Player Watch #7: Liam Baker - Traded to West Coast for pick 14

[smasha]

A bible or kuran worth of apologies swallowed by the CFL we are waiting to hear.

Pathetic by the CFL Boy's Club.

Imagine if Ginnivan was a Tiger?

He would be penalised by the CFL ,now gets an apology?

Laughable.

This League run like Milli Vanilli.

Joel Selwood also made a living from ducking and got away with it.

Now remember when Richmond players do it?

Headlines and drama queens on the radio pointing out Rance for it.

 

[Freddy Swift]

I knew we wouldn’t win the appeal, we just never do. But surely there was ‘potential to cause injury’ when Maynard ‘attempted to smother’ Brayshaws kick. And he in fact caused serious injury, ended a blokes career.

How can Baker (and King last week) get suspended and Maynard copped nothing? The Maynard decision has to be the biggest farce of all time. Disgraceful.

 

[BruceTempany14]

A bible or kuran worth of apologies swallowed by the CFL we are waiting to hear.

Pathetic by the CFL Boy's Club.

Imagine if Ginnivan was a Tiger?

He would be penalised by the CFL ,now gets an apology?

Laughable.

This League run like Milli Vanilli.

Joel Selwood also made a living from ducking and got away with it.

Now remember when Richmond players do it?

Headlines and drama queens on the radio pointing out Rance for it.

All I want to say is the the AFL test case will come when it involves Tom "great bloke' Stewart as the perpetrator.... just sayin.

 

[tigs2010]

You're better off killing the other player so they can't slaughter you with "potential to cause injury" lol

 

[Muddiemoose]

I knew we wouldn’t win the appeal, we just never do. But surely there was ‘potential to cause injury’ when Maynard ‘attempted to smother’ Brayshaws kick. And he in fact caused serious injury, ended a blokes career.

How can Baker (and King last week) get suspended and Maynard copped nothing? The Maynard decision has to be the biggest farce of all time. Disgraceful.

The league literally changed the rules because of the Maynard incident so if it happens again he cops a suspension

I wish people would stop bringing it up as if it’s applicable now

That rule change is also the reason why Baker is now suspended so if you wanted Maynard to get suspended it also means baker needs to be suspended because it’s the same action (late smother/spoil)

Explained: All the new rule changes for the 2024 season

 

[Freddy Swift]

The league literally changed the rules because of the Maynard incident so if it happens again he cops a suspension

I wish people would stop bringing it up as if it’s applicable now

That rule change is also the reason why Baker is now suspended so if you wanted Maynard to get suspended it also means baker needs to be suspended because it’s the same action (late smother/spoil)

Explained: All the new rule changes for the 2024 season

With all due respect I never said Baker should get off.

The fact that Maynard would not get off if he did the same thing again is no consolation to Angus Brayshaw I bet.

 

[richard parker]

Would the Mitch Robinson

5

Mitch Robinson

Age

35

Ht

184cm

Wt

89kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

19.9

5star

K

11.2

4star

HB

8.7

5star

M

4.1

4star

T

4.7

5star

CL

3.2

5star

D

15.8

4star

K

11.3

4star

HB

4.5

3star

M

3.9

4star

T

1.9

3star

CL

1.8

4star

D

13.2

4star

K

8.0

3star

HB

5.2

4star

M

4.0

4star

T

3.6

5star

smashing of Dusty’s kidney incident be a suspension under this new rule? It was also late smother/blocking attempt (but with a premeditated kung fu twist added in for good measure)…Or is it only head high contact? Or maybe just accepted as it was part of the “bring Richmond down” era?

