Maybe we should review our legal advice!!!!!!

[BringBackMadDog]

Illegal block at root of woes
23 August 2007 Herald Sun
Daryl Timms

FORMER AFL prosecutor Ricky Lewis believes St Kilda tagger Steven Baker was poorly advised on the evidence he gave the tribunal this week.



Lewis said the Saints had only themselves to blame for Baker's seven-match suspension after he was found guilty of rough conduct on Fremantle's Jeff Farmer.

He said Baker was doomed once he admitted he intentionally committed an illegal act by blocking Farmer off the ball.

Farmer said he did not know how he suffered a broken nose and concussion in the third-quarter incident.

Lewis believes Baker will not be successful when he appeals against his suspension today because he admitted committing an illegal blocking act which lead to Farmer's injuries.

He said St Kilda had either been poorly advised or weren't aware of basic rules.

"Baker could have said he was watching the flight of the ball, was watching where he was running and all of a sudden he felt Farmer crash into the back of him," Lewis said.

"This is supported by Baker having a lump on the back of his head and Farmer has got a broken nose,"

Lewis, who was also an AFL investigator, said Baker could have said he felt contact to the back of his head and didn't know who it was until he looked around and saw Farmer.

"He could have also said he was merely standing there and Farmer ran into the back of him," he said.

"What evidence have they got to contradict him.

"The club must not have understood the rules of blocking. You can't involve yourself in illegal activity as in blocking and then when something goes wrong, expect to get away with it.

"That's why the rules are there. I can't believe the story that came out and they are now stuck with it at the appeal."

Lewis said there was nothing illegal with a player occupying space on the ground who would not be responsible for an opponent crashing into his back.

He said Baker has been convicted on his own evidence.

"Once you involve in illegal contact, once any injury comes out of it, it has got to be deemed to be your fault," Lewis said.

"The rules of the game are obviously designed to prevent injuries to players.

"You could say it's similar to the situation Jason Cloke found himself in when he missed the 2002 Grand Final for striking Adelaide's Tyson Edwards."

Lewis said Cloke had attempted to deliberately and illegally strike Edwards' arms in a marking duel but had punched him to the back of the head.

He said conceded that people could argue Baker had simply told the truth.

"Why set a precedent like that a tribunal hearing," Lewis quipped.



Makes a lot of sense. If you commit an illegal act on a footy field that results in an injury then maybe you should rubbed out........

[The Peanut]

. . . what he is saying is Bakes should have lied. Then his evidence would not have matched Ricky Nixon's.

Oh is see now . . . when at a tribunal you are not allowed to tell the truth or use common sense.

[saintsRrising]

. . . what he is saying is Bakes should have lied. Then his evidence would not have matched Ricky Nixon's.

Oh is see now . . . when at a tribunal you are not allowed to tell the truth or use common sense.

Eaxcatly...as I posted in another string...

Farmer anf the Freo Trainer both lied through their teeth...
Bakes tells the truth.....but is found guilty....not what the lies were about....being elbowed...


The AFL rewards liers....as long as they do not admit they are liing......but when they are proven to have lied will do nothing.



Fact is this case was brought to the Tribunal ONLY because kirkwood LIED.

As soon as Kirkwood was proven to be a lier....the case should have been THROWN out.

[meher baba]

I agree with you sRr: the role of Kirkwood in instigating the case ever coming before the Tribunal in the first place is the weak point in the AFL's case.

Baker was accused - on the basis of the evidence of someone who was lying or was deluded - of deliberately elbowing or hitting Farmer. He gave evidence to defend himself against that which was then twisted around to convict him of a different charge.

That said, the AFL guidelines for the Tribunal, a link to which someone posted on here yesterday, are pretty straightforward and Lewis is basically right in what he's saying. If you read the bit about Rough Conduct, it makes it clear that an illegal act which results in an injury to the head of other player is Rough Conduct: and implies that this is the case even when the player committing the illegal act wasn't intending to hit the head of his opponent (eg, there was an accidental clash of heads).

So, as Lewis said, Baker should never have admitted to performing an illegal act of any kind: even holding the ball or deliberate out of bounds would have been a problem if it had led to an accidental clash of heads!!

BTW, the Tribunal guidelines also make it quite clear that the MRP is empowered to send matters directly to the Tribunal without allowing the opportunity for the player to make a plea, so that isn't an area in which we can look for any joy in an appeal.

[maverick]

Understand both your points, but the system hasn't changed over the years, we should have used it and he would be free right now, simple as that.

[widereceiver]

I apologize for sending a duplicate post. You get that

[The Peanut]

It this the same Ricky Lewis

AFL investigator under police probe February 10, 2001
From the 'Australian Football Association of North America' website

A high profile AFL investigator and policeman is facing a probe over alleged abuses of police e-mail. Victoria Police has suspended Det-Sgt Rick Lewis on full pay pending an investigation into allegations he sent pornographic e-mails on the police computer system. Police sources claim the offensive material under investigation was “hard coreâ€

[St. Luke]

Of course Baker is going to admit he had contact with Farmer!! Farmer ran into him!!

