Saints.

[Russman]

Maybe the whole thing with this , is that they just want to hear what Bakes has to say before closing the case.
Maybe it's all part of the process.

Mind you , I have absoulutely no faith in the AFL and their so-called processes

[JeffDunne]

I want to see Butters this time get up publicly and demand a fair hearing and be bloody controversial if wants to - declare full support for Baker and The Saints.

You're kidding . . . right?

Rod is an AFL man, he'll tow the 'company' line . . . again.

[super dooper]

Maybe the whole thing with this , is that they just want to hear what Bakes has to say before closing the case.
Maybe it's all part of the process.

Mind you , I have absoulutely no faith in the AFL and their so-called processes

But hasnt he already been interviewed, i could have sworn i heard that on fox sports news today?

[Nick_Dal_Santo = ChAmPiOn]

2006 Round 17 ATTEMPTED STRIKING Guilty 2 weeks suspension
2007 Round 6 STRIKING Guilty 1 week suspension

i just think its fkn stupid how he got 2 week for "attempting" to strike. and got 1 week for "striking"

shows how dumb the AFL are

[Russman]

And the 2 weeks for attempting to strike was for when he was flying the flag after Goddard got flattened wasn't it?

[Bernard Shakey]

Nothing to worry about.

Just the AFL going through the motions.

The case will be thrown out by the tribunal.

[Riewoldting]

Nothing to worry about.

Just the AFL going through the motions.

The case will be thrown out by the tribunal.

Agree.

I feel pretty relaxed about it.

AFL had to be seen to be taking head-high contact seriously.

But not to the point of penalising players for accidental clashes that could not have been foreseen or prevented.