it wont be st kilda......

This unofficial St Kilda Saints fan forum is for people of all ages to chat Saints Footy and all posts must be respectful.

Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
stinger
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 38126
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 9:06pm
Location: Australia.

it wont be st kilda......

Post: # 443651Post stinger »

couple of interesting articles on the baker suspension in todays sunday hun.....


.....our former ceo(waldron) is obviously pissed at the decision and says that baker, who didn't hit anyone. was basically crucified because he was too honest.....


,,,,also he said that it was extraordinary that a player could be found guilty when there was no video evidence or any other proof of guilt.....

....he basically wonders what has happened to innocent until proven guilty and says that we have to have such a system

...according to waldren baker has attracted the support of the wider sporting community



article goes on to say that the feeling at st kilda is that baker convicted himself.....


in his sunday roast article, jon ralph basically ridicules the afl by saying that the message out of there this week is two-fold and clear........lie on the witness stand , but never admit it .and forget about appealing to a board which is basically a rubber stamp of the tribunal........


.....he suggests that if things keep going as they are it won't be long before a club takes a case to the supreme court......



....all i can say is that it will be a club with more balls than the st kilda fooball club.....


and...

...if someone thinks i am being a little hard on our beloved saints and our gutless officials ...then tough luck....... :evil: :evil: :evil:


.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will

"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"

However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
satchmo
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 6655
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:24pm
Location: Hotel Bastardos
Has thanked: 191 times
Been thanked: 166 times
Contact:

Post: # 443659Post satchmo »

I'm still pissed off about this, stinger. Help me out with your legal brain ! How is it that the evidence that got him reported was declared incorrect, yet he was suspended ?

If that was the only evidence they had to make a report, and it's wrong, how can they possibly suspend him?


*Allegedly.

Bring back Lucky Burgers, and nobody gets hurt.

You can't un-fry things.


Last Post
User avatar
stinger
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 38126
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 9:06pm
Location: Australia.

Post: # 443668Post stinger »

satchmo wrote:I'm still pissed off about this, stinger. Help me out with your legal brain ! How is it that the evidence that got him reported was declared incorrect, yet he was suspended ?

If that was the only evidence they had to make a report, and it's wrong, how can they possibly suspend him?

because following the kossi incident last year the rules were changed... now it is up to the player making contact to the head to prove it was accidental......

...in baker's case he admitted to deliberately blocking farmer off the ball which caused the contact to farmers head......to my mind it was still accidental contact and he should have got off......


hence the appeal.....


....


.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will

"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"

However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
User avatar
Riewoldting
SS Life Member
Posts: 2883
Joined: Thu 05 May 2005 1:34am
Location: Perth WA

Post: # 443682Post Riewoldting »

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it was the fact that Baker admitted to deliberately committing an illegal act (i.e. against the rules) that took it into the realm of "unreasonable" contact.

I'm still not convinced that a "block" 50m off the ball is proscribed in the Laws of Australian Football, but let's assume that it is.

That means that if somebody causes contact to an opponent's head or neck while doing something against the rules, that is reportable rough conduct and worthy of a four-week suspension.

If Jonathan Brown runs back with the flight of the ball in an attempt to mark and takes his eyes off the footy before running into the full back ... that's four weeks.

If Tom Harley chops a full forward's arms and the ball hits the full forward in the head ... that's four weeks.

If James Clement pushes an opponent fair and square in the back, propelling him into a teammate who is charging the opposite way in an attempt to mark ... that's four weeks.

If Chris Judd lays a tackle which slips up around an opponent's neck ... that's four weeks.


Image
"To be or not to be" - William Shakespeare
"To be is to do" - Immanuel Kant
"Do be do be do" - Frank Sinatra
User avatar
St.Kenny
Club Player
Posts: 863
Joined: Tue 06 Jun 2006 4:48pm
Location: Heart of it !

Post: # 443688Post St.Kenny »

Good final point Stinger. This club is lacking balls not tasking this grossly unfair decision outsuide the realms of the AFL's tribunal and into the court system.
I really beileve this decision contributed greatly to our loss on Friday night !


