Ben Johnson case to test the AFL's judicial system

[QueenC 74]

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

He was also charged well before any evidence was given, especially since there was no evidence out there.

But while I disagree with you Rhino, I understand your point of view about behind the play incidents and the need to penalise them,

The Baker was deliberate, malicious, off the ball and targeted to catch Farmer unawares.

You say that with such certainty. I am not quite sure how unless you are judging the player and not the incident.

Personally I still can't get past the fact that no-one knows or has any independent proof as to what happened, therefore other than his own testimony, which while stating it was off the ball the injury was actually caused by an accidental head clash no-one can prove your "malicious" accusations one way or another.

Its as repugnant as the Johnson incident.

It may be, but we don't know that. And for a penalty that harsh you really should have an element of certainty.

[deanox 9,986]

It may be, but we don't know that. And for a penalty that harsh you really should have an element of certainty.

completely off the topic queenc, but your argument sounds to me like you've got a pretty good understanding of law and its practice, which is why i found this comment so interesting...do you need to be more certain if the punishment is to be larger (and by extrapolation, the crime was worst?). are you suggesting that if it had been a simple case of a low impact strike with a 1 week penalty you would be more inclined to give him the week, even though the evidence was the same as in this case?

[grazman 7,451]

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.

I've had plenty of players and coaches over the years tell me the same thing. "If you really want to hurt someone, hit them when they're not looking" There's no point in arguing around the fringes... Occams Razor is the best test. Baker deserves his punishment.

[QueenC 74]

completely off the topic queenc, but your argument sounds to me like you've got a pretty good understanding of law and its practice, which is why i found this comment so interesting...do you need to be more certain if the punishment is to be larger (and by extrapolation, the crime was worst?). are you suggesting that if it had been a simple case of a low impact strike with a 1 week penalty you would be more inclined to give him the week, even though the evidence was the same as in this case?

I have no formal legal training Deanox, but I have been through two assault cases as the victim on both occasions......

So maybe this qualifies me as have some understanding through some very unwanted experience!!!

As for the comment, I believe that to hand down any penalty you have to be certain that they actually performed the illegal act with which they have been charged. The severity to me only makes worse the fact that the tribunal actually doesn't know what happened. They're ruling is based on speculation, and Bakers account, in which he says that he didn't do anything illegal (injury via head clash) other than shepherding off the ball.

Now unless the tribunal says that any player that may cause injury in an action that occurs off the ball including a shepherd will be penalised (not just a free kick like it is now), I can't see where they can absolutely say that Baker did anything. Rough conduct must still be proven and they can't do that.

So I guess what I was saying is that to me you shouldn't be able to put someone out for any length of time based on speculation, you need absolution.

I hope that made sense !!!

[grazman 7,451]

As for the comment, I believe that to hand down any penalty you have to be certain that they actually performed the illegal act with which they have been charged. The severity to me only makes worse the fact that the tribunal actually doesn't know what happened. They're ruling is based on speculation, and Bakers account, in which he says that he didn't do anything illegal (injury via head clash) other than shepherding off the ball.

I'm pretty sure the AFL Tribunal works on the balance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt... but anyway to answer your point... It was clear there was contact between the two players - Baker admitted he initiated the contact. The ball was fifty metres away and Farmer broke his nose and was heavily concussed. Any reasonably prudent person would understand that the actions of Baker have caused unnecessary and dangerous contact and as a result tarnished the reputation of the game. Courts of law often rule on murder cases (ie Falconio) where a victims body is never found, but some things are safe to assume even if they aren't directly observed. IE. Baker sniped Farmer off the ball.

[QueenC 74]

Any reasonably prudent person would understand that the actions of Baker have caused unnecessary and dangerous contact and as a result tarnished the reputation of the game.

Well I guess I am unreasonable and imprudent to want to see facts and not assumption, which is still all you gave me.

[grazman 7,451]

Well I guess I am unreasonable and imprudent to want to see facts and not assumption, which is still all you gave me.

Huh? Farmer had his face caved in fifty metres off the ball. That's a pretty good fact to start with.

[QueenC 74]

But we didn't see it happen!!!

