Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four

[bornadog]

Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke

[mighty_west]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/97068/default.aspx

Good, nothing tough about being a thug.

[Scraggers]

Yippee ... yahoo :D

'Bout bloody time ... I finally agree with the MRP

[AndrewP6]

Funny that everyone with even a slight interest/understanding of AFL will cite Bazza as a thug (apart from the learned folk on WOOF of course! ;) ), reminding people of the infamous Staker incident. Yet Baker was rubbed out for the same number of weeks a year earlier. Yes, Baz does have form in that department, but I bet the media coverage will focus on the "harshness" of the penalty dished out in this instance.

[chef]

I guess this is the AFL's line in the sand in dealing with bullies on the field.

[Pickenitup]

Baker is a dog finally the Afl has woken upto this thug

[jazzadogs]

I'm surprised by the reactions...all this suspension does is highlight the inconsistency of the MRP.

First person to ever be suspended for unnecessary and unreasonable contact to an injured player, which is the charge I disagree with most. Johnson was making no effort to leave the ground, and is therefore fair game. If he's got an injury, he shouldn't be playing. How could Baker get weeks for that, whilst Fisher didn't get cited for hitting Bartel as he left the ground. I know they looked at it, but their explanation (surprisingly :P ) doesn't make sense.

[azabob]

Funny that everyone with even a slight interest/understanding of AFL will cite Bazza as a thug (apart from the learned folk on WOOF of course! ;) ), reminding people of the infamous Staker incident. Yet Baker was rubbed out for the same number of weeks a year earlier. Yes, Baz does have form in that department, but I bet the media coverage will focus on the "harshness" of the penalty dished out in this instance.

I'm confused by your post?

There is no defending Hall whatsoever for what he did to Brent Staker.

Bakers suspension (if he is) will relate to a few charges just not one.

The media has given Barry Hall a very fair run this year and even majority defended him when the Thompson fiasco happened - excpet perhaps the Herald Sun.

[Go_Dogs]

I guess this is the AFL's line in the sand in dealing with bullies on the field.

I was listening to the radio on the way home from work this evening, and Robert Walls was being interviewed by Cornes and Rowe. (I know I may be on my lonesome, but I do think that Walls makes some good observations from time to time :p)

Walls basically said that the AFL have taken too long to address this issue, using the example of Stokes hitting Hodge in his broken ribs during the 2008 GF, and Hodge subsequently coughing up blood.

I do however wonder what Brad Scott would have to say about this?? (Thinking about the Riewoldt incident, rather than anything more recent or North related)

[AndrewP6]

I'm confused by your post?

There is no defending Hall whatsoever for what he did to Brent Staker.

Bakers suspension (if he is) will relate to a few charges just not one.

The media has given Barry Hall a very fair run this year and even majority defended him when the Thompson fiasco happened - excpet perhaps the Herald Sun.

I'm not defending Baz for the Staker incident, I'm alluding to the fact that Baker received the same sanction a year earlier, and now this, and I bet no one will be calling for his head, or watching his every move, almost willing him to hit someone again - as they constantly do with Baz. They might've defended him after the Thompson incident, but you can bet your life some of them are waiting with bated breathe for him to fail again.

[azabob]

I'm not defending Baz for the Staker incident, I'm alluding to the fact that Baker received the same sanction a year earlier, and now this, and I bet no one will be calling for his head, or watching his every move, almost willing him to hit someone again - as they constantly do with Baz. They might've defended him after the Thompson incident, but you can bet your life some of them are waiting with bated breathe for him to fail again.

Ah now I understand!

[anfo27]

I'm surprised by the reactions...all this suspension does is highlight the inconsistency of the MRP.

First person to ever be suspended for unnecessary and unreasonable contact to an injured player, which is the charge I disagree with most. Johnson was making no effort to leave the ground, and is therefore fair game. If he's got an injury, he shouldn't be playing. How could Baker get weeks for that, whilst Fisher didn't get cited for hitting Bartel as he left the ground. I know they looked at it, but their explanation (surprisingly :P ) doesn't make sense.