My behaviour is considered acceptable in some far off remote exotic countries...
kalsaint
Club Player
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sat 24 Apr 2004 10:24pm
Location: Perth WA
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 19 times

Post: # 443690Post kalsaint »

stinger wrote:
satchmo wrote:I'm still pissed off about this, stinger. Help me out with your legal brain ! How is it that the evidence that got him reported was declared incorrect, yet he was suspended ?

If that was the only evidence they had to make a report, and it's wrong, how can they possibly suspend him?

because following the kossi incident last year the rules were changed... now it is up to the player making contact to the head to prove it was accidental......

...in baker's case he admitted to deliberately blocking farmer off the ball which caused the contact to farmers head......to my mind it was still accidental contact and he should have got off......


hence the appeal.....


....
Thanks for this Stinger. I hdn't realised the rules had changed.

I had just about given up finding out from the club. They are doing their usaual thing i.e. a few lines to the media abour QC recommendation but no real background to the decisions provided.

It definitely going to take another club leader to finally test the consistency of the inconsistencies shown over th years.

I hope they win. Our blokes wont stand up to the AFL's continual changes in standards.


Midfield clearances and clear winners are needed to make an effective forward line.

You need to protect the ball handler to increase posession efficiency
saintspremiers
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 25303
Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
Location: Trump Tower
Has thanked: 142 times
Been thanked: 284 times

Post: # 443700Post saintspremiers »

well said Stinger...the more I think about it, the more it comes back to Baker telling the truth.

Our club and QC have disgraced themselves - how could they be that stupid and fall for the two card trick?? RB has basically admitted to their error, saying what would you prefer, a $15K fine for lying or 7 week suspension.

Too little too late RB, stop whinging about what might have been and instead get on the front foot and prevent disaster.

I wonder how many other clubs in the exact same scenario would've fallen over like we did.

....quite obviously, the end is in sight for RB.


i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
User avatar
St. Luke
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 5268
Joined: Wed 17 Mar 2004 12:34pm
Location: Hiding at Telstra Dome!

Post: # 443793Post St. Luke »

Well I'm still pissed off about it......and not too much keeps me this pissed off for this long...but....now well I've finally found something!


When they created LENNY HAYES (in the shadow of Harvs) they forgot to break the mold (again)- hence the Supremely Incredible Jack Steven!!
joffaboy
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 20200
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 1:57pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post: # 443804Post joffaboy »

St.Kenny wrote:Good final point Stinger. This club is lacking balls not tasking this grossly unfair decision outsuide the realms of the AFL's tribunal and into the court system.
I really beileve this decision contributed greatly to our loss on Friday night !
I agree with every word that St.Kenny has posted.

Some have asked who could have stopped Cousins in the second half?

Well the AFL made sure he will be out for seven weeks on no evidence video or otherwise.

And ourt lily livered piss weak board is"dissapointed".

I'll tell you what i am "dissapointed" about you bunch of arselicking sycophant AFL commission bum boys - that you will not protect the Saints players name or he integrity of the club.

You have no pride or courage. You have again willfully jeopardised an attempt at a Saints flag (remote this season but still a slim possibility), just like you did last year when you were "disappointed" tha the AFL changed its rules and the result of a game that

COST US A SPOT IN THE TOP FOUR

So there you have it. Once again you have let down the clubs supporters by letting the AFL walk all over you.

Congratulations you bunch of gutless clowns. You lost 2000 members last year, you will lose more next year.

You are a disgrace.


Lance or James??

There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
saintm
Club Player
Posts: 865
Joined: Sat 07 Oct 2006 9:26pm

Post: # 443834Post saintm »

saintspremiers wrote:
RB has basically admitted to their error, saying what would you prefer, a $15K fine for lying or 7 week suspension
The thing with the Campbell Brown case is that he didn't get fined for lying at the tribunal as such. When he gave his evidence eyebrows were raised (pardon the pun) but he wasn't questioned at the time about the truthfulness of it and Judd was allowed to go free even though, in this case, there was video evidence.

