an someone then explain how Luke Ball can get his head split open, suffer severe concussion & miss three weeks of footy & the offender have no case to answer?
With the exception of the ball being about 15 metres away, the action by Whelan & Baker was EXACTLY the same. Stationary but pushing their weight up towards the opposition player, causing a clash of heads.
Ball was criticised for not having the awareness to see Whelan coming & no case to answer was justified because of this & despite Luke Ball's serious facial injuries. The clear footage of the incident probably helped Whelan as it showed him turn his back & hit Ball in the left side of the face with the BACK OF HIS HEAD. The lack of footage in the Baker incident (due to AFL mismanagement) has prevented Baker from proving that the contact with Farmer was caused in EXACTLY the same way.
In any court in this great country Baker would have no case to answer due to the mixed testimony given by the Freo trainer & Farmer himself & the consistent evidence given by Baker & Ricky Nixon. Saying that the key to the suspension is Farmer getting a broken nose & concussion is absolutely inconsistent with the Whelan/Ball incident (Ball terribly hurt but he contributed to it).
FACT- Tribunal accepts Baker's version (he intiated contact through stopping suddenly & hit Farmer with the back of his head).
FACT- Whelan initiated contact with Ball in a very similar manner.
FACT- Tribunal rejects that Farmer contributed to the collision by not watching his opponent.
FACT- Whelan was cleared as Luke Ball should have expected contact.
I don't subscribe to the Anti-St.Kilda AFL conspiracy going around but it seems to me that Baker was judged guilty & sentenced before any eveidence was heard. Those raising Baker's poor record at the tribunal & stating words to the effect of 'karma got him, he finally got his just desserts'...well Baker was been found guilty EVERY time he has appeared & has taken his medicine EVERY time. He is not a sniper who gets away with things continually.
I hope St.Kilda take this as far as they can & expose the totally ineffective & unjust system that Adrian Anderson has put in place.
Baker v Whelan
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
Animal Enclosure
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2364
- Joined: Mon 04 Apr 2005 2:37pm
- Location: Saints Footy Central
reiwoldt v scarlett = hit from behind in the back of the head, before shot in frame, after shot in frame, hit shot not in frame, reiwoldt falls to the ground suffers concussion and is throwing up.
evidence not conclusive.
hall belts maguire in the guts = in teh context of the game.
man stops running and is cannoned into from the rear = 7 week penalty.
go figure.
evidence not conclusive.
hall belts maguire in the guts = in teh context of the game.
man stops running and is cannoned into from the rear = 7 week penalty.
go figure.
Bewaire krime, da krimson bolt is comeing to yure nayborhood to smach krime
SHUT UP KRIME!
SHUT UP KRIME!
-
The_Dud
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 13080
- Joined: Sun 27 May 2007 9:53pm
- Location: Bendigo
- Has thanked: 1279 times
- Been thanked: 1949 times
its absolutely ridiculous how these to identical incidents can attract such vastly different outcomes
Ball missed more games than Farmer will
If the club doesn't bring this up in the appeal then they have no idea how to do there job
Ball missed more games than Farmer will
If the club doesn't bring this up in the appeal then they have no idea how to do there job
All posters are equal, but some posters are more equal than others.
-
Animal Enclosure
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2364
- Joined: Mon 04 Apr 2005 2:37pm
- Location: Saints Footy Central
-
JeffDunne
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb9H-hRuVoo
When you read the MRP ruling, Ball was to blame here (& they said Whelan never left the ground).
When you read the MRP ruling, Ball was to blame here (& they said Whelan never left the ground).
-
yipper
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 8:18am
- Location: Gippsland
- Been thanked: 10 times
That's what I have been thinking - should've been a soda for a half decent QC. However, if the process is tainted or flawed - then you are up against it no matter how good you are!!wildgoose wrote:If we get a good QC there is no way the AFL can get away with this. I dont understand this, no evidence, different stories from everyone, yet he gets 7 weeks. Should be the QC's easiest case in a long time.
I want to stand for something. I'm a loyal person and I think at the end of my career it will be great to look back and know that I'm a St Kilda person for life.
- Nick Riewoldt. May 19th 2009.
- Nick Riewoldt. May 19th 2009.