Not in this day and age of football jazza. A lot of kids are watching these games and the AFL can not be seen to be letting this type of behaviour go unpunished. If your kid is playing junior football and hurts himself, then desides to tough it out and then his opponent keeps whacking him there behind play do you think thats fair game?

[Flamethrower]

I predicted that Baker would get 10 weeks at work today, so I am not surprised at all. The majority of the suspension is for the 2 punches to Johnson's jaw and the punch to Johnson's abdomen during the 1st quarter. The punch to Johnson's injured hand only added 1 week (140 pts with an early plea).

Don't forget Baker gets the maximum loading for having a lengthy suspension in the last 3 years (7 weeks against Freo in 2007), so every charge is increased by 50%.

I am surprised Johnson only got 2 weeks for elbowing Baker to the head - I thought he should get 4 for that and another week for the strike in the 1st Q.

[Swoop]

What is the difference between Baker's actions last Friday night and Jack Riewoldt's actions on Tayte Pears a few weeks ago?

[Remi Moses]

Folks you should hear the Stkilda hysteria on their network SEN! Poor widdle Stevie has been crucified,a couple of their groupies had Hall hung drawn and quartered a few weeks back...:rolleyes:

[aker39]

All this decision does is strenghten my opinion that the MRP are a bunch of fools.

[EasternWest]

All this decision does is strenghten my opinion that the MRP are a bunch of fools.

I'll thank you not to plagiarise my thoughts a39.

[Topdog]

What is the difference between Baker's actions last Friday night and Jack Riewoldt's actions on Tayte Pears a few weeks ago?

This is something that will be ignored by the AFL and I think if we are honest there was a heck of a lot more intention on Jack's part than Bakers. Baker barely touched Steviej's hand. Jack was trying to punch Pears with a fair bit of force.


Is that because of how they interpreted matters this week compared to last week?

Of course it is. I'm with Hirdy on this one. If I were Baker I would appeal 2 of the incidents - the weak tap to the hand and the punch from behind. Neither were "of sufficient force".

[boydogs]

Baker was absolutely crucified, maybe 1 week for the one to the jaw but that's it.
Johnson about right & what Judd should have copped.

[Sedat]

Far be it for me to be an apologist for St Kilda in this instance, but I think this is a heavy-handed penalty in the extreme. We all know Baker is a pest but he happens to be extremely effective at for the most part legally shutting down opposition playmakers inside forward 50. He absolutely smashed Johnson fair and square in the GF and did likewise to Aker in the PF, and Johnson's frustration at being toweled up again should not give him carte blanche to let fly with a stray elbow - if Hall can show the necessary restraint with far more sustained niggle from an opponent, it should be good enough for Johnson to show similar restraint. What Baker did to Johnson on Friday night amounted to little more than slight over-zealousness in the type niggle that goes on in every match. Absolutely ludicrous decision by the MRP.

[LostDoggy]

Far be it for me to be an apologist for St Kilda in this instance, but I think this is a heavy-handed penalty in the extreme. We all know Baker is a pest but he happens to be extremely effective at for the most part legally shutting down opposition playmakers inside forward 50. He absolutely smashed Johnson fair and square in the GF and did likewise to Aker in the PF, and Johnson's frustration at being toweled up again should not give him carte blanche to let fly with a stray elbow - if Hall can show the necessary restraint with far more sustained niggle from an opponent, it should be good enough for Johnson to show similar restraint. What Baker did to Johnson on Friday night amounted to little more than slight over-zealousness in the type niggle that goes on in every match. Absolutely ludicrous decision by the MRP.

I think you are dead right, what about Judd, how the hell did he not get a few weeks, it is the inconsistencies of the MRP that are a worry, the players and clubs would have no idea what they are facing when cited, the AFL must do something to result in more consistent decisions.

[LostDoggy]

Far be it from me to show any kind of sympathy to St. Kilda, butI also think the penalty is quite harsh. However, surely a player who has a pretty bad record (priors) is walking a very fine line with this type of behaviour? I liken it to a yellow card in the round ball game - players know they are on thin ice. Surely this little pest must have known that if he was cited, they would throw the book at him, given his record? But how Judd didn't go for his elbow on Pav I'll never know?:confused: .

