Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four

[Mofra]

Re: Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four

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]

Re: Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four

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]

Re: Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four

Baker to contest two of the charges.

[mjp]

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.

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]

Re: Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four

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]

Re: Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four

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]

Re: Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four

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]

Re: Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four

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]

Re: Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four

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]

Re: Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four

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]

Re: Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four

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]

Re: Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four

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]

Re: Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four

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]

Re: Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four

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]

Re: Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four

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.