Baker suspended for 12 weeks

[dimelb]

The problem with those four incidents individually is that most weeks they are ignored by the MRP as being incidental, or light force etc. It seems that they wanted to make a stand against the tagger this week and so Baker gets the shaft. The whole tribunal / disciplinary system seems to be getting worse.

I don't think it's his tagging they're worried about, it's the way he goes about it.

[Matty10]

I don't think it's his tagging they're worried about, it's the way he goes about it.

Sure, but the issue was not just about Baker though - as with all these sorts of things they build up over time - particularly with the media focus. That was the point I was making. I see this as an AFL reaction to the types of borderline tactics used to negate / upset the game of playmakers as has been seen in recent weeks.

As an example, Judd's elbow attack on Pav, was seen to be due to all the niggling he had received all game from McPhee (legal or otherwise). You don't normally throw an arm back just because you have been negated / tagged. However, nothing McPhee did was cited - this has been the norm all year.

I would suggest that if all this year's tapes were re-watched with the type of activity that Baker was cited for in mind there would be dozens of potential reports. Some of Baker's actions were probably reportable, but he was unlucky (or stupid) in the sense that he was the victim of the media build-up and focus that followed a high-profile AFL match - and the subsequent line-in-the-sand reaction of the AFL.

[liz]

Sure, but the issue was not just about Baker though - as with all these sorts of things they build up over time - particularly with the media focus. That was the point I was making. I see this as an AFL reaction to the types of borderline tactics used to negate / upset the game of playmakers as has been seen in recent weeks.

As an example, Judd's elbow attack on Pav, was seen to be due to all the niggling he had received all game from McPhee (legal or otherwise). You don't normally throw an arm back just because you have been negated / tagged. However, nothing McPhee did was cited - this has been the norm all year.

I would suggest that if all this year's tapes were re-watched with the type of activity that Baker was cited for in mind there would be dozens of potential reports. Some of Baker's actions were probably reportable, but he was unlucky (or stupid) in the sense that he was the victim of the media build-up and focus that followed a high-profile AFL match - and the subsequent line-in-the-sand reaction of the AFL.

Not sure I agree with that having now seen footage of them. Of the four incidents Baker has been cited for, two of the strikes do look ordinary enough to me to be cited by the tribunal as strikes. One could argue whether they are low or medium impact - I am not sure how they were assessed; hopefully as low. But they are similar to others punished by the MRP and certainly worse than some of the pathetic little tummy taps that players have been suspended for. The third "strike" looked pretty innocuous to me - certain far less force than Judd's elbow.

The hitting of Johnson's hand didn't look very clever but I agree with Hird's assessment on OTC yesterday that if Johnson is out there taking part in play, he is fair game. I don't like the idea of players deliberately targeting other player's injuries but we'd be fools if we didn't acknowledge that it goes on a lot. If they are not going to suspend every player who pays special attention to a rib injury, or sore shoulder, they shouldn't cite Baker for it. Even though the touch made by Fisher on Bartel was pretty innocuous, he had far less right to be as close to Bartel as he was and to make any contact at all, given that Bartel was in the process of leaving the ground with the injury.

Most taggers scrag and hold and bump and I am sure it is irritating to the player being tagged. But it is pretty rare to taggers to throw even soft punches at the face in the way Baker did.

As for Judd's elbow to Pav, I think it is obvious the MRP completely stuffed this one up. Had they decided not to cite him because the contact to Pav's face was deemed to be accidental, and argued he was just trying to shrug out of a tackle, there may have been a few eyebrows raised. The idea of the "Judd rule" may still have been bandied about. But it would have been quickly forgotten. It was the fact they claimed it was below the force required for a reportable offence - rather than provoked or accidental - that is so clearly inconsistent with how other incidents have been assessed that it is not going to be forgotten for some time.

[stellation]

Headline tomorrow:

Baker's Dozen comes up short!

haaaaaaaaaaahahhahaahhahahahahahahahaha

[stellation]

He was scragging, and I didn't like it HOWEVER I absolutely do not agree with 12 weeks. The reality is that it happens reguarly, and it reguarly happens all match. You decide to clamp down on it and dish out 12 frigging weeks? Nuts.

[Triple B]

Have to agree, just over the top.

Every so often they decide to make an example of somebody and the punishment rarely fits the crime for that first time.

Diesel copped 9 weeks for pushing an umpire. Way over the top in the circumstances (he wasn't even looking at the ump, just pushed him aside to continue a verbal argument with Sean Denham)

Todd Curley got 4 weeks for making contact with an umpire when they clipped heels in general play. It happens almost weekly now and the penalty is a fine, but back then, a statement needed to be made and they made it.

Recently of course, the Mumford suspension is another example of 'we want to crackdown on sling tackles, let's go over the top with a suspension' thinking from the tribunal/MRP.

[Matty10]

Saints might appeal the decision - after getting 9 at the tribunal.

Baker out for nine, but fight may go on

[Matty10]

I think these comments by Derek Humphery-Smith are spot on also:

Umpires 'at fault' for not paying free kicks early

[liz]

Does that mean it was the umpires' (all of'em) fault for Hall hitting Staker - because Hall had had a few years of not getting frees when clearly being scragged, held, and generally not allowed to play for the ball?

[dimelb]

Does that mean it was the umpires' (all of'em) fault for Hall hitting Staker - because Hall had had a few years of not getting frees when clearly being scragged, held, and generally not allowed to play for the ball?

Well, of course not, Hall should have done something else, but if the ump had acted, the other drama wouldn't have happened.

Here's RyanO's take: http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/n...4/default.aspx

[laughingnome]

Does that mean it was the umpires' (all of'em) fault for Hall hitting Staker - because Hall had had a few years of not getting frees when clearly being scragged, held, and generally not allowed to play for the ball?

No but it does mean that the scragging, punching and grabbing that Staker was doing to Hall that night would have been penalised with a free kick to the big guy.