[Mantis]

Huge over-reaction by the MRP.... It hasn't been a great week for adminstrations of the AFL & FIFA has it.

Baker should have gotten 2 to 3 for the punch on the chin.

SJ is getting out of this very lightly, his elbow is comfortably worth a 5 to 6 week holiday.

As Sedat has pointed out Baker is a pest, but this punishment is over the top and is making the AFL & MRP look stupid... which I guess isn't too hard a task.

[LostDoggy]

Baker deserves everything he has been hit with. Three counts of striking plus the week for hitting an injured player. Additional penalties for priors are set by the system and the MRP has no influence over them

All of this is an indictment on the umpires for mine. An umpire with a feel for the game should have intervened in the ongoing argy bargy before it got to six reports.

This is an important aspect of the umpires' role in ensuring the game is played in the proper manner.

Their inaction did nothing to prevent this blight on our game.

[LostDoggy]

I think the penalty is twice as harsh as it needs to be. Baker has been made a scape goat. Thompson and McPhee should have been cited when they did it. That is where the inconsistencies come in, and leaves everyone confused.

[aker39]

Baker deserves everything he has been hit with. Three counts of striking plus the week for hitting an injured player. Additional penalties for priors are set by the system and the MRP has no influence over them.

The MRP may have no influence over them, but they certainly had influence over not citing Judd, not citing Reiwoldt, not citing Kennedy, the list goes on.

[mjp]

This seems completely insane to me.

If Johnson is fit to play this week - and by this I mean whatever is ailing him was not caused by Baker - then there is no way the penalty can be any more than a few weeks.

The 'uglier' of the charges relating to him trying to belt Johnson in the hand drew the smallest penalty...the punch to the chin is a once every month occurrence in the league and should only be a 2-week'er. Wasn't the whole point of having ex-players on the MRP so that they could understand the emotion associated with being on the ground? The hits to the hand? Like all of the niggly tactics employed by taggers (and this is where Geelong needs to shut up as Ling is as bad as any of them) they need to be stamped out of the game as soon as possible.

I am tired of the AFL. Why do they do things like this? As an aside, a penalty of 14-weeks is simply just going to cause an outcry, an appeal is almost certain and the publicity will never simmer down. If they were smart, both players would be missing about 3 or 4 weeks, a strong public statement would have been read out about unsportsmanlike conduct etc (and the Thompson on Hall example could also have been used, as well as footage of every tagger in the league every week) saying that it will no longer be tolerated with Baker given a 3-month suspended sentence on that basis. Problem solved and message sent. But they have to do everything the hard way.

[LostDoggy]

The MRP may have no influence over them, but they certainly had influence over not citing Judd, not citing Reiwoldt, not citing Kennedy, the list goes on.

Certainly they do but my comment does not refer to any matter other than the Baker/Johnson issue.

Some posters appear concerned with the cumulative effect of the penalties. Each incident must be considered on its merits and penalties imposed accordingly.

To not do this suggests that after a player belts a player in the first quarter he might as well continue to wack him as he will not incur any further penalty.

Yes, 12 or 14 weeks is a penalty likely to grab headline news. So it bloody ought to. The bloke was guilty of four offences of striking IN ONE GAME added to an appalling record.

Of all their failings (and there have been plenty) the MRP has finally got it right. There is no place in the game for this idiot Baker.

[Doc26]

This seems completely insane to me.

If Johnson is fit to play this week - and by this I mean whatever is ailing him was not caused by Baker - then there is no way the penalty can be any more than a few weeks.

The 'uglier' of the charges relating to him trying to belt Johnson in the hand drew the smallest penalty...the punch to the chin is a once every month occurrence in the league and should only be a 2-week'er.

But technically it was only assessed as 2 weeks, actually one week with an early plea.

The issue for Baker is actually the combined activation points of 1200 because of the 4 separate charges occuring in the one game - reduced to 900 pts if he accepts an early plea.

