Baker Incident. What am I Missing?

[Mr Magic]

I am totally perplexed.
I have been listening to 'radio experts' trying to explain how Baker is at fault in this case.

They are all claiming that Baker by admitting to 'Blocking' Farmer is guilty of being 'reckless' and of using 'heavy impact' on Farmer.

I have looked but cannot find where Baker admitted 'contacting' Farmer. All I can find is Baker admitting he 'blocked' Baker which is not necessarily the same thing.

I believe the definintion of 'blocking' can be 'putting yourself in a position to force someone to change their intended direction'. If I am correct then how has Baker done anything illegal according to the afl Rules?

Surely Farmer has not changed direction and 'contacted' Baker?

How is it Baker's responsibility?

If the Tribunal has determined that it is Baker's responsibility purely because he has 'blocked' Farmer's path then just think about the consequences to follow.

Here's a scenario:-

Grammy has the Ball on hbf, Roo leads wide with Glass on his tail. The ball is at least 70 m away when Roo starts to lead. Roo stops dead in his tracks and Glass runs straight into him and hits his head on Roo's shoulder, splitting his lip. As the ball wasn't within 5m of this, is Roo reportable for 'rough conduct' in that he caused an injury to occur?

Now another scenario, using the same players:-

Same situation, Grammy has the ball.
Roo tries to lead and Glass grabs hold of his arm. In trying to wrench free, Roo strains a shoulder muscle. Should Glass be reported for 'rough conduct' in that he performed an illegal act more than 5m off the ball and an injury resulted?

Plesae feel free to tell me wher my logic/reasoning is faulty?

[St. Luke]

How is it Baker's responsibility?

Apparently its the entire St.Kilda Football teams responsibility for not warning Bakes that Farmer was going to run into the back of his head! Our guys had a duty of care to Farmer and by rights whoever was in the immediate locality of Baker should also score a 2 week suspension! I mean, Bakes should have looked behind him and moved anyway. WHAT THE CRAP IS THIS??? AUSKICK!!!??????

[Go Sretnias Go]

Oh Mr Magic - it's refreshing to read some intelligent posting, thanks. I was always taught that "honesty is the best policy" and accordingly trust that this applies with Bakes.
Was interesting to read the comments of the FORMER AFL Prosecutor in the H/S this morning - how credible is he - suggesting the advice given to Bakes was irresponsible and he should have twisted the truth.
Ric Lewis, Policeman and a former Representative of the AFL - that's the way they think - couldn't lie straight in bed either.

[Saints94]

you wont be missing anything after 5:30pm tonight

or the footy show

[meher baba]

We seem to be forming a consensus on this forum that the whole case hinges on the meaning of the word "block".

That said, I'm sure I also read somewhere that Baker admitted that what he did was illegal and would have led to a free kick if the umpire had seen it. Under one interpretation of the Tribunal guidelines, he has therefore admitted to an "unreasonable" contact which led to a head injury to Farmer: hence, "Rough Conduct".

If this report is wrong, and all Baker did say was that he attempted to "block" Farmer, then I am with you Mr Magic.

But in the absence of a detailed transcript of what Baker actually said at the Tribunal, it's a bit hard to draw a firm conclusion on any of it.

[meher baba]

Ric Lewis, Policeman and a former Representative of the AFL - that's the way they think - couldn't lie straight in bed either.

Didn't spend much time in bed, methinks: allegedly preferred to sit up into the wee small hours staring into a glowing screen, holding on firmly to his credentials.

[joffaboy]

Grammy has the Ball on hbf, Roo leads wide with Glass on his tail. The ball is at least 70 m away when Roo starts to lead. Roo stops dead in his tracks and Glass runs straight into him and hits his head on Roo's shoulder, splitting his lip. As the ball wasn't within 5m of this, is Roo reportable for 'rough conduct' in that he caused an injury to occur?

If Roo is leading at the ball and stops and Glass runs into the back of him it is Glass's fault. Nothing illegal in stopping.

In Bakers case the perception is that in "the block" he changed direction to deliberately retard Farmers line to the ball.