JeffDunne wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb9H-hRuVoo
When you read the MRP ruling, Ball was to blame here (& they said Whelan never left the ground).
yes because ball (with a VCE pass mark of what 97.5? or something similar) is a moron, who wanted to get hit on the head and suffer a 4 week concussion.
phukctards.
Ball goes for the ball with courage and endeavour and as such deserves protection.
imagine if judd copped a wack like that. whelan would be nailed to the wall with harpoons.
Bewaire krime, da krimson bolt is comeing to yure nayborhood to smach krime
SHUT UP KRIME!
SHUT UP KRIME!
-
Animal Enclosure
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2364
- Joined: Mon 04 Apr 2005 2:37pm
- Location: Saints Footy Central
Johnny Cochrane would not have got Bakes off last night. Why they wasted 3 hours of everyone's time to deliver a verdict that had been pre-determined is almost as big as disgrace as the decision.
Are we sure that Schimmelbusch, Dunne & Henwood actually attended? Maybe Andy & Adrian used holograms or finger puppets?
Are we sure that Schimmelbusch, Dunne & Henwood actually attended? Maybe Andy & Adrian used holograms or finger puppets?
Ok first things first, I am a Melbourne supporter........
But all bias aside I have to say that I had absolutely no problem with what Whelan did. He shepherded Ball (perhaps illegally on the day, but that really isn't the point) and they unfortunately clashed heads. It was an unfortunate outcome of what is still a legal bump.
Now I can understand you guys getting upset that Matty wasn't sent to the gallows for that, but the fact was that other than being a little off the ball the incident itself was not illegal and therefore he had no case to answer.
That being said the injuries that Ball sustained were horrible and something that we all wish didn't happen. But head clashes are one of those uncontrollable things, but they should also be nonpunishable.
But for those that said that Whelan should have gotten weeks back in round one, you can't now say that Baker should get off completely. That shows nothing but club bias and is staggeringly hypocritical. And according to Bakers own testimony the situations do sound very similar, and so while I understand the club bias, you can't have it both ways.
But neither can nor should the tribunal, and this has been a categorical disaster from top to bottom, with Baker and the Saints the victims.
And while injury to the player is circumstantially important it alone should not be the sole indicator of guilt, or as a judgement for the severity of the punishment. Because if that was the case Ben Johnson would have a far lesser sentence because Daniel Bell was up and walking around by the end of the match and may even play this week.
But to me at the end of the day this is only a small part of the problem with this particular outcome. Last week it was proven that players lie when it suits them and yet Bakers (alleged) honesty is being used to hang him. That in itself is hypocritical.
But at the end of the day you can't or shouldn't convict anyone of anything if there is no independent proof of what actually happened. Bakers guilt was determined by as much who is as what he may or may not have done. Because no-one saw what was apparently done.
And other than the relevent and current active carry over points coming into a hearing the tribunal should never play the man only the charge, and as there was no evidence supporting this particular one the verdict is categorically wrong.
I hope that made sense and didn't ruffle too many feathers in here
!!!
But all bias aside I have to say that I had absolutely no problem with what Whelan did. He shepherded Ball (perhaps illegally on the day, but that really isn't the point) and they unfortunately clashed heads. It was an unfortunate outcome of what is still a legal bump.
Now I can understand you guys getting upset that Matty wasn't sent to the gallows for that, but the fact was that other than being a little off the ball the incident itself was not illegal and therefore he had no case to answer.
That being said the injuries that Ball sustained were horrible and something that we all wish didn't happen. But head clashes are one of those uncontrollable things, but they should also be nonpunishable.
But for those that said that Whelan should have gotten weeks back in round one, you can't now say that Baker should get off completely. That shows nothing but club bias and is staggeringly hypocritical. And according to Bakers own testimony the situations do sound very similar, and so while I understand the club bias, you can't have it both ways.
But neither can nor should the tribunal, and this has been a categorical disaster from top to bottom, with Baker and the Saints the victims.
And while injury to the player is circumstantially important it alone should not be the sole indicator of guilt, or as a judgement for the severity of the punishment. Because if that was the case Ben Johnson would have a far lesser sentence because Daniel Bell was up and walking around by the end of the match and may even play this week.
But to me at the end of the day this is only a small part of the problem with this particular outcome. Last week it was proven that players lie when it suits them and yet Bakers (alleged) honesty is being used to hang him. That in itself is hypocritical.