One of the morals to the story is to ensure you don't get charged for mutiple offences in the one game when you already have a 50% loading.

If each of his charges had occurred independently with no priors and with an early plea the total suspension across the 4 charges would only equate to 3 games rather than the 9 he is looking at.

It is far more to do to with how the points system and loadings work in this case particularly with multiple charges in a single game. The better argument to have would be whether the points system is reasonable for scenarios like Baker's where all the stars aligned to work against him.

[Topdog]

Far be it for me to be an apologist for St Kilda in this instance, but I think this is a heavy-handed penalty in the extreme. We all know Baker is a pest but he happens to be extremely effective at for the most part legally shutting down opposition playmakers inside forward 50. He absolutely smashed Johnson fair and square in the GF and did likewise to Aker in the PF, and Johnson's frustration at being toweled up again should not give him carte blanche to let fly with a stray elbow - if Hall can show the necessary restraint with far more sustained niggle from an opponent, it should be good enough for Johnson to show similar restraint. What Baker did to Johnson on Friday night amounted to little more than slight over-zealousness in the type niggle that goes on in every match. Absolutely ludicrous decision by the MRP.

I think it is harsh but he did punch Johnson in the face twice. That is a heck of a lot more than slight over-zealousness in the niggle area.

[Mofra]

He reaps what he sows. If a player did this four times over the course of a season and was not initially loaded up due to prior penalties, we wouldn't be battering an eyelid at the penalties.
His loading, plus the cumulative effect of all 4 incidents occurring in the same game, make the penalty appear far harsher than reality.

SJ could probably feel aggrieved considering Judd's free pass was arguably worse, from arguably less niggle.

[mighty_west]

For people saying Baker was harshly dealt with, rewind back to last year when Barry Hall bopped Ben Rutten on the chin, with not alot of force compared to his hit on Staker, Rutten basically looked at Barry and said, what the freck are you doing? and kind of laughed it off.

I can't exactly remember how many weeks Hally got for that, but there wasn't much more in that tap than Bakers jabs on Stevie J's jaw, but Baker bopped him 3 times, plus the hand tap.

If Bazza did that to Rutten on 3 seperate occasions during thast game, i wonder how many Barry would have recieved, wouldn't have been alot different to what Baker copped imo.

Baker is just dumb, and a serial thug, for someone with such a history, and loading hanging over his head, plus the fact that his team is going to press for a Premiership this season, all you can ask is...WHYYYYYYYYYYY?

[bornadog]

Baker to contest two of the charges.

[mjp]

But technically it was only assessed as 2 weeks, actually one week with an early plea.

The issue for Baker is actually the combined activation points of 1200 because of the 4 separate charges occuring in the one game - reduced to 900 pts if he accepts an early plea.


I get how it works...but my point remains. There is one 'real' offense in there and it is a two week'er. He has been penalised 14 weeks...which is INSANE.

[Before I Die]

I get how it works...but my point remains. There is one 'real' offense in there and it is a two week'er. He has been penalised 14 weeks...which is INSANE.

Not sure i agree with this. It's the same as driving through the same speed camera over and over again without realising it. Each time you get booked and the penalties add up. Being a 'serial pest' or 'constantly annoying', are not offences, striking is.

The umpires could have saved Baker this penalty by booking him early, resulting in a two week penalty. That is assuming he stopped wacking Johnson once he was booked, but at the end of the day it is Baker who has brought this on himself.

I am actually very happy with the outcome.

[mjp]

The umpires could have saved Baker this penalty by booking him early, resulting in a two week penalty. That is assuming he stopped wacking Johnson once he was booked, but at the end of the day it is Baker who has brought this on himself.


How? What he did was not as bad as what SJ did, or what Judd did to Pavlich the week before. Apart from the smack in the chin to SJ, what precisely did he do wrong? And by 'wrong' I mean what did he do that hasn't been done repeatedly and without penalty for the last five years? The whole 'whacking the hand' thing - we must all have short memories because Lake engaged in this against Riewoldt just last year...zero comment on this board about it.