Dont know if this is actually what happened or not, but if thats the case it is a different scenario.

Eg No 2 is a very interesting one though.

[Leo.J]

A caller on SEN said something that I thought was pretty interesting.

He put forward a scenario, he asked what would of been the outcome had Farmer ran into and umpire rather than Baker?

Farmer would of been reported was the response from KB and PS.

I know umpires are sacresanct (spelling?), however the tribunal has excepted Bakers version, so therefore Farmer has a duty of care as a player to be aware of where he is running also, doesn't he?

I'll be amazed and furious if we can't get him off, the ruling defies logic to me.

Am I crazy or just completely one-eyed to be so opposed to most of the so called experts opinions that I've heard interviewed so far.

To me its bleeding obvious that they've got it terribly wrong.

[Riewoldting]

In Bakers case the perception is that in "the block" he changed direction to deliberately retard Farmers line to the ball.

But that's still reasonable, so it's not reportable.

The Tribunal appears to be suggesting that Baker's actions being illegal, they were unreasonable. They're adding 2 and 2 to make 5.

Neverthless, I'm not convinced they were illegal. I don't think the laws ever intended that bumping, jostling, blocking etc. 100m off the ball was a free kick.

[meher baba]

Grammy has the Ball on hbf, Roo leads wide with Glass on his tail. The ball is at least 70 m away when Roo starts to lead. Roo stops dead in his tracks and Glass runs straight into him and hits his head on Roo's shoulder, splitting his lip. As the ball wasn't within 5m of this, is Roo reportable for 'rough conduct' in that he caused an injury to occur?

If Roo is leading at the ball and stops and Glass runs into the back of him it is Glass's fault. Nothing illegal in stopping.

In Bakers case the perception is that in "the block" he changed direction to deliberately retard Farmers line to the ball.

Dont know if this is actually what happened or not, but if thats the case it is a different scenario.

Eg No 2 is a very interesting one though.

No, JB and MM, because the rules state that "Rough Conduct" is a hit on the head or neck, not the shoulder. However, it certainly does seem to be meant to apply to cases where an attempted "spoil" results in a serious head or neck injury: and, I don't know about you guys, but I have no problem with such an interpretation of the rules.

[meher baba]

Am I crazy or just completely one-eyed to be so opposed to most of the so called experts opinions that I've heard interviewed so far.

To me its bleeding obvious that they've got it terribly wrong.

I guess the question I would ask is, have you or the so-called experts seen a detailed transcript of what Baker actually said in the Tribunal. Otherwise, I think that everyone is perhaps a bit out of their depth.

[Mr Magic]

O.K. another scenario:-
Gram has the ball on the wing and kicks it to the space he knows G is going to lead into.

Glass, who is playing in front of G sees the danger and cuts across in front of G, who cannons into his side and they clash heads, resulting in G leaving the field with blood from his forehead?

Reportable now?

[Leo.J]

Grammy has the Ball on hbf, Roo leads wide with Glass on his tail. The ball is at least 70 m away when Roo starts to lead. Roo stops dead in his tracks and Glass runs straight into him and hits his head on Roo's shoulder, splitting his lip. As the ball wasn't within 5m of this, is Roo reportable for 'rough conduct' in that he caused an injury to occur?

If Roo is leading at the ball and stops and Glass runs into the back of him it is Glass's fault. Nothing illegal in stopping.

In Bakers case the perception is that in "the block" he changed direction to deliberately retard Farmers line to the ball.

Dont know if this is actually what happened or not, but if thats the case it is a different scenario.

Eg No 2 is a very interesting one though.

No, JB and MM, because the rules state that "Rough Conduct" is a hit on the head or neck, not the shoulder. However, it certainly does seem to be meant to apply to cases where an attempted "spoil" results in a serious head or neck injury: and, I don't know about you guys, but I have no problem with such an interpretation of the rules.

Was the initial contact between their heads or did their back and chest meet first then an accidental head clash resulted ther after?

If so again the Whelan and Ball case applies as a precedent.

* 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.

[Riewoldting]

Otherwise, I think that everyone is perhaps a bit out of their depth.