Saints fight Baker ban

August 22, 2007

ST Kilda has launched an appeal against the seven-match suspension handed down to tagger Steven Baker last night.

The club confirmed today that it had appealed on several grounds.

The Saints said the tribunal had accepted Baker's versions of events and should not have suspended him.

In an unusual move, the tribunal jury said it accepted Baker's evidence, with the player saying he was running in front of Fremantle opponent Jeff Farmer before stopping and propping. That caused Farmer to run into the back of Baker.

But the three-man jury still found that Baker had engaged in rough conduct, acting recklessly, and that he made high contact to Farmer with high impact.

.........And now I am just repeating myself.

[grazman 7,451]

But we didn't see it happen!!!

Saints fight Baker ban

August 22, 2007

ST Kilda has launched an appeal against the seven-match suspension handed down to tagger Steven Baker last night.

The club confirmed today that it had appealed on several grounds.

The Saints said the tribunal had accepted Baker's versions of events and should not have suspended him.

In an unusual move, the tribunal jury said it accepted Baker's evidence, with the player saying he was running in front of Fremantle opponent Jeff Farmer before stopping and propping. That caused Farmer to run into the back of Baker.

But the three-man jury still found that Baker had engaged in rough conduct, acting recklessly, and that he made high contact to Farmer with high impact.

.........And now I am just repeating myself.

Like I said before - you're getting hung up on the words... he stopped and propped directly in front of his opponent... he caused the contact - he wanted the contact. Everyone that's ever played the game knows what Baker did wasn't simply blocking an opponent. I wouldn't put too much store on the fact they believe his version of how it happened, what they clearly don't believe is why it happened.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Like I said before - you're getting hung up on the words... he stopped and propped directly in front of his opponent... he caused the contact - he wanted the contact. Everyone that's ever played the game knows what Baker did wasn't simply blocking an opponent. I wouldn't put too much store on the fact they believe his version of how it happened, what they clearly don't believe is why it happened.

Absolutely spot on Graz.

QC you are missing the woods for the trees...big time.

[QueenC 74]

In your opinion, which last time I checked I am still allowed to disagree with.

[Demon15 0]

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.

Yes, and further, he actually only got 4 weeks for the hit on probably Fremantle's only probable match-winner . The rest was for prior history - this guy's a recidivist.

In the end, he undisputedly collected farmer in some fashion, and given the damage done, and being way off the ball, was clearly guilty (i don't accept the seagull theory). Reckless, not in play and high contact - 4 weeks.

No-one saw Jim O'Dea hit John Greening, but he still got 10 weeks in the pre-video era.

[45HG 1,559]

Well I guess I am unreasonable and imprudent to want to see facts and not assumption, which is still all you gave me.

in relation to there being no evidence, i was under the impression the runner saw it and told the umpire, and that's why it then went to tribunal.

there's greater danger in letting him off for there being no evidence if he has admitted to making contact with him, and has clearly injured the guy.

[Pates 9,660]

I sport of agree with QC here. I hate Baker and i know he's a sniper, but for the tribunal to hand down a 4 week penalty alone, forgetting about Baker's history, they must be certain about the action. There is so much inconclusive evidence in this case that i just don't see how it can stick.

I'll be very interested to see how this plays out, there have been stranger cases thrown out this year (i'm looking at you Des Headland).

[deanox 9,986]

ok i think ive worked out where we are all missing it. he was charged with rough conduct, not with striking or charging etc. that means that when he admitted that he caused the contact, he effectively admitted to the charge. head clash or no head clash, the contact was illegal and the effect of the contact was obviously severe enough to result in farmer being injured.

baker admitted to contacting farmer, and the result of the contact was injury. you could then infer that his conduct was rough couldnt you?

if the police found your stereo at my house i could be charged for it even though no one saw me take it correct?

[Demons 32 235]

Saints are my most hated team (hate Gehrig, Riewoldt, dirty little Milne, diry little Montagna, Kozzy).

Hate them even more because the misses goes for them and while I have got her coming to some Melbourne games she refuses to let go of the saints that plagued her childhood.

Damn Saints. Give Baker another 7.