Baker Didn’t get a bruise on the back of his head from nothing!!

[meher baba]

Thanks for posting the article, Peanut!!

It appears that Mr Lewis knows a bit more about contact between bodies that might be deemed to be "unreasonable" under the circumstances that I had realised!!

[BringBackMadDog]

Of course Baker is going to admit he had contact with Farmer!! Farmer ran into him!!

That's not the point, the point made by Lewis is that because there was no evidence as to how the contact was made Baker should have just said that the contact was purely accidental and not made because he deliberately tried to block Farmer off the ball.

[The Peanut]

It appears that Mr Lewis knows a bit more about contact between bodies that might be deemed to be "unreasonable" under the circumstances that I had realised!!

[st_Trav_ofWA]

as i said in a tread the other day the burden of proof is on the prosicution they have to prove bakers guilty not baker prove he is not
i would of though our QC would of advised bake to not make any statment to what happened as its the trybunals job to find the evidence then kirkwoods story would of been discounted as it was with the evidence of where the ballwas ect ect
the case should of been thrown out then and there if only bakes had said nothing

[St. Luke]

Of course Baker is going to admit he had contact with Farmer!! Farmer ran into him!!

That's not the point, the point made by Lewis is that because there was no evidence as to how the contact was made Baker should have just said that the contact was purely accidental and not made because he deliberately tried to block Farmer off the ball.

This is a question, but does blocking a player necessarily mean Baker intended to make contact?? Isn't that Farmers responsibility to avoid making contact being that he approached Baker out of Bakers line of vision???

[joffaboy]

Of course Baker is going to admit he had contact with Farmer!! Farmer ran into him!!

That's not the point, the point made by Lewis is that because there was no evidence as to how the contact was made Baker should have just said that the contact was purely accidental and not made because he deliberately tried to block Farmer off the ball.

As soon as I heard what Baker said I knew he had hung himself.

The basis of the charges was proven to be wrong. Kirkwood and Farmer both conflicted in their evidence. Nixon and Baker were consistant.....

However Baker admitted to an illegal tactic causing injury to an opposition player - in a case - at the tribunal.

Different to Kosi/Gia - deemed to be a legal shepard at the time and the head clash was accidental

Different to the Whelan clash that was deemed to be a shepard in play and the head clash was accidental.

Baker is sunk and Lewis is deadset correct. Any billy goat could have seen that as soon as Baker opened his trap.

No use now taking the moral high ground about "lying". All Baker had to say was that Farmer ran into him and he would have gotten off.

Once again our admin has stuffed up the defence.

This admin has now completely lost me.

The verdict will stand, they wont go to court, and Baker is farked.

[Riewoldting]

I reckon Rick Lewis is full of s***, because the standard of proof in these cases is "on the balance of probabilities".

The total evidence :

Farmer lying dazed and bloodied a fair way off the ball
Nixon saying Baker ran at Farmer and blocked him fairly
Kirkwood saying Farmer ran at Farmer and bumped him unfairly

So if Baker had said he was "just running towards the ball and felt a bump from behind", that would conflict with the testimony of two eyewitnesses.

If Baker had said nothing, the evidence would indicate that it was more probable than not that Baker had been guilty of reckless rough conduct.

The only realistic option was for Baker to give honest and truthful oral testimony as to the circumstances surrounding the contact.

[yipper]

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.

[St. Luke]

Of course Baker is going to admit he had contact with Farmer!! Farmer ran into him!!

That's not the point, the point made by Lewis is that because there was no evidence as to how the contact was made Baker should have just said that the contact was purely accidental and not made because he deliberately tried to block Farmer off the ball.

As soon as I heard what Baker said I knew he had hung himself.

The basis of the charges was proven to be wrong. Kirkwood and Farmer both conflicted in their evidence. Nixon and Baker were consistant.....

However Baker admitted to an illegal tactic causing injury to an opposition player - in a case - at the tribunal.

Different to Kosi/Gia - deemed to be a legal shepard at the time and the head clash was accidental

Different to the Whelan clash that was deemed to be a shepard in play and the head clash was accidental.

Baker is sunk and Lewis is deadset correct. Any billy goat could have seen that as soon as Baker opened his trap.

No use now taking the moral high ground about "lying". All Baker had to say was that Farmer ran into him and he would have gotten off.

Once again our admin has stuffed up the defence.

This admin has now completely lost me.

The verdict will stand, they wont go to court, and Baker is farked.

This is bulldust!! Now they’ve even got us towing the line with this horsesh!t about Baker “deliberatelyâ€

[kaos theory]

The point where we did stuff it up was that baker should have been instructed to use a different word or phase to describe what he did. He shouldn't have said 'blocking'....it has a more agressive tone to it.

Rather he should have said some like :

'I was trying to slow my opponent down by gaurding the path towards the ball' 'Then next thing I know is I felt someone crash into the back of me.'

done & thrown out.

[Riewoldting]

Why? "Block" means "prevent access to". Nothing aggressive about that.