Well aren't we pretentious

Leo J and the so-called experts are working from reports from legitimate sources about what was said in the hearing.

But you're right, we don't have a verbatim transcript, so maybe we should all just shut the **** up

[meher baba]

O.K. another scenario:-
Gram has the ball on the wing and kicks it to the space he knows G is going to lead into.

Glass, who is playing in front of G sees the danger and cuts across in front of G, who cannons into his side and they clash heads, resulting in G leaving the field with blood from his forehead?

Reportable now?

Presumably Glass's action would be interpreted as "reasonable": in the way that Whelan's presumably was: because there was a clear attempt by the player concerned to stop the forward movement of the ball.

(Gia's last year is different, as that would definitely be deemed rough conduct under this year's guidelines IMO: Gia clearly had other alternatives available than to jump in the air while attempting a hip and shoulder).

If you want a really interesting scenario, try this one.

Player A is grabbed in a tackle by Player B. Player A has only one arm free, so he uses it to throw the ball: an illegal act. In doing so, his arm continues around and smashes Player B in the face, knocking him out along with most of his teeth.

Hence we have an illegal act - an illegal disposal of the ball - resulting in injury to the head of the opposing player. Rough conduct anyone?

[Mr Magic]

O.K. another scenario:-
Gram has the ball on the wing and kicks it to the space he knows G is going to lead into.

Glass, who is playing in front of G sees the danger and cuts across in front of G, who cannons into his side and they clash heads, resulting in G leaving the field with blood from his forehead?

Reportable now?

Presumably Glass's action would be interpreted as "reasonable": in the way that Whelan's presumably was: because there was a clear attempt by the player concerned to stop the forward movement of the ball.

Well given that the Tribunal seems to have ruled that any illegal act more than 5m away from the ball is deemed to be 'reckless' now, then surely as the ball is in the vicinity of the kicker (in this case Gram) more than 5m away from where the illegal 'block' is being laid by Glass, he would have a case to answer? At teh moment of impact, the ball was not within 5m of the contact thus making the 'block' an illegal act and therefore making Glass' actions unreasonable.

If my reading of this is correct, then the Tribunal have absolutely created a horrendous precedent that the AFL will not be able to live with. If Bakes' suspension is upheld on this then I for one will be calling for every minor illegal act to be prosecuted by the AFL, even if it only results in reprimands. Why should other players not be penalized with 'points hanging over their heads'? The 'rule' cannot be applied only to some and not others?

And given that the AFL have instituted this Tribunal based on evidence from a Freo Trainer (official?) then I have no qualms in asking all of our match day officials to take note of any infractions in this vein and to report them to teh AFL.

If our players are going to be stitched up then I see no reason why consistancy shouldn't occur.

[Saints94]

I am totally perplexed.
I have been listening to 'radio experts' trying to explain how Baker is at fault in this case.

They are all claiming that Baker by admitting to 'Blocking' Farmer is guilty of being 'reckless' and of using 'heavy impact' on Farmer.

I have looked but cannot find where Baker admitted 'contacting' Farmer. All I can find is Baker admitting he 'blocked' Baker which is not necessarily the same thing.

I believe the definintion of 'blocking' can be 'putting yourself in a position to force someone to change their intended direction'. If I am correct then how has Baker done anything illegal according to the afl Rules?

Surely Farmer has not changed direction and 'contacted' Baker?

How is it Baker's responsibility?

If the Tribunal has determined that it is Baker's responsibility purely because he has 'blocked' Farmer's path then just think about the consequences to follow.

Here's a scenario:-

Grammy has the Ball on hbf, Roo leads wide with Glass on his tail. The ball is at least 70 m away when Roo starts to lead. Roo stops dead in his tracks and Glass runs straight into him and hits his head on Roo's shoulder, splitting his lip. As the ball wasn't within 5m of this, is Roo reportable for 'rough conduct' in that he caused an injury to occur?

Now another scenario, using the same players:-

Same situation, Grammy has the ball.
Roo tries to lead and Glass grabs hold of his arm. In trying to wrench free, Roo strains a shoulder muscle. Should Glass be reported for 'rough conduct' in that he performed an illegal act more than 5m off the ball and an injury resulted?