[John Dee 445]

This appeal may be over very quickly; I really can't see what grounds St Kilda are appealing over. They are complaining that seven weeks is excessive, well he actually got four; the other three were there waiting for him next time he got found guilty of anything, courtesy of another grand Anderson stuff up. This begs the question, is four matches excessive for rough play off the ball? Not really. They are also saying, in effect, that the tribunal just made the wrong decision. The tribunal accepted Baker's evidence and therefore his verion of events; Baker admitted blindside blocking of Farmer off the ball which resulting in somewhat severe damage to Farmer. St kilda's position is that the tribunal simply shouldn't have found him guilty; very dodgy grounds.

[Demon15 0]

I sport of agree with QC here. I hate Baker and i know he's a sniper, but for the tribunal to hand down a 4 week penalty alone, forgetting about Baker's history, they must be certain about the action. There is so much inconclusive evidence in this case that

Are you kidding?

That's like saying I can't see gravity, therefore it doesn't exist. Oxygen can't possibly exist, - I can't see it.

Farmer by himself out on the HFF?

What happened - did he punch himself ?

I don't think so......

Much credit to the tribunal in this case for having the guts to override the video generation.

BTW - as an aside, if it wasn't for the hit in 1988 by Rod Grinter on terry wallace - maybe we wouldn't have trial by video.

One claim to fame by the Demons. Well done Rod. Look what you started.

[deanox 9,986]

BTW - as an aside, if it wasn't for the hit in 1988 by Rod Grinter on terry wallace - maybe we wouldn't have trial by video.

One claim to fame by the Demons. Well done Rod. Look what you started.

well 20 years on and our supposed 'legacy' is still half arsed cos they didnt pick this one up...

[Demon15 0]

[quote name='deanox' date='Aug 23 2007, 05:01 PM' post='97569]

well 20 years on and our supposed 'legacy' is still half arsed cos they didnt pick this one up...

[beelzebub 23,382]

quite the interesting thread..

mostly because its all totally supposition as no evidence is really available ...other than the admission by Baker that the two were squirellig around and that in his mind his propping caused the impact.

Well last tiime i reasoned anything like this I came upon the idea that it takes two to tango. I have every expectation that it was as much Farmers own stupidty as it was Bakers...Two ppl stuffing around one stops..the other collides. what ,Farmer was playing blindfolded ??

would Farmer be partcipant in a niggle ?? well does a bear....... ?? lol

Short of any conclusive evidence, and you can bet the StKFC wil qualify anything Bakers has said, that you can hardly move forward with any charge.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Well last tiime i reasoned anything like this I came upon the idea that it takes two to tango. I have every expectation that it was as much Farmers own stupidty as it was Bakers...Two ppl stuffing around one stops..the other collides. what ,Farmer was playing blindfolded ??

That bears as much logic and evidence as the Dr Haneef case. Farmer's history has nothing to do with it. It was an off the ball hit by one player on another player who was blindsided. There was no niggle at all based on the statements made.

ok i think ive worked out where we are all missing it. he was charged with rough conduct, not with striking or charging etc. that means that when he admitted that he caused the contact, he effectively admitted to the charge. head clash or no head clash, the contact was illegal and the effect of the contact was obviously severe enough to result in farmer being injured.

baker admitted to contacting farmer, and the result of the contact was injury. you could then infer that his conduct was rough couldnt you?

if the police found your stereo at my house i could be charged for it even though no one saw me take it correct?

Correct Deanox. Many are missing that point.

[beelzebub 23,382]

That bears as much logic and evidence as the Dr Haneef case.

ah well if you an expert in that too.. we all bow before !! lol

There is NO evidence... THATS the point !!

a confession does not make for guilty .... all the time !! and a confession to what.

I suggest many wait til after the StK argument.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

ah well if you an expert in that too.. we all bow before !! lol

There is NO evidence... THATS the point !!

a confession does not make for guilty .... all the time !! and a confession to what.

I suggest many wait til after the StK argument.

The charge is rough play.

We have the physical evidence of Farmers condition and the testimony of a trainer's observation.

We have Baker admitting to an off the ball physical contact with Farmer.

Lets see 1 + 1 =2.....