 

[THE_GUN]

If i am to be perfectly honest i am surprised only 1 week and had a smile on my face when i was told he got 1 week

when i first seen it with the bulltish penalties that are given out these days to players (except geelol players)
i was thinking great gone for 4 with the Richmond tax

 

[Meteoric Rise]

The league literally changed the rules because of the Maynard incident so if it happens again he cops a suspension

I wish people would stop bringing it up as if it’s applicable now

That rule change is also the reason why Baker is now suspended so if you wanted Maynard to get suspended it also means baker needs to be suspended because it’s the same action (late smother/spoil)

Explained: All the new rule changes for the 2024 season

The way the rule was before would have allowed both Maynard and Baker to be suspended. That change in the rules barely has any real effect, it is merely window dressing to give the appearance something is being done and the tribunal was somehow bound by the existing rules to exonerate Maynard. They weren't. They had merely to conclude that his action of leaping about 4 metres forward into an oncoming player whilst tying to smother was an unreasonable and unsafe way to attempt to smother.

Baker's case is not affected at all by that rule about smothering. The way the Tribunal interpreted the rules in the Maynard case they were basically saying players have to take reasonable care when executing any action on a football field bar smothering, if you are smothering a kick it is fine to maim the kicker. So the AFL altered the rule to make it more difficult for the Tribunal to reach such a horrendous decision. Still not impossible though as the Tribunal could still laughably say Maynard took all reasonable steps to avoid the high contact or minimise the force.

It is beyond ludicrous that Maynard gets off and these later much less severe cases are punished and i think it is fine for people to make that point.

 

[Waca Jr]

Gut feel was he wasn't getting off. As long as any other campaigner that does the same action cops the same penalty I'll be fine, but we know they won't

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

All I want to say is the the AFL test case will come when it involves Tom "great bloke' Stewart as the perpetrator.... just sayin.

Already been and dusted! Nothing to see...just a great bloke!

 

[Bojangles17]

Never gonna be overturned, was pretty forceful

 

[Muddiemoose]

The way the rule was before would have allowed both Maynard and Baker to be suspended. That change in the rules barely has any real effect, it is merely window dressing to give the appearance something is being done and the tribunal was somehow bound by the existing rules to exonerate Maynard. They weren't. They had merely to conclude that his action of leaping about 4 metres forward into an oncoming player whilst tying to smother was an unreasonable and unsafe way to attempt to smother.

Baker's case is not affected at all by that rule about smothering. The way the Tribunal interpreted the rules in the Maynard case they were basically saying players have to take reasonable care when executing any action on a football field bar smothering, if you are smothering a kick it is fine to maim the kicker. So the AFL altered the rule to make it more difficult for the Tribunal to reach such a horrendous decision. Still not impossible though as the Tribunal could still laughably say Maynard took all reasonable steps to avoid the high contact or minimise the force.

It is beyond ludicrous that Maynard gets off and these later much less severe cases are punished and i think it is fine for people to make that point.

You sure about that

“
AFL has acted after a Commission meeting on Monday, with the change for smothers meaning that when a player leaves the ground in an attempt to make a smother, the player's act will be deemed careless at a minimum "unless the player has taken all reasonable steps to avoid that high contact and/or minimise the force of that high contact (for example, by adopting a body position that minimises the force of the high contact)".

"We weren't comfortable with the outcome of the tribunal and the changes today are taking steps to change that," AFL football boss Laura Kane said after the changes were announced on Tuesday.”

Last year baker cops a fine for the incident

 

[tiger_tough]

Compare this to the Maynard-Brayshaw incident and it's actually incredible that there is now a situation where you can be suspended for the "potential to cause injury" and yet if you literally end someone's career you don't get suspended.

That's where we are now.

Did you miss the rule change in the off season? Maynard would've been suspended if that incident was this year.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

You sure about that

“
AFL has acted after a Commission meeting on Monday, with the change for smothers meaning that when a player leaves the ground in an attempt to make a smother, the player's act will be deemed careless at a minimum "unless the player has taken all reasonable steps to avoid that high contact and/or minimise the force of that high contact (for example, by adopting a body position that minimises the force of the high contact)".

"We weren't comfortable with the outcome of the tribunal and the changes today are taking steps to change that," AFL football boss Laura Kane said after the changes were announced on Tuesday.”

Are you sure players didn't already have to take reasonable steps to avoid high contact/minimise the force of high contact when executing all actions including smothers prior to this rule "change?"