Plesae feel free to tell me wher my logic/reasoning is faulty?

i think hunter will get riewoldt glass if his playing gehrig chick voss wirrapunda milne

[joffaboy]

i think hunter will get riewoldt glass if his playing gehrig chick voss wirrapunda milne

dont they teach punctuation or grammer a skoul nowdays???

[Mr Magic]

i think hunter will get riewoldt glass if his playing gehrig chick voss wirrapunda milne

dont they teach punctuation or grammer a skoul nowdays???

And Homework, it was just an example, not that I think Glass will play on Roo.

[Saints94]

i think hunter will get riewoldt glass if his playing gehrig chick voss wirrapunda milne

dont they teach punctuation or grammer a skoul nowdays???

And Homework, it was just an example, not that I think Glass will play on Roo.

i was just shorting it down,why would glass get the job on roo? what i was trying to say was glass/gehrig hunter/riewoldt chick/voss
wirrapunda/milne and kozi down there to so he can shorten there defence out if you havnt already read my saints team

[meher baba]

If my reading of this is correct, then the Tribunal have absolutely created a horrendous precedent that the AFL will not be able to live with.

Yes they will be able to live with it alright: it will never be applied other than to players like Baker against whom the AFL has taken a set.

If it had been NDS or Riewoldt into whom Farmer had run - let alone a Judd or a GA Jnr or some such - there is no way the Tribunal would have turned around and ruled that this was "Rough Conduct": regardless of the extent to which the accused player might have "incriminated himself".

But a Baker - or some of the rest of the so-called "tough nuts" from other clubs - is always going to cop a decision like this.

I know that nobody on this forum sees him this way, but most people I know who follow other clubs seemed to have formed the impression that Baker is a sort of modern-day Liberatore. That's the image he's got in the wider AFL world, like it or lump it.

It's damn shame, as he a highly effective tagger who usually plays toally within the rules (much more so than, say, the Swans entire backline and midfield). He ought to be a role model of how to defend without infringing. Unfortunately, he also has a hot temper which leads to him throwing punches, sometimes after having run a long way to get involved (some people on here call it "showing the flag", but I would think it's better seen as a great way of committing professional suicide).

Most of the football world believes that Baker deliberately king hit Farmer behind play in the hope of not being seen doing so. Such an act would be entirely out of character: if Baker was going to hit Farmer, he'd do it in the middle of a pack in full view of everyone. We all know this but, unfortunately, the rest of the AFL world doesn't seem to appreciate it.

That's why the Tribunal did what it did. In fact, I would think that - if Baker hadn't "incriminated himself" as they say he did - they would have bent over backwards to find another way of doing him in.

As the old saying goes, give a dog a bad name and hang him.

[brewski]

Interesting scenarios Mr Magic
I agree with you and think that the AFL could potentially open a can of worms here if the Baker verdict is upheld, it could set a precedent that could effect many aspects of the game. including finals, brownlow and betting.
it seems obvious that Farmer was lying about his evidence so appears the code between players must be fading so what is stopping another player eg. from running into the back of say a Judd, fanging a concusion and saying Judd came off his line and stopped in front of me, if they suspend Bakes they will have to do the same to Judd.
No one has been able to prove that Farmer didn't intentionally cannon into Bakes and got the impact wrong and came off second best.
They say they Bakes had a duty of care, well maybe we should suspend the league for 7 weeks as they have a duty of care, claiming that full ground video was going to happen and it hasn't, also the small army of umpires they have thrown in supposedly there also to spot anything off the ball
It seems that there is not really any evidence to convict, just the fact that Stevie is a bit of a hard nut and if it had of been say Dal instead of Bakes it would have been an unfortunate accident pay a free and no more said.
People on the SEN wingeing that Bakes should go, should be very careful what you wish for as i constantly here fans saying the game is going to s*** because it is played by nancy boys and will soon be like netball, well if you try and remove the hard at it players it sure will!

Btw: if tribunal claims Farmer story bulls*** which it has by discounting it he needs to be fined $15000