Hey, the local council blocked off the end of my street to conduct roadworks. Those aggressive bastards

[SteveStevens66]

Is there a technical definition of the word "block" and does it differ from the definition of "shepherd"?

Quite frankly, I am mystified by the word "block" in the context of footy. It doesn't imply any use of arms, elbows, fists or anything else. A shepherd, something as old as the game itself, is an action designed to impede an opposition player from getting to someone on your team who has possession of the ball. Generally, it involves the use of outstretched arms or bumping provided the ball is within proximity.

The way "block" has been used to describe Baker's actions suggest he simply moved in front of Farmer to obstruct his passage. How is this illegal?

(Without having seen it, my own view is that Farmer ran full pace at Baker with the intention of careening into him and possibly tripped when close to Baker and smashed his face into the back of Baker's head. Were there Farmer's blood on the back of Baker's head that too would have proven Farmer's culpability. Alas, Stevie has already shampooed).

[chook23]

The point where we did stuff it up was that baker should have been instructed to use a different word or phase to describe what he did. He shouldn't have said 'blocking'....it has a more agressive tone to it.

Rather he should have said some like :

'I was trying to slow my opponent down by gaurding the path towards the ball' 'Then next thing I know is I felt someone crash into the back of me.'

done & thrown out.

Tend to agree KT and joffaboy

Should the legal team have picked words to describe - yes

but also in your words/version (not to lie)

What words (if any) was he advised?

Did Baker just innocently use those words under the pressure of evidence and cross-examination?

And was describing it in a way not advised?

I don't know

But under the way the rule is now written (2007)
he has proven his own charge in the eyes of the tribunal

Kosi/Gia would also be viewed differently under new rule

Ball/whelan situation given the vicinity of the ball it was reasonable to expect heavy contact........also under the new rule why he was not charged.

Does not mean I agree on Baker decision..........

[St. Luke]

Kosi/Gia would also be viewed differently under new rule

I realize this now, but isn't this ridiculous that it's gotten down to a battle of words over an illegal block of a player. Nowhere has Baker stated that he himself ran into Farmer, but more than Farmer ran into him. Baker should and must be cleared on the simple fact that he had no intent of doing anything other than blocking Farmers view of the ball in play. He did not intend having any contact and couldn't have possibly known what was going to happen behind him.

If this goes pear-shaped I'm pleading with the Club to go higher with this. If Baker had struck Farmer with his elbow and there was some real malice about it - I wouldn't be so pissed off and I'd accept the 7 weeks. I don't like dirty snipers and in this instance Baker isn't one! I wish people would stop snivelling over something caused by Farmer not looking where he was running! Baker had his eyes on the Ball, and so to did Farmer- the only thing Baker has apparently done wrong was being the bloke in the front!

[Riewoldting]

Steve

The difference is that a block can be a type of shepherd.

Under Law 15.4.2:

"A Shepherd is using the body or arm to push, bump or block:

(a) a Player who does not have possession of the football and who is no further than 5 metres away from the football at the time when the push, bump or block occurs ... "

The ordinary dictionary meaning of "block" is: "to act so as to obstruct an opponent".

The ordinary dictionary meaning of "bump" is: "to come more or less heavily in contact with; strike; collide with".

Baker's testimony was that he did not bump Farmer, but stood in his path.

[Mr Magic]

Steve

The difference is that a block can be a type of shepherd.

Under Law 15.4.2:

"A Shepherd is using the body or arm to push, bump or block:

(a) a Player who does not have possession of the football and who is no further than 5 metres away from the football at the time when the push, bump or block occurs ... "

The ordinary dictionary meaning of "block" is: "to act so as to obstruct an opponent".

The ordinary dictionary meaning of "bump" is: "to come more or less heavily in contact with; strike; collide with".

Baker's testimony was that he did not bump Farmer, but stood in his path.

Given the definitions you have just given us, it would appear to me that there is a distinct difference in the term 'block' when used in reference to 'shepherding' than when used in reference to 'blocking'.

Maybe it is as simple as the Tribunal using the term 'block' in the 'shepherding context' which would imply an overt physical action by Baker, rather than using it in the 'blocking context' which does not imply an overt physical act by Baker?

[chook23]

Kosi/Gia would also be viewed differently under new rule

I realize this now, but isn't this ridiculous that it's gotten down to a battle of words over an illegal block of a player. Nowhere has Baker stated that he himself ran into Farmer, but more than Farmer ran into him. Baker should and must be cleared on the simple fact that he had no intent of doing anything other than blocking Farmers view of the ball in play. He did not intend having any contact and couldn't have possibly known what was going to happen behind him.
If this goes pear-shaped I'm pleading with the Club to go higher with this. If Baker had struck Farmer with his elbow and there was some real malice about it - I wouldn't be so pissed off and I'd accept the 7 weeks. I don't like dirty snipers and in this instance Baker isn't one! I wish people would stop snivelling over something caused by Farmer not looking where he was running! Baker had his eyes on the Ball, and so to did Farmer- the only thing Baker has apparently done wrong was being the bloke in the front!

That's the problem he DID NOT SAY THAT