http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=60090

And Bucks isn't too happy about it all..

Absolute cry babies

Who gives a crap about what the 2 time runner up skipper instead of 3 time premiership player thinks.

Who gives a crap about what the 2 time runner up skipper instead of 3 time premiership player thinks.

Very much agree

Johnson got the appropiate penalty but the thing I cant understand is why a Brisbane Lions player did the same thing on the weekend but not as bad and only got 1 week.

The lions player if you look was going at the ball and was low to the ground before he braces, he doesn't target the player with ball.

According to Buckley Johnson felt sick in the stomach after. He knew he had done the wrong thing and was concerned about Bell.

I think the match review panel has got it 100% right. It would be very Collingwood to appeal but I think they know that it will be pointless.

I would have thought that after what Collingwood players have had to witness first hand with Caracella having his career cut short due to a head / neck injury, they would be a little more aware of this kind of thing.

Johnson had plenty of time to weigh up his options and refrain from the hit.

Cases like this have to be dealt with harshly, and 6 weeks is more than reasonable.

Imagine the disaster that could have occurred had Bell been seriously hurt, and been unable to play footy again, or much worse even not walk.

That is why these cases need to be dealt with in the harshest manner, and I think the review panel got this one spot on........may it be the necessary deterrent going forward!

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=60090

And Bucks isn't too happy about it all..

They're just used to getting their own way, so this must have come as a huge shock to the system !!!

at least buckley admitted johnson deserved a 'fair whack', and given johnson had a prior record i don't exactly know why he's whinging, especially about baker, an incident that he admits to not knowing the facts about. if i was him i'd have full focus on the swans, because their finals campaign is not guaranteed yet.

i believe 7 with 5 was a fair result for that hit, the extra game because of his bad record from the previous week! guys must be protected for going after the footy

It seems pretty fair, it was exactly the sort of hit that the AFL are trying to outlaw and they need to be harsh on it before another person gets there career ended (or worse) by front on bump.

I think the big thing that got Johnson was that it wasn't just a bump that hit the shoulder, he actually crunched the head, sever impact was the only possible result. I'm glad he felt sick after what happened, he should, and it shows that he has remorse. I'm still filthy for what he did, but he probably just had the hard-at-it mindset, and i'm sure that the last thing on his mind was to knock Bell unconcious.

Johnson accepts guilty plea

COLLINGWOOD'S Ben Johnson will not play again this season after he accepted a six-game suspension for making forceful front-on contact on Melbourne's Daniel Bell. Johnson opted not to contest the charge, arising from last Friday night's game at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, as he risked being suspended for eight games had he lost a challenge.

The problem with every aspect of this so-called "defence" of Johnson is the precedent set by the Tribunal in the Brent Moloney case a couple of years ago. In that case, the Tribunal disregarded the strong possibility that Moloney didn't even touch Jimmy Bartel and that Bartel sustained his injury when his head connected with the ground and said all of that was irrelevant in handing out a two week sentence. Johnson's hit wasn't spontaneous or spur of the moment. He should be getting the absolute maximum in this instance - 6 to 8 weeks.

Good call Oracle.

I seem to remember that their reasoning for giving Moloney 2 weeks was that although it's probable that he didn't make contact to Bartel, they believed Moloneys actions were the cause of his injuries. A load of crapola that everyone is used to from the tribunal.

why does the thread title say 'has contested and could get 8?' didn't he accept the 6?

I seem to remember that their reasoning for giving Moloney 2 weeks was that although it's probable that he didn't make contact to Bartel, they believed Moloneys actions were the cause of his injuries. A load of crapola that everyone is used to from the tribunal.

didnt bartel play the next weekend though? pretty severe injuries...

FWIW, the Johnson decision was correct.

The Baker decision of seven weeks was a sensible and just move.

For a much maligned group the Match Review Committee should be congratulated on these outcomes.

The Baker decision of seven weeks was a sensible and just move.