But at the end of the day you can't or shouldn't convict anyone of anything if there is no independent proof of what actually happened. Bakers guilt was determined by as much who is as what he may or may not have done. Because no-one saw what was apparently done.
And other than the relevent and current active carry over points coming into a hearing the tribunal should never play the man only the charge, and as there was no evidence supporting this particular one the verdict is categorically wrong.
I hope that made sense and didn't ruffle too many feathers in here
!!!-
Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12693
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 703 times
- Been thanked: 397 times
Very well put QueenC.
You continue to be one of the few 'reasoned voices' from over at Demonland.
I was one of those howling for Whelan's head in round 1, but I would argue even that case is slightly different to this one. Whelan intentionally shepherded Ball by hip and shoulder. Baker's testimony, accepted by the Tribunal, was that he 'blocked' Farmer and that Farmer cannoned into him. That is quite a different set of circumstances, IMHO
On the one hand, Whelan laid a 'hip and shoulder' intending to cause contact whereas Baker laid a 'block' intending? to cause Farmer to stop/divert.
You continue to be one of the few 'reasoned voices' from over at Demonland.
I was one of those howling for Whelan's head in round 1, but I would argue even that case is slightly different to this one. Whelan intentionally shepherded Ball by hip and shoulder. Baker's testimony, accepted by the Tribunal, was that he 'blocked' Farmer and that Farmer cannoned into him. That is quite a different set of circumstances, IMHO
On the one hand, Whelan laid a 'hip and shoulder' intending to cause contact whereas Baker laid a 'block' intending? to cause Farmer to stop/divert.
Thanks Mr Magic.......Mr Magic wrote:Very well put QueenC.
You continue to be one of the few 'reasoned voices' from over at Demonland.
And I understand and agree that there are some fundamental differences in the cases.
But there was no intention on Whelans behalf to hurt Ball and he was trying to deliver what is still legal in this game, a hip and shoulder. The head clash was one of the unfortunate outcomes. But it still isn't a suspend-able offence unless he raises as elbow or something similar when bumping the player. The ball was also a hell of a lot closer in the Whelan bump on Ball than it was in this situation.
But again to me that is not the point. The tribunal have decided that Baker is guilty of, granted a similar action, but have no independent proof that an "illegal" attack on the injured player took place. The only illegality that we can all probably agree on is that it was a mile off the ball.
It is the lack of footage of anything untoward being done, that is where I start and stop. We have recent proof that players lie (and I am not calling Baker a lier I am just pointing out the hypocrisy), which is why video footage has become nearly the sole instigator of tribunal charges and yet here (and in the Judd case obviously) the player is being listened to more than the footage, or in this case the lack of footage.
!!!-
Leo.J
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3116
- Joined: Sun 27 Mar 2005 8:29pm
- Has thanked: 9 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
So the scenario that the tribunal believe is the similar to the Ball and Whelan collision from rd1. yet it is more than 15 metres from the play.
Does an accident that is legal in play automatically become reportable if it occurs behind the play? Any precedents?
AFAIC the above is a precendent, that an accidental head clash resulting from a sheppard was deemed OK by the AFL.
An accident is an accident whether its behind play or not IMO.
My kids have been asking to go to the circus lately, I might take them up to AFL HQ, they won't know the difference.
So what's the difference, except that it was further than 15m from the play?www.afl.com http://afc.com.au/Season2007/News/NewsArticle/tabid/4417/Default.aspx?newsId=40453 wrote: * Contact between Melbourne's Matthew Whelan and St Kilda's Luke Ball. It was the view of the panel that Whelan ran eight-to-10 metres from in front of Ball. Just before contact was made, Whelan turned his body to shepherd his teammate, resulting in contact between his back and Ball's chest. The momentum of the contact resulted in an accidental head clash. Under the tribunal guidelines, this was an accidental head clash.
Does an accident that is legal in play automatically become reportable if it occurs behind the play? Any precedents?
AFAIC the above is a precendent, that an accidental head clash resulting from a sheppard was deemed OK by the AFL.
An accident is an accident whether its behind play or not IMO.
My kids have been asking to go to the circus lately, I might take them up to AFL HQ, they won't know the difference.