- May 29, 2013
- 3,887
- 9,431
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Has to go ... launched himself, bumped the head .... one week minimum
Baker flying bump
- Thread starter Sarcoidevo
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- May 17, 2014
- 4,094
- 5,359
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
If he was built like a normal size man he'd be out for 4+
In his defence he was trying to spoil. A bit late on the (poorly directed) spoil attempt, but unlike Wright he was still contesting and did not just launch into the player. That said, I doubt still trying to contest will be deemed a defence any more. It might be a mitigating factor for ones that go straight to tribunal.
So, presumably Careless, High contact, Medium impact. Under the guidelines Low impact is a fine, Medium impact 1 week. Probably the latter. It could be graded as "high impact" and two weeks, because they do seem to want to "send a message".
That would seem to be adjusting the grading to suit a desired outcome, something a completely above board and never at all corrupt in the slightest organisation like the AFL would never possibly countenance.
So, presumably Careless, High contact, Medium impact. Under the guidelines Low impact is a fine, Medium impact 1 week. Probably the latter. It could be graded as "high impact" and two weeks, because they do seem to want to "send a message".
That would seem to be adjusting the grading to suit a desired outcome, something a completely above board and never at all corrupt in the slightest organisation like the AFL would never possibly countenance.
- Apr 17, 2010
- 7,266
- 9,999
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Looked very bad but can't see it being graded more than "low".
Wouldn't mind seeing a replay of how Lynch gave up 50 to Gulden with high contact, what with his history of jumper punches and all, though
Wouldn't mind seeing a replay of how Lynch gave up 50 to Gulden with high contact, what with his history of jumper punches and all, though
Baker is lucky, if the contact is harder he misses 4+
As the Swans player pretty much got straight back up with no effects, I think Baker for the action will get 1-2.
In this instance he probably benefits from being undersized.
As the Swans player pretty much got straight back up with no effects, I think Baker for the action will get 1-2.
In this instance he probably benefits from being undersized.
You cannot legitimately grade that any higher than medium at worst, and in all likelihood it's realistically low impact.
And I'm not saying he shouldn't get a suspension, but if that gets graded high impact (even medium would be dubious) then the system is a farce.
- Apr 17, 2010
- 7,266
- 9,999
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Instant challenge if it's greater than medium. Most likely low
- May 29, 2013
- 3,887
- 9,431
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Thread starter
- #10
I guess you missed King getting one week ...last week
Classic case of low impact that was deemed medium impact and we couldn't get it downgraded ..... and Bakers action was worse in that he jumped off the ground and into the Swans player front on ..... King just grazed Macrae and still copped a week
Classic case of low impact that was deemed medium impact and we couldn't get it downgraded ..... and Bakers action was worse in that he jumped off the ground and into the Swans player front on ..... King just grazed Macrae and still copped a week
- May 29, 2013
- 3,887
- 9,431
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Thread starter
- #11
Good luck with that ... Lynch is the biggest protected species in game .... Cotchin mark II
- Sep 25, 2013
- 15,411
- 29,690
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Offered 1 week
Feraligatr
Official leader of the Official Sam Frost fan Club
- Jul 19, 2010
- 7,036
- 10,644
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Anahiem Ducks, Raptors
Rub him out for 10 years. As bad as attempted murder for mine.
They've been suspending guys based on 'potential for serious injury' recently.
Low impact, but could have been bad = weeks.
Must have been deemed "medium impact", which seems fair enough.
Cleavy
Hall of Famer
Melican left the field of play after the incident but returned a short time later and played out the rest of the game.
The Match Review Officer graded the incident careless conduct, medium impact and high contact, which has triggered a one-game ban for Baker.
I think a week is fair.
I'm still not a fan of them suspending based on outcome instead of action though.
The action is in the offenders control, the outcome is not.
I'm still not a fan of them suspending based on outcome instead of action though.
The action is in the offenders control, the outcome is not.
- Apr 17, 2010
- 7,266
- 9,999
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Richmond announced they're challenging
I think they're about to find out the hard way about the "potential to cause injury" clause. Going to be hard to argue that jumping into the path of someone trying to mark the ball isn't inherently dangerous
I think they're about to find out the hard way about the "potential to cause injury" clause. Going to be hard to argue that jumping into the path of someone trying to mark the ball isn't inherently dangerous
Last seen delivering flowers to Melican's house and playing footy with kids in the park on the way to training. Great bloke Bakes.
The eggshell rule (also thin skull rule, papier-mâché-plaintiff rule, or talem qualem rule) is a well-established legal doctrine in common law, used in some tort law systems, with a similar doctrine applicable to criminal law. The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them.
