Now I'll admit that because my fiance is a Saints fan I do watch a lot of them and have developed a soft spot but they're still nothing on the Mighty Dees! But I thought this deserved it's on thread and to see what everyone thought on his suspension?

Now he does play like this reguly and deserved 3-4 weeks IMO but 9 is very, very heavy handed.

As a football lover the thing that annoys me is the inconsistency of the match review panel, Judd gets off last week, Kennedy on Sylvia, as did J. Riewoldt when he punched Pears injured hand in round 9 but Baker ends up copping 9 in total for a rib tickler, one whack to the hand and another two to the chin.

What's everyone elses thought on this? Fair enough or just grossly inconsistent and over the top?

Edited June 29, 201015 yr by Tall Defence

There is no way he should get weeks for the hand slap. Johnson had already had treatment on the hand, and came back onto the field. i.e. - not injured.

I don't disagree that the AFL should protect players, but it's not their job to protect players from themselves.

(Which is why watching Geelong infuriates me - yes, I'm looking at you, Selwood!)

The inconsistency has always been an issue but this year it has gone to another level.

Sylvia's broken jaw unpunished, Buddy Franklin getting a raw deal IMO, Judd getting off - Buddy would have got 4 for the same, Jack Riewoldt not being sighted, it goes on and on.

When that carry on with Hall and Thompson was highlighted it was obvious to me that the next antagonistic player to attempt anything such as this would find himself in trouble, Steve Baker come on down!!

The old push and shove will now disappear from the game as it is sanitised more and more, players such as Johnson and Hall have no way of reciprocating to the niggle of Baker or Thompson, even the square up hip and shoulder is too risky these days.

Aaron Davey must be loving this as he is far too easily put off his game by these types.

I can't stand Baker for the most part but he has been seriously hard done by.

Now I'll admit that because my fiance is a Saints fan I do watch a lot of them and have developed a soft spot but they're still nothing on the Mighty Dees! But I thought this deserved it's on thread and to see what everyone thought on his suspension?

Now he does play like this reguly and deserved 3-4 weeks IMO but 9 is very, very heavy handed.

As a football lover the thing that annoys me is the inconsistency of the match review panel, Judd gets off last week, Kennedy on Sylvia, as did J. Riewoldt when he punched Pears injured hand in round 9 but Baker ends up copping 9 in total for a rib tickler, one whack to the hand and another two to the chin.

What's everyone elses thought on this? Fair enough or just grossly inconsistent and over the top?

I don't like him but yes its on par with Melbourne Storms treatment.

I'm seriously torn on this verdict.

On the positive side, I think that there is no place for that style of play on the football field. A player has a reasonable expectation that he can show up at a match and not be assaulted by his opponent. Baker punched him repeatedly (and has only been suspended for the most obvious of them), and so should clearly be suspended. I also agree that attempting to further damage an injury is against the spirit of the game and should be punished. Further to this, I don't understand why the AFL stands in such a privileged position that an assault can occur on national TV and be captured from multiple angles and the police not be involved. If I were to repeatedly punch someone in my place of work, I would not only be fired, I'd be in jail.

On the negative side of the issue is the inconsistency which is once again being highlighted. Baker is not being suspended because of what he did on the weekend. He is being suspended because there was a media uproar about both the treatment of Chris Judd by taggers (fueled by the Carlton complaints) and also over the softness of the review panel in not suspending Judd for his elbow on Pavlich. The review panel should be consistent and stick to their guns regardless of the pressure being applied by the media and club interests. Whether they have acted on their own initiative in this case or pressure has been brought from above, they have changed the way they adjudicate matches mid-season and with no notice to clubs. How can players possibly play in a manner regarded by officialdom as fair when they keep redefining the concept without notice?

So as I say, I am torn on the matter. I think the only real conclusion I can draw is that the Match Review Panel have once again shown themselves to be a farce. Whether the penalty stands up to a challenge or not, they have thrown away what little credibility they still had. The wild swings from one extreme to another and the leniency on the stars of the game show us all that the MRP is a failed experiment and needs to be scrapped.

We will see various different opinions on this thread which is good, but I imagine the final consensus of everyone will be that the Match Review Panel is flawed!