Just out of curiosity and I don't want to put my head in the lion's mouth over this, but did you see what happened RR? I watched the game and certainly didn't.

And with there being no independent evidence, (and sketchy testimony from a Fremantle trainer doesn't really count) how the hell can they give such a severe punishment (not factoring in his hang over points), when they apparently agreed with Baker's testimony, and no-one actually had a clear view of the apparent hit?

Yes Farmer was definitely injured and I am not saying that Baker did not do something to him (he said that he did bump him off the ball illegally by stepping into his path allowing Farmer to run into the back of him (& apparently has a bump on his head)), but no-one has any absolute proof of what actually happened.

I have to say that I am not even a little surprised that St Kilda are appealing, I would actually expect Melbourne to do the same with this kind of case.

But in the end I would have thought that it would be tough to penalise, especially to that extent, what you can't actually witness or prove independently.

Just out of curiosity and I don't want to put my head in the lion's mouth over this, but did you see what happened RR? I watched the game and certainly didn't.

And with there being no independent evidence, (and sketchy testimony from a Fremantle trainer doesn't really count) how the hell can they give such a severe punishment (not factoring in his hang over points), when they apparently agreed with Baker's testimony, and no-one actually had a clear view of the apparent hit?

Yes Farmer was definitely injured and I am not saying that Baker did not do something to him, he said that he did bump him (miles off) off the ball illegally by stepping into his path, but no-one has any absolute proof of what that actually was, and I have to say that I am not even a little surprised that St Kilda are appealing.

I would have thought that it would be tough to penalise, especially to that expect, what you can't actually witness independently.

if im correct, baker admits to making contact to him.

the ball is 50 m away he has no right to do anything to him.

the fact that farmer was left bleeding from the mouth and nose and concussed after baker admitted to making contact means that he deserved what he got. the contact was high (thus the concussion), it was out of play, it was obviously intentional (as the ball was no where near) and if they downgraded this point it doesnt matter, and i would consider it high or severe impact considering it knocked the bloke out.

why does there need to be absolute proof of what happened? baker admitted to bumping him illegally, we didnt see the bump but from the outcome we can infer what most likely happened. even with a conservative approach he gets weeks, and lots of them.

He said that Farmer hit the back of his head (head on head clash) and he has the bruising to show for it. And they said they believed him.

If that was illegal then Whelan would have served time for his hit on Ball in the opening round. He didn't and shouldn't.

And if inference and resulting injury is everything at the tribunal, rather than proof, then that is going to lead to all kinds of problems.

As I said Baker may have hit him (and he does have a bad record), but he was not charged with striking, because they couldn't.

As far as I'm aware, the in/behind play distinction has been dropped from the tribunal rules. I stand to be corrected but the "next potential phase of play" decision by the tribunal made it practically pointless anyway.

Secondly, Baker was charged with engaging in rough conduct. This appears to be on the basis of deliberately blocking Farmer's run into the forward 50. Farmer ran into the back of Baker's head after Baker stopped suddenly. 4 weeks suspension upgraded to 7 because of poor prior record and carryover points.

What I've said above isn't an opinion, it's the actual decision as reported on the AFL's website.

Even by the 4 week standard, that's rough. Farmer should have more awareness of his surroundings.

He said that Farmer hit the back of his head (head on head clash) and he has the bruising to show for it. And they said they believed him.

If that was illegal then Whelan would have served time for his hit on Ball in the opening round. He didn't and shouldn't.

And if inference and resulting injury is everything at the tribunal, rather than proof, then that is going to lead to all kinds of problems.

As I said Baker may have hit him (and he does have a bad record), but he was not charged with striking, because they couldn't.

distinct difference there queenc is that wheelan was legally entitled to sheppard Ball because the ball was within 5 metres. baker had to right to touch farmer. im pretty sure both farmer and baker said that the contact came from an angle where farmer couldnt have seen it...

and sorry by 'hit' i meant contact. you can 'hit' someone with a bump...sorry i didnt clarify myself.