The real world law works based on outcome.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,703
- 40,869
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
That is dumb. There is 0 chance the Tribunal downgrades.
Even if the truly bizarre happens the AFL appeals.
The lawsuits are lining up and will add individual names not just the organisation if they dont take it seriously.
- Apr 17, 2010
- 7,266
- 9,999
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Upheld.
- Jun 14, 2017
- 3,533
- 5,647
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, AC Milan, North Adelaide
So did Maynard but I wont go there.
No one wants to see players suspended for simply contesting possession as Baker was attempting to do, but the message from the tribunal is now clear.
"Reasons:
We find on the evidence that Baker was attempting to spoil the ball. However, the vision and stills capture an unrealistic and therefore unreasonable attempt to spoil.
It was unrealistic because it was very late.
Melican had his hands on the ball well before Baker used his right arm to try to spoil the ball.
This unrealistic attempt to spoil the ball resulted in forceful high contact to Melican.
For the reasons given, we find Baker did engage in rough conduct and that his conduct was careless.
We consider there was real potential to cause Melican injury. Baker was moving at speed, he propelled himself into the air, vision shows forceful high content and it's clear from the vision that Melican was affected by the contact.
We consider impact was appropriately classified as medium. "
----------------------------------------------
I cannot get my head around this reasoning at all.
My outcome is the same as the MRO and the Tribunal, reportable offence, high contact, medium impact, careless conduct. This is one where the conduct would be more appropriately graded reckless imo, if that grading were still available, same as for the Maynard case.
But what is going on with their explanation? They say it is an unrealistic attempt to spoil as if arriving a millisecond earlier changes anything. I don't get that. It is realistic to attempt to spoil at any point until the mark is paid and or the player has taken full control of the ball. So that explanation to me is not even sane, let alone correct.
What it is, and what the Maynard case should have been deemed to be, is an illegal attempt to spoil(smother in Maynard's case.) You are simply not allowed to make forceful front on contact in a marking contest unless you get to the ball first. It is an automatic free kick and so the player in Melican's position should not be expecting forceful front on contact here, thus no attempt by him to protect himself. Once you execute a prohibited action and make forceful contact with the head, it should be automatically reportable, so long as it is you that is principally responsible for the contact.
Wtf does "unrealistic attempt to spoil" have to do with anything here? Surely they should be considering only the two possibilities, was it a legal or illegal attempt to spoil? In this case that attempt to spoil is actually realistic, but just not legal due to the forceful front on contact.
This Tribunal is a clown show.
We find on the evidence that Baker was attempting to spoil the ball. However, the vision and stills capture an unrealistic and therefore unreasonable attempt to spoil.
It was unrealistic because it was very late.
Melican had his hands on the ball well before Baker used his right arm to try to spoil the ball.
This unrealistic attempt to spoil the ball resulted in forceful high contact to Melican.
For the reasons given, we find Baker did engage in rough conduct and that his conduct was careless.
We consider there was real potential to cause Melican injury. Baker was moving at speed, he propelled himself into the air, vision shows forceful high content and it's clear from the vision that Melican was affected by the contact.
We consider impact was appropriately classified as medium. "
----------------------------------------------
I cannot get my head around this reasoning at all.
My outcome is the same as the MRO and the Tribunal, reportable offence, high contact, medium impact, careless conduct. This is one where the conduct would be more appropriately graded reckless imo, if that grading were still available, same as for the Maynard case.
But what is going on with their explanation? They say it is an unrealistic attempt to spoil as if arriving a millisecond earlier changes anything. I don't get that. It is realistic to attempt to spoil at any point until the mark is paid and or the player has taken full control of the ball. So that explanation to me is not even sane, let alone correct.
What it is, and what the Maynard case should have been deemed to be, is an illegal attempt to spoil(smother in Maynard's case.) You are simply not allowed to make forceful front on contact in a marking contest unless you get to the ball first. It is an automatic free kick and so the player in Melican's position should not be expecting forceful front on contact here, thus no attempt by him to protect himself. Once you execute a prohibited action and make forceful contact with the head, it should be automatically reportable, so long as it is you that is principally responsible for the contact.
Wtf does "unrealistic attempt to spoil" have to do with anything here? Surely they should be considering only the two possibilities, was it a legal or illegal attempt to spoil? In this case that attempt to spoil is actually realistic, but just not legal due to the forceful front on contact.
This Tribunal is a clown show.
Chief
~ Shmalpha ~
- Admin
- #25
Baker's ban upheld - Tribunal results, AFL Round 3 - AFL News
In a significant development for Richmond Football Club, premiership star […]
www.bigfooty.com
