Baker faces 14-match ban; Stevie Johnson four

[EasternWest]

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

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]

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

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...

[chef]

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

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...

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]

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

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]

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

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

[Scraggers]

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

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

link

[AndrewP6]

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

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

link

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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....

[The Adelaide Connection]

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

Or maybe this guy was the one that reviewed it before they went to the tribunal

[Sockeye Salmon]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

No appeal ... He's gone for nine