But if that was the case then he is being penalised for a head clash simply because it happened off the ball. And while they are horrible and in this case maybe avoidable a head clash should not be punishable. I only used Whelan as an example to say that the injury (and Ball was badly hurt) is not always caused intentionally, and should not be the reason for any suspension. Part of the process yes but it is the action that causes the injury that is the reason for the suspension.

Besides to me there are still a few distinct differences in the actions of the players besides the off the ball stuff in that Whelan had intentionally shepherded Ball by a legal hip and shoulder, which led to the unfortunate clash of heads, yet according to Baker's testimony, which was accepted by the Tribunal, he actually 'blocked' Farmer and that Farmer ran into him again causing the unfortunate and very obvious injury.

On the one hand, Whelan laid a 'hip and shoulder' intending to cause contact whereas Baker laid a 'block' maybe with the intention to cause Farmer to stop/divert. What happened probably should have been a free kick on the day to Fremantle, but given no-one saw it that didn't eventuate.

Which is still where I start and stop. You should not be sentencing people or convicting people with no independent evidence of the crime.

But if that was the case then he is being penalised for a head clash simply because it happened off the ball.

And while they are horrible and in this case maybe avoidable a head clash should not be punishable.

What happened probably should have been a free kick on the day to Fremantle, but given no-one saw it that didn't eventuate.

Which is still where I start and stop.

You should not be sentencing people or convicting people with no independent evidence of the crime.

do we have a cpy of what baker actually admitted too? this would make it a whole lot easier...

but queenc, do you think an accidental headclash could cause that much damage? baker didnt suggest that farmer initiated the contact, which would have been the smart defence. he said, yeah i bumped him, but he apparently bumped him so hard he sent him into next week.

do we have a cpy of what baker actually admitted too? this would make it a whole lot easier...

but queenc, do you think an accidental headclash could cause that much damage? baker didnt suggest that farmer initiated the contact, which would have been the smart defence. he said, yeah i bumped him, but he apparently bumped him so hard he sent him into next week.

Yeah I read it somewhere I will try to track it down again.....

And no we don't know an accidental head clash would cause that kind of damage, but we also don't know that it wouldn't.

My main point throughout all of this (and sorry about the rhetoric) is that we can't know because we can't see it.

So I am not categorically saying he is definitely innocent of the charge, because I don't know, but neither do those that say he is categorically guilty.

Just out of curiosity and I don't want to put my head in the lion's mouth over this, but did you see what happened RR? I watched the game and certainly didn't.

And with there being no independent evidence, (and sketchy testimony from a Fremantle trainer doesn't really count) how the hell can they give such a severe punishment (not factoring in his hang over points), when they apparently agreed with Baker's testimony, and no-one actually had a clear view of the apparent hit?

Yes Farmer was definitely injured and I am not saying that Baker did not do something to him (he said that he did bump him off the ball illegally by stepping into his path allowing Farmer to run into the back of him (& apparently has a bump on his head)), but no-one has any absolute proof of what actually happened.

I have to say that I am not even a little surprised that St Kilda are appealing, I would actually expect Melbourne to do the same with this kind of case.

But in the end I would have thought that it would be tough to penalise, especially to that extent, what you can't actually witness or prove independently.

What I saw has nothing to do with this.

Baker has admitted to making illegal contact with Farmer off the ball as you have accurately put.

The absence of video evidence is disappointing but does not provide any reasonable escape of Baker from the crime. He does not have to reported for striking. In fact striking is not the issue.

Its exactly the sort of act the AFL wants and needs to stamp out.

And I dont think that Farmer lacked awareness. The Baker was deliberate, malicious, off the ball and targeted to catch Farmer unawares. It was quite possible if Farmer is tracking the ball in one direction, he may have had little chance to have seen Baker run from a peripheral vision. Clearly the point of contact validated that.

By the looks of Farmer the contact was hard and fierce and off the ball. Its as repugnant as the Johnson incident.