 

[Area51]

You sure about that

“
AFL has acted after a Commission meeting on Monday, with the change for smothers meaning that when a player leaves the ground in an attempt to make a smother, the player's act will be deemed careless at a minimum "unless the player has taken all reasonable steps to avoid that high contact and/or minimise the force of that high contact (for example, by adopting a body position that minimises the force of the high contact)".

"We weren't comfortable with the outcome of the tribunal and the changes today are taking steps to change that," AFL football boss Laura Kane said after the changes were announced on Tuesday.”

Doesn't really matter what the rules are. At the end of the day they are drafted so as to provide enough latitude for interpretation so that the AFL gets what they want. It's the same with rules during the game. HTB, insufficient intent, prior opportunity, rushing a point under pressure, all deliberately subjective to provide the CFL as much control as possible. On top of this they freely admit that they get 25% of decisions wrong which covers up anything they want to do. They might not be able to change a result that would otherwise be 5 goals or more but over the course of a game they can easily come up with a 5 goal advantage for another team. And while there may not be hard proof this is what they do the fact that there is opportunity to do it and this opportunity has been created by the CFL and we know for a fact that they lie about things like this (three strikes anyone) is sufficient to erode all trust in the CFL.

Do you seriously believe the CFL wanted Maynard to miss the GF after they essentially umpired the pies into it? It's a charade.

 

[_RT_]

It's more in the "potential to cause injury" which is a catch all and allows the MRO/tribunal to apply it however they want.

I don't think the Sydney player should've been sent to the tribunal, that would be utterly ridiculous. But when the tribunal say that Baker had the potential to cause injury and mainly convicted him on this (upgraded the impact from low to medium), then it opens a can of worms.

Another incident that has escaped scrutiny is the Pendlebury gut slap/punch on Neale. Intentional and has the potential to cause injury yet he gets a fine. My stance is the MRO/tribunal is incredibly inconsistent and the more grey they add to their guidelines then the more discrepancies we'll see with the outcomes.

Body contact is treated differently to head contact, which is why Pendlebury got a fine instead of suspended.

 

[BruceTempany14]

Already been and dusted! Nothing to see...just a great bloke!

You're so correct . I just remember with such anger reading the Geelong Media Mafia saying how terrible he felt ... poor bugger....meantime Meatball has a foot in the coffin !!

 

[YeOldTiger]

Mitch Cleary on the tradies podcast said he has been told that the property Baker purchased in WA is an investment

$2.2M Riverside Mt Pleasant home in Perth is a pretty good investment.

 

[YeOldTiger]

Did you miss the rule change in the off season? Maynard would've been suspended if that incident was this year.

Maynard should have been suspended last year. That was my point. It makes Baker being suspended for a less serious (result) action seem extremely unfair.

 

[YeOldTiger]

Are you sure players didn't already have to take reasonable steps to avoid high contact/minimise the force of high contact when executing all actions including smothers prior to this rule "change?"

Exactly

 

[tiger_tough]

Maynard should have been suspended last year. That was my point. It makes Baker being suspended for a less serious (result) action seem extremely unfair.

Why? It was within the rules last year. You can throw all precedent put the window from now on. Times are changing.

 

[Coach_Required]

Why? It was within the rules last year. You can throw all precedent put the window from now on. Times are changing.

I want to see this happen in a Prelim and sit back and watch what the outcome is. If they are true to their word and said player gets suspended, then I'll eat humble pie, but I bet the narrative around this action in the lead up to the Grand Final would be ... "oh that's not right, that's a stiff penalty, something must be done".

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Why? It was within the rules last year.

No it wasn't.

The AFL simply got spooked by the Collingwood legal machine a fortnight out from the grand final.

They twisted the interpretation of the existing rule to achieve a desired outcome.

No way Maynard gets off on that charging action on Brayshaw if it's the King's Birthday match in the same year.

Fortunately for those who made these decisions, they most likely will still not be in power when Brayshaw litigates against the AFL in a decade or two. It's inevitable, bookmark this post.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Baker’s action was a terrible example for younger players playing at grass roots level , it was clearly intentional and he wasn’t playing the ball .
I’m saying that other’s cheap shits like Pendlebury’s also falls into this category.