Maybe Baker is owed a few weeks suspension for transgressions over time. But not like this. I maintain the AFL is asking for trouble with this penalty - that Baker has already appealed is no surprise.

[Before I Die]

How? What he did was not as bad as what SJ did, or what Judd did to Pavlich the week before. Apart from the smack in the chin to SJ, what precisely did he do wrong? And by 'wrong' I mean what did he do that hasn't been done repeatedly and without penalty for the last five years? The whole 'whacking the hand' thing - we must all have short memories because Lake engaged in this against Riewoldt just last year...zero comment on this board about it.

Maybe Baker is owed a few weeks suspension for transgressions over time. But not like this. I maintain the AFL is asking for trouble with this penalty - that Baker has already appealed is no surprise.

Each of Baker's offences were less than SJ's, his problem was that he repeated them over and over again.

No supporter calls for their own players to be suspended, that still doesn't mean that they condone it.

[Greystache]

Each of Baker's offences were less than SJ's, his problem was that he repeated them over and over again.

And that's where I believe many people have a problem with the outcome, the MRP are supposed to judge each incident on it's merits and decide an appropriate penalty accordingly. It's clear in this case they've assessed all incidents as one package, determined a penalty of 7 weeks (plus his loading), then allocated that suspension to the individual incidents. One possibly two incident would warrant reprimand or suspension, but not all four. This is in stark contradiction to the MRP panels framework and how they've been operating since it was introduced.

It's hard to view the incident neutrally given my utter contempt for Baker, but if pushed I can concede he was harshly dealt with.

[Scraggers]

Baker is a sniper ... always has been.

His carry-over points make each of his offences worse. The fact that pleaded guilty to two of the offences (giving him five weeks guaranteed) tells me that he knows he acted outside the laws of the game.

But I think this is where the problem lies, cause if the umpires don't know the rules how are we supposed to know ... particularly as they change weekly.

I, like a lot of other people on this board, am bemused weekly with the MRP. How Judd got nothing leaves me gobsmacked; how Thompson had his case thrown out (against Hall) astounds me.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I actually agree with the MRP this week. For the four seperate offences AND his carry-over points ... they got it right.

[Doc26]

And that's where I believe many people have a problem with the outcome, the MRP are supposed to judge each incident on it's merits and decide an appropriate penalty accordingly. It's clear in this case they've assessed all incidents as one package, determined a penalty of 7 weeks (plus his loading), then allocated that suspension to the individual incidents. One possibly two incident would warrant reprimand or suspension, but not all four. This is in stark contradiction to the MRP panels framework and how they've been operating since it was introduced.

It's hard to view the incident neutrally given my utter contempt for Baker, but if pushed I can concede he was harshly dealt with.

This is exactly what the MRP have done, that is, judged each charge on its merits. I don't see a problem with the assessment of each other than possibly one of the striking charges which understandably St Kilda I see will be contesting. It looks a large penalty because of the accumulation of 225 demerit points x 3 and then another at ~125 points for misconduct and then multiplied by 50% for his carry over loading from ~Rd 20 2007.

The misconduct rule that some posters have talked about re Lake on Riewoldt in last year's prelim did not apply in its current form i.e. it is new for season 2010 and as such is irrelevant to the argument. Even with that, for a player with no loading and a 25% early plea this offence would in itself not carry a 1 week penalty but ~92 carryover points.

[AndrewP6]

For people saying Baker was harshly dealt with, rewind back to last year when Barry Hall bopped Ben Rutten on the chin, with not alot of force compared to his hit on Staker, Rutten basically looked at Barry and said, what the freck are you doing? and kind of laughed it off.

I can't exactly remember how many weeks Hally got for that, but there wasn't much more in that tap than Bakers jabs on Stevie J's jaw, but Baker bopped him 3 times, plus the hand tap.

If Bazza did that to Rutten on 3 seperate occasions during thast game, i wonder how many Barry would have recieved, wouldn't have been alot different to what Baker copped imo.