His fine came later when he made the mistake of admitting the lie in a television interview. If he had not answered Mike Sheahan's question honestly then he would still have $7,500 in his pocket and nobody would be any the wiser.


linz
Club Player
Posts: 1209
Joined: Wed 27 Jul 2005 8:11pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 4 times
Contact:

Post: # 443841Post linz »

It seems to me, we have to learn by playing by the rules. The rules are:
1) Never say the truth; plead ignorance.

So from now on a Saints player defending charges in the future must remember to say the following:
- I saw nothing but I did feel something & that feeling was I did nothing wrong
- I can't recall anything of the incident.
- My Brain hurts
- I can't find my Brain
- If anyone finds my brain and/or memory please let me know.

Simple really. The Saints Brain Trust can hire me next time to defend our players. I'll only charge $50 per hour. (Significantly less than even a discount QC)


I once spent a year in Adelaide, I think it was on a Sunday.
User avatar
Dan Warna
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 12846
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:56am
Location: melbourne

Post: # 443852Post Dan Warna »

an illegal act taht was worth a free kick, not worth a suspension.

plenty of 'illegal acts' that warrant free kicks NOT suspensions.

I watched more games this weekend that probably for some time and I noticed a fair few 'blocks'


Bewaire krime, da krimson bolt is comeing to yure nayborhood to smach krime

SHUT UP KRIME!
User avatar
Otiman
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 7892
Joined: Thu 28 Jul 2005 11:09pm
Location: Elsewhere
Has thanked: 131 times
Been thanked: 476 times

Post: # 443887Post Otiman »

Dan Warna wrote:plenty of 'illegal acts' that warrant free kicks NOT suspensions.
How many result in pretty extreme facial injuries though?


satchmo
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 6655
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:24pm
Location: Hotel Bastardos
Has thanked: 191 times
Been thanked: 166 times
Contact:

Post: # 443892Post satchmo »

Otiman wrote:
Dan Warna wrote:plenty of 'illegal acts' that warrant free kicks NOT suspensions.
How many result in pretty extreme facial injuries though?
Hmmm,...Kosi, fractured skull...no report....Ball,.....brain damage ...no report.......I guess they're not facial injuries ? :?


*Allegedly.

Bring back Lucky Burgers, and nobody gets hurt.

You can't un-fry things.


Last Post
User avatar
Otiman
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 7892
Joined: Thu 28 Jul 2005 11:09pm
Location: Elsewhere
Has thanked: 131 times
Been thanked: 476 times

Post: # 443898Post Otiman »

satchmo wrote:
Otiman wrote:
Dan Warna wrote:plenty of 'illegal acts' that warrant free kicks NOT suspensions.
How many result in pretty extreme facial injuries though?
Hmmm,...Kosi, fractured skull...no report....Ball,.....brain damage ...no report.......I guess they're not facial injuries ? :?
So you disagree with the baker suspension, or the others? You can't have it both ways.


satchmo
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 6655
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:24pm
Location: Hotel Bastardos
Has thanked: 191 times
Been thanked: 166 times
Contact:

Post: # 443899Post satchmo »

Otiman wrote:So you disagree with the baker suspension, or the others? You can't have it both ways.
They already have had it both ways. :?


*Allegedly.

Bring back Lucky Burgers, and nobody gets hurt.

You can't un-fry things.


Last Post
kalsaint
Club Player
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sat 24 Apr 2004 10:24pm
Location: Perth WA
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 19 times

Post: # 443900Post kalsaint »

satchmo wrote:
Otiman wrote:
Dan Warna wrote:plenty of 'illegal acts' that warrant free kicks NOT suspensions.
How many result in pretty extreme facial injuries though?
Hmmm,...Kosi, fractured skull...no report....Ball,.....brain damage ...no report.......I guess they're not facial injuries ? :?

Hmmm, Stinger said that the rules have changed since thhe Kosi incident. So I guess that makes it alright this time around for the AFL/tribunal (not).

Notably Farmer played this weekend dispite the media attention, Kosi missed how many weeks with several scary moments along the way like the David Shwarze interview on 7.

The AFL commission needs to look at themselves and then look up the word consistency after checking the phrase "consequence of change".


Midfield clearances and clear winners are needed to make an effective forward line.

