Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four

[bornadog]

Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke

[mighty_west]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsartic...8/default.aspx

Good, nothing tough about being a thug.

[Scraggers]

Yippee ... yahoo

'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 )

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...