Baker is just dumb, and a serial thug, for someone with such a history, and loading hanging over his head, plus the fact that his team is going to press for a Premiership this season, all you can ask is...WHYYYYYYYYYYY?


Funny that everyone with even a slight interest/understanding of AFL will cite Bazza as a thug (apart from the learned folk on WOOF of course! ;) ), reminding people of the infamous Staker incident. Yet Baker was rubbed out for the same number of weeks a year earlier. Yes, Baz does have form in that department, but I bet the media coverage will focus on the "harshness" of the penalty dished out in this instance.

I think we're in agreement :)

[mjp]

The misconduct rule that some posters have talked about re Lake on Riewoldt in last year's prelim did not apply in its current form.

No - as a rule it didn't. But as an attitude it did. We can't slag Baker for his actions having given Lake a free pass...people are saying Baker deserves 14 weeks - 14 weeks - and the guy he hit is fit to play this weekend.

If someone is going to be suspended for 14 weeks then the incident had better be pretty darn serious, have caused injury to the other person involved and receive airplay on highlights videos for years to come. Johnson is FINE. What is the suspension for? This is complete craziness and using the points system to justify a 14-week suspension for Baker is just bureaucracy gone crazy.

Imagine if one of our players copped 14-weeks for this?

I just cannot believe it. I cannot stand Baker and I cannot stand the way St Kilda play footy, but this is simply wrong.

[GVGjr]

SJ is getting out of this very lightly, his elbow is comfortably worth a 5 to 6 week holiday.



Totally agree. It was a dangerous act and Johnson is a very lucky man if it all gets knocked down to 3 weeks.

[EasternWest]

How? What he did was not as bad as what SJ did, or what Judd did to Pavlich the week before. Apart from the smack in the chin to SJ, what precisely did he do wrong? And by 'wrong' I mean what did he do that hasn't been done repeatedly and without penalty for the last five years? The whole 'whacking the hand' thing - we must all have short memories because Lake engaged in this against Riewoldt just last year...zero comment on this board about it.
Maybe Baker is owed a few weeks suspension for transgressions over time. But not like this. I maintain the AFL is asking for trouble with this penalty - that Baker has already appealed is no surprise.

I can only speak for myself here, but I have made mention of this a few times.

[mjp]

I can only speak for myself here, but I have made mention of this a few times.

Fair enough...I don't recall any impassioned 'we are better than this' type stuff yet many are happily skewering Baker.

[EasternWest]

Fair enough...I don't recall any impassioned 'we are better than this' type stuff yet many are happily skewering Baker.

I agree totally. I don't like Baker much (I respect that he's been able to play AFL for a long time when he's not overly skilled), but I don't think the punishment anywhere near fits the crime. Though I understand the cumulative points total, so please don't explain it to me, I think the penalty too harsh.

[The Coon Dog]

Tribunal catches up with Baker: Aker

UPDATE 3.30pm: JASON Akermanis says years of unfair tactics have caught up with Saints tagger Steven Baker.

Baker is facing an extended stint on the sidelines after copping a 12-game ban from the match-review panel.

He has pleaded guilty to two striking charges, accepting a five-week suspension.

But the Saints will appeal Baker's other two charges at the tribunal tonight.

Article in full... (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/geelongs-steve-johnson-hit-with-x-week-ban-for-elbow-on-st-kildas-steven-baker/story-e6frf9jf-1225884874765)

[chef]

Tribunal catches up with Baker: Aker

UPDATE 3.30pm: JASON Akermanis says years of unfair tactics have caught up with Saints tagger Steven Baker.

Baker is facing an extended stint on the sidelines after copping a 12-game ban from the match-review panel.

He has pleaded guilty to two striking charges, accepting a five-week suspension.

But the Saints will appeal Baker's other two charges at the tribunal tonight.

Article in full... (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/geelongs-steve-johnson-hit-with-x-week-ban-for-elbow-on-st-kildas-steven-baker/story-e6frf9jf-1225884874765)

:(I wish he would just concentrate on trying to get back in the side. I'm not a fan of him doing articles about other players/clubs while he's still on a list.