You need to protect the ball handler to increase posession efficiency
User avatar
Riewoldting
SS Life Member
Posts: 2883
Joined: Thu 05 May 2005 1:34am
Location: Perth WA

Post: # 443901Post Riewoldting »

satchmo wrote:They already have had it both ways. :?
And the St Kilda Football Club lubes up, bends over and takes it both ways.


Image
"To be or not to be" - William Shakespeare
"To be is to do" - Immanuel Kant
"Do be do be do" - Frank Sinatra
satchmo
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 6655
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:24pm
Location: Hotel Bastardos
Has thanked: 191 times
Been thanked: 166 times
Contact:

Post: # 443902Post satchmo »

Riewoldting wrote:
satchmo wrote:They already have had it both ways. :?
And the St Kilda Football Club lubes up, bends over and takes it both ways.
I don't think they lube up actually ! :x


*Allegedly.

Bring back Lucky Burgers, and nobody gets hurt.

You can't un-fry things.


Last Post
saintrod
Club Player
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun 04 Jun 2006 10:34pm

Post: # 443903Post saintrod »

Apart from the good points that Stinger has identified the things that amazes me is that Baker had previously proven to be a very poor advocate for himself. It was basically his own testimony that got him convicted of the ridiculous charge of an attempted strike on Stafford.

Given that I would have thought there should have been a very high awareness within the club that Baker's mouth was likely to put him in trouble again and he should have been very well prepared by our legal team to make sure he didn't make the same mistakes.


User avatar
St. Luke
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 5268
Joined: Wed 17 Mar 2004 12:34pm
Location: Hiding at Telstra Dome!

Post: # 443907Post St. Luke »

joffaboy wrote:
St.Kenny wrote:Good final point Stinger. This club is lacking balls not tasking this grossly unfair decision outsuide the realms of the AFL's tribunal and into the court system.
I really beileve this decision contributed greatly to our loss on Friday night !
I agree with every word that St.Kenny has posted.

Some have asked who could have stopped Cousins in the second half?

Well the AFL made sure he will be out for seven weeks on no evidence video or otherwise.

And ourt lily livered piss weak board is"dissapointed".

I'll tell you what i am "dissapointed" about you bunch of arselicking sycophant AFL commission bum boys - that you will not protect the Saints players name or he integrity of the club.

You have no pride or courage. You have again willfully jeopardised an attempt at a Saints flag (remote this season but still a slim possibility), just like you did last year when you were "disappointed" tha the AFL changed its rules and the result of a game that

COST US A SPOT IN THE TOP FOUR

So there you have it. Once again you have let down the clubs supporters by letting the AFL walk all over you.

Congratulations you bunch of gutless clowns. You lost 2000 members last year, you will lose more next year.

You are a disgrace.
You know, in your own straight the point all out attack in this post, I agree with everything you've just said..only you've added more colour to it that I would have :)

I'm so tired of hearing how 'disappointed' we were at the decision and how the advice of our 'EXPERT' legal team have said we need to let it go, but when exactly are we going to stand up for our guys when the crap hits the fan??? Had Baker raised an elbow I wouldn't have had a problem with the decision...but he didn't! 7 weeks at this end of the season to a top player is a devastating blow to us! Baker didn't deserve this, the club and players don't deserve this, and we as supporters don't deserve this! The situation stinks!


When they created LENNY HAYES (in the shadow of Harvs) they forgot to break the mold (again)- hence the Supremely Incredible Jack Steven!!
aussierules0k
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 6440
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 11:13pm

Post: # 443914Post aussierules0k »

Last edited by aussierules0k on Tue 23 Jun 2009 5:15am, edited 1 time in total.


mischa
Club Player
Posts: 1428
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 6:50am

Re: it wont be st kilda......

Post: # 443976Post mischa »

stinger wrote:...if someone thinks i am being a little hard on our beloved saints and our gutless officials ...then tough luck....... :evil: :evil: :evil:
Nup. Agree with the comments in this thread about Baker on Friday too-would've gone along way to seing us win. But the AFL win again. Demetrispew wins. Oh well...... :evil:


Post Reply