Would be nice for us if this would affect St Kilda for the game this week, but the amount of issues they have dealt with in 2010, Baker, Lovett, Milne, Riewoldt...amazing that they can continue to churn it out so effectively.

Saints Footy = [censored] Footy....can't stand watching them but full credit to them.

No doubt they will get over this quickly and get their frustration out on Sunday by strangling the life out of us!

Edited June 29, 201015 yr by Demon Jack 16

We will see various different opinions on this thread which is good, but I imagine the final consensus of everyone will be that the Match Review Panel is flawed!

Would be nice for us if this would affect St Kilda for the game this week, but the amount of issues they have dealt with in 2010, Baker, Lovett, Milne, Riewoldt...amazing that they can continue to churn it out so effectively.

Saints Footy = [censored] Footy....can't stand watching them but full credit to them.

No doubt they will get over this quickly and get their frustration out on Sunday by strangling the life out of us!

He will end up with 7 weeks.

I'm Glad they put him up on 4 charges. But the Umpires & the AFL, or rather firstly the AFL & then Gieschen & thern the Umpires who do the onfield bidding of the AFL's interpretations cop it at the end of the day. But Baker deserves all of it.

In short I think this storm has erupted because of the AFL's double standards regarding protected species players getting off (see Judd), & letting negating players 'Mug' their opponents & getting away with it. (Remember Peter Welsh doing this type of thing behind the play to Robbie Flower years ago).

Taggers are OK, & I think what McPhee did to judd was Just tolerable, only just, but not more. Thats what I call the hardest Tag. What Baker was doing was the same but worse of what that North fellow wa doing to Bazza Hall, 7 both deserved a mouth full of knuckles for their Assaults & Bullying tactics designed to bring the other party down to below their level.

If Players want to use those tactics they have to take the consequences & the Umpires should be doing their jobs. This is where the whole problem started, Umpires Not stopping this intimidatory tactics from the start.

I want the game to be tough & I want the Big guys to be able to play hard. But not be assaulted by tough little guys who think they can get away with it as the underdog.

Any rule that outlaws serial snipers with past records like Baker should be applauded.

Agree on the inconsistencies of the MRP. I am glad they made a statement on this bloke though.

Any rule that outlaws serial snipers with past records like Baker should be applauded.

Agree on the inconsistencies of the MRP. I am glad they made a statement on this bloke though.

Agreed. The inconsistency is a joke - but bloody hell it couldn't have happened to a better person.

Agreed. The inconsistency is a joke - but bloody hell it couldn't have happened to a better person.

Didn't Baker get a seven week suspension earlier in his career?

That increases the suspension by 50% - from eight weeks to twelve.

And only two of those suspensions he deserved - two of the striking charges. So that works out to be four weeks, plus 50% is six. I personally would have given him four, but I reckon he'll end up with six.

The AFL protects the stars now, if Baker elbowed Pavlich or bumped Sylvia, that's four weeks for him. But not for the Judds, Abletts and Riewoldts.

Any rule that outlaws serial snipers with past records like Baker should be applauded.

Agree on the inconsistencies of the MRP. I am glad they made a statement on this bloke though.

Serial sniper, yeah, absolutely. He wants to play like that, & then gets his dad to publicly squeal on his behalf.

PS: Wheels showed how to do it Up Front, not from behind or behind the play.

Edited June 29, 201015 yr by dee-luded

I was happy to see him get 9, he is a dead set mug and I for one don't want to go to the football and see that sort of crap. Liberatore said this morning now he looks back at it he wasn't proud of some of the things he did as a player and he was a blight on the game. That sort of thing belongs back in the 50's and 60's.

I wouldn't like to see some d/head doing that to one of our kids, if that's all Baker's got left he might as well give it away.

Absolute mongre# who should be rubbed out for good.

His team plays shocking football that will eventually kill off the game.

16 defenders & 2 forwards.

A pox on them.

The interesting thing is that if any player with no record was done for any one of those incidents then he would have copped 2 weeks reduced to 1 with a guilty plea.

The fact that he's got a shocking record means that the two weeks become 3. Loosely multiplied by 4 means he gets 12 all up.

If he was suspended for any one of those incidents, given his record, for 3 weeks then nobody would have said boo.

The interesting thing is that if any player with no record was done for any one of those incidents then he would have copped 2 weeks reduced to 1 with a guilty plea.