[The Coon Dog]

:(I wish he would just concentrate on trying to get back in the side. I'm not a fan of him doing articles about over players/clubs while he's still on a list.

Tend to agree with you there chef, though in his defence, it wasn't an article per se, more comments on his radio gig.

[Remi Moses]

Getting a tad Nancy aren't we? Mark Thompson made comment on the whole sordid affair,personally would never employ the services of Baker's legal team.
Went in pleading not guilty to one of the charges only to find some other vision then pleading guilty!! Lionel Hutz :p

[Scraggers]

Been to AFL MRP and copped nine in total !!!

link (http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/97145/default.aspx)

[AndrewP6]

Been to AFL MRP and copped nine in total !!!

link (http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/97145/default.aspx)

Kind of amusing to read that they decided against appealing the first charge after viewing the incident on the AFL's 'high-definition television'... what finer detail could this have shed on the situation? ;)

[Sedat]

I think it is harsh but he did punch Johnson in the face twice. That is a heck of a lot more than slight over-zealousness in the niggle area.
I've seen a number of more forceful blows in other cases deemed to be 'insufficient force' by the MRP.

Agree totally with mjp's comments on this thread. Just a rotten decision to the core, and one made for cynical reasons that have nothing to do with fairness and equity. Believe me I feel dirty for siding with Baker and St Kilda, but calling it as I see it. From a purely selfish perspective, I'm delighted that Baker is out of the St Kilda team for so long because he proved in last year's finals series just how brilliant he is at completely shutting dangerous small and mid forwards out of the game.

[The Adelaide Connection]

Kind of amusing to read that they decided against appealing the first charge after viewing the incident on the AFL's 'high-definition television'... what finer detail could this have shed on the situation? ;)

Ha, exactly what I was thinking. I imagine they must have been reviewing it with frame by frame sketches on papyrus.

[AndrewP6]

Ha, exactly what I was thinking. I imagine they must have been reviewing it with frame by frame sketches on papyrus.

I'm just picturing them standing right up close to the screen, slowing it down..."OH, so that's what happened. OK, we won't contest that"...

Or maybe the TV, as well as being high-def, is really, REALLY BIG....

http://sas.guidespot.com/bundles/guides_bw/assets/widget_dwqAbfWqfpm4leULi75PFF.jpg

:D

[The Adelaide Connection]

Or maybe this guy was the one that reviewed it before they went to the tribunal
http://www.themovieblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/bubbles.jpg

[Sockeye Salmon]

I don't agree with the extra match for hitting Johnson's hand, there was no way Baker could have known it was broken and if he's out there he is assumed to be fit (I was more concerned with Fisher pushing Bartel as he was coming off in obvious pain).

The three stiking charges were absolutely spot on. Don't get caught up in the length of the suspension because there were three seperate charges, carry over points and a 50% "only just got done a while back" loading.

He basically got 2 weeks for each with no discount for a good record and add half again for being a serial turd.


Just what he deserved.



Just because the MRP gets it wrong most weeks doesn't make this one wrong. Much like a stopped clock is right twice a day, occassionally the MRP gets it right.

[LostDoggy]

I don't agree with the extra match for hitting Johnson's hand, there was no way Baker could have known it was broken and if he's out there he is assumed to be fit (I was more concerned with Fisher pushing Bartel as he was coming off in obvious pain).

The three stiking charges were absolutely spot on. Don't get caught up in the length of the suspension because there were three seperate charges, carry over points and a 50% "only just got done a while back" loading.

He basically got 2 weeks for each with no discount for a good record and add half again for being a serial turd.

Just what he deserved.

Just because the MRP gets it wrong most weeks doesn't make this one wrong. Much like a stopped clock is right twice a day, occassionally the MRP gets it right.

Agree with all of this. The principle of prior convictions weighing against the charged player is being entirely lost in this argument. As is the fact that separate charges in the same day cannot and ought not be considered concurrently.

Indeed, there is a fair argument that plural charges on the same day deserve additional penalties.

