If Baker's Appeal Fails ........

[Devilhead]

the AFL would have set a precedent whereby

an accidental head clash which causes serious injury whilst blocking a players path to the ball (re: Gia on Kosi / Whelan on Ball) is OK if you are within 5 - 10 metres of the ball.

whereas

an accidental head clash which causes serious injury whilst blocking a players path to the ball (re: Baker on Farmer) is NOT OK if you are NOT within 5 - 10 metres of the ball.

In effect if Baker's appeal fails this what the AFL are saying

The shocking injuries that both Kosi and Ball received were by the length of the Flemington straight far worse than the crappy blood nose that Farmer sustained

YET

due to the fact they were 50 metres off the ball ACCIDENTAL suddenly becomes ROUGH CONDUCT / ON PURPOSE / INTENTIONAL / PLANNED / CONTRIVED

Fair enough I will be the first to say that Baker illegally blocked Farmer's path to the ball (warranting a free kick) but to absolutely screw Baker because they accidentally clashed heads is a jucking foke.

That said Baker should not be in the situation he is in because our defence counsel should never have allowed Baker to admit that he illegally blocked Farmer. All he had to say was that he was running watching the ball, he stopped and suddenly Farmer ran into the back of him and they clashed heads. It seriously seems that our defence cousel did not do their homework with regards to AFL rules and it sadly seems that the majority of us would have done a better job in defending his Baker's actions!!!!!

One very confused and rightly p1ssed off Devilhead

[St. Luke]

Fair enough I will be the first to say that Baker illegally blocked Farmer's path to the ball (warranting a free kick) but to absolutely screw Baker because they accidentally clashed heads is a jucking foke.

And this is the whole thing. They have no evidence to suggest it was anything other than an accident (and more on the part of Farmer than Baker!!) but feel vindicated on the grounds that Bakes has a poor track record at the tribunal.

Can anyone produce what Baker has done previously? His tribunal record perhaps??

I am still annoyed to the hilt about it! If he doesn't get off this thing tonight....

[Enrico_Misso]

If his appeal fails ....

Why not hang some banners on the front row of level 3 behind the goals - ie in full camera view - with some blunt messages.

"Tribunal a sham"
"Baker crucified"
"Suspend Dimwit"
"7 weeks for what?"
"Innocent till proven guilty"

etc etc

[Grimfang]

Has anyone seen the exact wording of the charge? Looking at one of the appeal grounds,

The crux of Baker's argument, contained within the notice of appeal, is that "the tribunal erred in allowing my account of events to form the basis of the charge, when the version of events that formed the basis of the charge that I came to the tribunal to meet was contradictory to mine". Put simply, the tribunal discounted all the evidence on which the charge was based but found Baker guilty anyway.
Taken from Baker has four points with appeal

it appears that there was more detail to the charge than just "rough conduct".

[Saints94]

wouldnt he get 8-9 weeks suspension then

[saint66au]

If his appeal fails ....

Why not hang some banners on the front row of level 3 behind the goals - ie in full camera view - with some blunt messages.

"Tribunal a sham"
"Baker crucified"
"Suspend Dimwit"
"7 weeks for what?"
"Innocent till proven guilty"

etc etc

You cant hang them..youll be asked to remove them..BUT..people on the Wing on Level 1 can hold signs up when the ball is near the boundary!

[riccardo]

If it fails I'll be very close to giving up the game all together.

The rules have made the game slow, boring, negative and frankly unwatchable, and the vastly lop sided playing field in favour of the interstate club and the "Big 3" in Vic means the little guy like us will never, ever get an even break.

I am disgusted by the AFL at the moment after the last few years of horrendous decisions. As Owen Hart said "Enough is enough, and its time for a change".

[Superboot]

Had the incident occurred in exactly the same way, but with Farmer uninjured and Baker having sustained a fracture to the back of the skull, what would the verdict have been?

Just as it's always the players' fault when they make contact with an umpire, is it always Baker's fault when someone runs into him?

[saintsrus]

The word Precedent does not exist with the AFL