The fact that he's got a shocking record means that the two weeks become 3. Loosely multiplied by 4 means he gets 12 all up.

If he was suspended for any one of those incidents, given his record, for 3 weeks then nobody would have said boo.

That sort of Behaviour/play (by Baker) is a real blight on the game.

I was excited by the Play the other week by McFee without that maliciousness that baker showed, plus I have a little bit of bias for Judd & carlton, but thought that McFee game was just tolerable. Maybe a few free kicks here or there were called for but nothing more that I saw. Baker, sorry, he deserves @ least 8 matches for the whole thing.

The inconsistency has always been an issue but this year it has gone to another level.

Sylvia's broken jaw unpunished, Buddy Franklin getting a raw deal IMO, Judd getting off - Buddy would have got 4 for the same, Jack Riewoldt not being sighted, it goes on and on.

When that carry on with Hall and Thompson was highlighted it was obvious to me that the next antagonistic player to attempt anything such as this would find himself in trouble, Steve Baker come on down!!

The old push and shove will now disappear from the game as it is sanitised more and more, players such as Johnson and Hall have no way of reciprocating to the niggle of Baker or Thompson, even the square up hip and shoulder is too risky these days.

Aaron Davey must be loving this as he is far too easily put off his game by these types.

I can't stand Baker for the most part but he has been seriously hard done by.

clint jones says hello

I'd be ashamed to see a Melbourne player punching an opponent in his broken arm when the ball is up the other end. Yes,it's ruthless, and winning is all-important. But if you can,t win a premiership without such unsporting tactics, you don't deserve one. Ling's an effective negative spoiler, but he doesn't resort to gutter tactics. People like Baker and Judd deserve to have heavy suspensions.

I'd be ashamed to see a Melbourne player punching an opponent in his broken arm when the ball is up the other end. Yes,it's ruthless, and winning is all-important. But if you can,t win a premiership without such unsporting tactics, you don't deserve one. Ling's an effective negative spoiler, but he doesn't resort to gutter tactics. People like Baker and Judd deserve to have heavy suspensions.

Yeah, your spot on JJC, thats a great example.

Incidentally, looking at the incidents Baker was actually charged over, I think he was quite lucky. There were at least two more clear punches he could have been charged over as well. Given the way they marked him, 18 weeks could have been quite easily achieved.

The fact that he's got a shocking record means that the two weeks become 3. Loosely multiplied by 4 means he gets 12 all up.

Has he what? Up 11 times for 11 guilty findings. A real ball player. He described himself as an [censored] in an interview, no one is disagreeing.

He plays poker at crown a little, played with him twice and he's pretty quiet, was polite and nice to people asking about various things at St.Kilda (I think there was a Luke Ball injury at the time). Also not very good at poker.

But yeah maybe they went a little overboard imo, but because of the way the system works they had to. As long as he doesn't miss finals and it stops this stuff happening in the future it's alright imo.

His team plays shocking football that will eventually kill off the game.

No.

If our team was playing as well as St.Kilda. I doubt very much you would have the same opinion.

They lost 2 games last year.

They're 10-3 this year missing Riewoldt for a large portion and have been putting fires out left, right & centre off field.

I'm sure anyone but Geelong would take that - in St.Kilda's position. Despite losing last year on Grand Final day.

No.

If our team was playing as well as St.Kilda. I doubt very much you would have the same opinion.

They lost 2 games last year.

They're 10-3 this year missing Riewoldt for a large portion and have been putting fires out left, right & centre off field.

I'm sure anyone but Geelong would take that - in St.Kilda's position. Despite losing last year on Grand Final day.

Look they are so bad that for the first time in 40 years of following footy I turn the TV off if St Kilda or the Swans are on.

Its like rugby combined with a training drill just rubbish & me & the kids would rather watch Iron Chef or anything else.

I'd be ashamed to see a Melbourne player punching an opponent in his broken arm when the ball is up the other end. Yes,it's ruthless, and winning is all-important. But if you can,t win a premiership without such unsporting tactics, you don't deserve one. Ling's an effective negative spoiler, but he doesn't resort to gutter tactics. People like Baker and Judd deserve to have heavy suspensions.

Ling has given away the most free kicks of anyone this year.....

That would negate your comments somewhat.