[Doc26]

Not much wrong with the MRP's findings on Baker on this occasion. However it does highlight inconsistencies in weeks past.

The case also raises questions as to how the points system, in particular the calculation of demerit points, should be calculated for multiple offences within a single match. There could be an argument put for instances where the accumulation of more than 100 carryover points as a result of multiple charges could be carried over in some form rather than each 100 points x any loading being added to a given match day total.

[Scraggers]

No appeal ... He's gone for nine

[Remi Moses]

Gee have to say Ross Lyon has handled this well ,that press conference he had yesterday was first class. Saw the tape and basically lambasted Baker,no spin no B/S.

[KT31]

I don't agree with the extra match for hitting Johnson's hand, there was no way Baker could have known it was broken and if he's out there he is assumed to be fit (I was more concerned with Fisher pushing Bartel as he was coming off in obvious pain).

.

Could not agree more.
He took the field and if you are deemed fit enough to play, you suffer the consequences.

[Ghost Dog]

I'm surprised by the reactions...all this suspension does is highlight the inconsistency of the MRP.

First person to ever be suspended for unnecessary and unreasonable contact to an injured player, which is the charge I disagree with most. Johnson was making no effort to leave the ground, and is therefore fair game. If he's got an injury, he shouldn't be playing. How could Baker get weeks for that, whilst Fisher didn't get cited for hitting Bartel as he left the ground. I know they looked at it, but their explanation (surprisingly :P ) doesn't make sense.

I noticed Reiwoldt having a bash at another players strapped wrist in the most recent Carlton clash. So, I'm a bit confused at the ruling. Can you hit another player in the leg or arm if it's strapped or not?

[Ghost Dog]

yeah I agree. I was surprised at the lack of spin.

[Mantis]

yeah I agree. I was surprised at the lack of spin.

Are you talking about a something in this thread or a Shane Warne delivery?

(In future can you quote the post you are referencing so we know what you are on about)

[mjp]

Gee have to say Ross Lyon has handled this well ,that press conference he had yesterday was first class. Saw the tape and basically lambasted Baker,no spin no B/S.

Fair enough. How can he not take some responsibility for all this though - he has basically advocated the behavior and tactics of Baker and Jones for several seasons now...the way things were going the line was going to be crossed (though I still maintain 9 weeks is a completely excessive penalty). Now it is all Baker's fault?

What about 'He is playing footy the way I ask him too - restrict opposition forwards in any way possible. I guess this time he has crossed the line but I suppose I am accountable for this in some way by allowing these "outside the rules" tactics for a few years. I am also disappointed in Jones continued holding of his opponent at stoppages - I will be addressing that during the week.'

[ledge]

Mjp I dont agree with 9 weeks being too much, what was it ? four different incidents? three of them hits on the jaw?
None of them during play.
9 weeks seems okay to me.
3 weeks for slapping a bloke on the hand a bit rough but hey he also condemned himself with lying to the tribunal, pleading not guilty when camera pics clearly showed he was, making him plea guilty, thats just shows how sly and sneaky this guy is even when caught in the act.

I think the tribunal should give extra weeks when a player pleads not guilty and it is there for all to see he is guilty, just for the fact he out and out lied!

I agree coaches should take some blame if its more than a one off thing though, the player has a history of it and obviously the coach has agreed with it, just refused to fix it, or even coached it into him.

[EasternWest]

Fair enough. How can he not take some responsibility for all this though - he has basically advocated the behavior and tactics of Baker and Jones for several seasons now...the way things were going the line was going to be crossed (though I still maintain 9 weeks is a completely excessive penalty). Now it is all Baker's fault?

What about 'He is playing footy the way I ask him too - restrict opposition forwards in any way possible. I guess this time he has crossed the line but I suppose I am accountable for this in some way by allowing these "outside the rules" tactics for a few years. I am also disappointed in Jones continued holding of his opponent at stoppages - I will be addressing that during the week.'

Yeah the most arrogant coach in the AFL will definitely say that. Oh look, is that Grant Thomas flying?