rodgerfox wrote:yipper wrote:It's not that simple Joffa - by admitting to blocking a player, is to not admit to causing unreasonable contact. Baker merely entered into Farmer's path - as a defender, to cut his run into a wide open F50 area. In taking this action - Farmer has not seen him ( or maybe he did!!) and cannoned into the back of his head. It was accidental clash of heads which occured because of Farmer's lack of awareness of what is around him. Baker did not initiate an illegal contact. He merely got in his way to guard his man.
True, however this whole thing could have been avoided had someone with half a brain from our club advised Baker as to what to say/not to say.
Seriously, this is simply mind boggling that we could get this so wrong as a club.
Rodger, I know this may not help in your campaign against the Admin, but maybe Bakes was advised how to answer the charge against him based on what the actual charge was?
Once inside, after it was proved that the testimony from the Freo Trainer, which was the basis of the charge, was proved to be less than satisfactory to sustain the charge, maybe the Tribunal changed the actual details of the charge during their deliberations, so that the evidence Baker gave, which they have accepted, could be used to sustain it?
I don't think this scenario will prove to be too far from the truth. I get the feeling that the Freo Trainer's initial evidence was that Baker charged in to Farmer and gave him a 'hip and shoulder' which caused the damage to Farmer. If so, then Baker's defence was 'I did not, I just blocked him and he ran into me'.
Once the Freo Trainers recollections were found to be faulty, The Tribunal needed to work out a way to find Bakes guilty using what he had told them. Hence this BS about an 'illegal act' being deemed 'reckless' when more than 5m away from the ball.
Sorry, my post wasn't really aimed at you Joffa, I was just venting...to everyone!!! 
