Saints bid to clear Baker

[n1ck]

Good article by Sam Lane...

http://realfooty.com.au/news/news/saint ... 52971.html
Saints bid to clear Baker
Samantha Lane | August 23, 2007

ST KILDA was last night planning a two-pronged argument to overturn, or at least reduce, the seven-match ban handed to Steven Baker by the AFL Tribunal for his manhandling of Jeff Farmer.

The Saints' challenge at tonight's appeals hearing will centre on the tribunal's deeming of the tagger's actions as reckless.

The club was also considering last night recalling the Justin Koschitzke-Daniel Giansiracusa incident of last season as part of its appeal.

Koschitzke sustained a fracture to his skull after being caught unawares by Giansiracusa, but the Bulldog's shepherd was deemed legal. Earlier this year, however, the league updated its rules on head-high bumps so that any forceful bump to the head or neck became a reportable offence.

St Kilda said yesterday it was encouraged by the fact that the tribunal had accepted Baker's version of events — that, in an attempt to block the Fremantle forward, he had made head-on-head contact with Farmer more than 50 metres off the ball.

Baker's advocate is expected to argue tonight that the Saint's actions were legitimate and that Farmer, who sustained concussion, a broken nose and a cut face, could reasonably have expected to be blocked by a tagger in such a situation.

"The club has appealed on several grounds, including the ground that, having accepted Steven Baker's account of the incident, which was supported by other witnesses, the tribunal should not have found Baker guilty or suspended him," a statement issued by St Kilda said.

There was no video footage of the clash and the evidence provided at the tribunal hearing by Farmer and Dockers' trainer Barry Kirkwood, and Baker and player manager Ricky Nixon were "diametrically opposed accounts", according to the tribunal chairman John Hassett.

The Age learned yesterday that former Brisbane Lions captain Michael Voss, who said on Channel Ten's coverage of the St Kilda-Fremantle match that "I did see it and, oh yeah, Steven Baker would hope there is not behind-the-goal footage" was phoned by the AFL's investigator Graeme McDonald but did not detail the event further.

"He said he didn't see the actual moment of contact," AFL communications manager Patrick Keane said last night.

Baker's father Greg, who has worked as a player advocate for local footballers in Colac, suggested yesterday that his tagger son had been condemned before the hearing.

"I can't see how it got to the tribunal. It was like he was already sort of guilty before he got there," he told SEN.

"I just question, you know, the whole process. I question, you know, the investigation officer of the AFL. He's got very dubious testimony from a couple of witnesses and, you know, obviously Farmer's would be dubious because he'd be a bit dazed."

Fremantle's caretaker coach Mark Harvey said Farmer was likely to recover from his injuries and play against Melbourne on Saturday but offered little comment on Baker's penalty. "It's not for me to judge," Harvey said. "He (Farmer) hasn't got any headaches or anything, so that is a positive."

Baker had 127.5 carry-over points from previous offences coming into the hearing, which contributed to the length of his ban.

It costs $5000 to take a case to the AFL appeals board.

Collingwood president Eddie McGuire said yesterday that the AFL should hang the expense and set up more cameras at games.

"I read with interest that it costs hundreds of thousands (of dollars) … they can argue the cost and all the rest, I just don't wear it.

"It can be done, it should be done and it can be offered to the clubs because they want behind-the-goal shots anyway."

McGuire said the $50,000 fine that Hawthorn paid recently for illegally filming a match could be put towards the exercise.

"Go and buy some Handycams and stick them at the grounds, we only play on half-a-dozen grounds, it's not that hard," he said.

"If we're serious about it, it takes this drama out of it, we would not have to worry about, 'Did Baker do anything?' "

[yipper]

Well that sounds more like they switched on now. Those grounds are very relevant in this case. Was his action reckless?? Does just merely laying a block on a player constitute an untoward / reckless action. No, of course it doesn't - and the eventual contact was accidental. could not have been forseen or expected in any way and bears a stricking resemblence to the Kosi situation of last year when he had his awareness skills questioned. Farmer ought to know that he would not get a clear run into his forward line unopposed!! He was always going to get blocked.

[Dan Warna]

cough cough whelan on ball

[Saints94]

we know that

[Leo.J]

cough cough whelan on ball

I'd be amazed if they don't attempt to use this as a precedent, I've posted what the AFL's ruling was regarding that about 3 times now and AFAIC it's pretty relevent and, it's a ruling under the current rules.