Tweet
Re: Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four
All this decision does is strenghten my opinion that the MRP are a bunch of fools.
All this decision does is strenghten my opinion that the MRP are a bunch of fools.
-
-
Re: Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four
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.
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".Originally posted by The Coon DogComment
-
Re: Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four
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.If you kicked five goals and Tom Boyd kicked five goals, Tom Boyd kicked more goals than you.
Formerly gogriffComment
-
Re: Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four
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."Look at me mate. Look at me. I'm flyin'"Comment
-
Re: Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four
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.Comment
-
Re: Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four
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?
.
Comment
-
Re: Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four
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.Comment
-
Re: Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four
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.Comment
-
Re: Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four
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.Comment
-
Re: Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four
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.What should I tell her? She's going to ask.Comment
-
Re: Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four
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.Last edited by LostDoggy; 29-06-2010, 12:15 PM.Comment
-
Re: Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four
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.Comment
Comment