Steven Baker 14 week ban!

[Sismis]

Can someone (obviously no the MRP) explain the huge difference between Johnson's no look hit to Baker's head and what Judd did to Pavlich the week before?

Both hits caused facial damage, blood to flow and in Pavlich's case, stitches.

Yet Judd's hit was not deemed reprtabel and Johnson got three weeks...what a joke

Yes, the obvious difference is that you don't spell Johnson, J.U.D.D

I think the worst part is they have clearly acknowledged that Baker was being a dog which in my book should mitigate a retaliation, yet in Judd's case the tagging was deemed to be legal.

[Jazz_84]

im loving this all my sainter friends keep telling me that im talking nonsense when fletcher gets suspended for slipped tackles or knee'ing some guy in the leg BUT noooooo now thats it's going on with one of their players oh what total bullshit it all is!!

the dirty prick deserves every week!

[rockhole]

If I ever needed convincing it is this series of incidents which confirms the AFL's influence over the "independent" tribunal. Vlad and Angry just cannot keep their hands off what is the easiest way to dictate policy and change attitudes to suit their idea of how the game should be played. Just hop on the dog and bone and tell Fraser how it is going to be!!!

is it any wonder we see such fluctuations in how the rules are interpreted or how penalties are handed out. It all depends on whether the Great Impaler did a bit of impaling the night before as to his mental attitude and to what his hobby horse is going to be for the week.

Looks like he dipped out last weekend and Baker is the recipient of his frustrations!!

[5Alive]

The only one I really scratch my little brain box over is... Pears comes back from a broken arm everyone knows he missed from the injury Jack can punch it hit it slap it its all good and fare (apparently) Baker hits Johnsons yet how can he possibly know it was broken at the time?? No free kick on the day to the player being hit *passes out*

[BenDoolan]

I don't know why clubs don't take the AFL to court. In St.Kilda's situation, I would front up to court armed with video evidence of the Jack Reiwoldt / Tayte Pears incident, and ask the question "how can the AFL process ignore this previous incident and then determine Baker must be charged and penalised in this situation?" And if I were Geelong I would do the same in regards to Steve Johnson's suspension "how can the AFL process exonerate Chris Judd in this incident, only a couple of weeks ago, but now sees fit to punish Johnson in this situation?"

The AFL needs an occasional kick in the head to keep some f****** sanity in this competition.

[grassy1]

Only a Matter of time before that SERIAL PEST and SNIPER gets a Catch up in KARMA.

Yes,most likely EXCESSIVE but SHIT,that PRICK had it coming to him and he's lucky his NOSE wasn't SPLATTERED all over his MUG FACE.

JOHNSON like J.U.D.D.reacted with more than SUFFICIENT FORCE in everyone's Reasonable Eyesight than the MRP,had Priors and gets 3 more weeks.How do you spell that name again Ben?In ENORMOUS BOLD if you don't mind?

[Ossie]

Who do people believe the penalties are too harsh?
Lets say these four incidents occured in seperate matches.
The individual punches on Johnson - would we all be so upset if he copped two to three weeks for one of those? I highly doubt it.
You do it four times in one match and you deserve to go if you ask me.

The only bit I don't understand is the inconsistency with incidents like Hodge, Judd etc.

[Jazz_84]

Who do people believe the penalties are too harsh?
Lets say these four incidents occured in seperate matches.
The individual punches on Johnson - would we all be so upset if he copped two to three weeks for one of those? I highly doubt it.
You do it four times in one match and you deserve to go if you ask me.

The only bit I don't understand is the inconsistency with incidents like Hodge, Judd etc.

exactly! it's not the suspensions that have been handed down it's the ones that havn't that's the problem, being in contention for the Brownlow shouldn't matter (as it did this time surely)

[robrulz5]

Who do people believe the penalties are too harsh?
Lets say these four incidents occured in seperate matches.
The individual punches on Johnson - would we all be so upset if he copped two to three weeks for one of those? I highly doubt it.
You do it four times in one match and you deserve to go if you ask me.

The only bit I don't understand is the inconsistency with incidents like Hodge, Judd etc.

exactly! it's not the suspensions that have been handed down it's the ones that havn't that's the problem, being in contention for the Brownlow shouldn't matter (as it did this time surely)

Wouldn't have thought Judd was in contention.

[Megan]

I don't think he deserved a week for whacking someones hand. That was pathetic and in any other game would've been ignored, as it is EVERY week when it happens.

The other three... yeah he probably deserved what he got.

[lozza89]

I don't think he deserved a week for whacking someones hand. That was pathetic and in any other game would've been ignored, as it is EVERY week when it happens.

The other three... yeah he probably deserved what he got.

Yeah i agree with you 100% megan. And if Stevie J walked back out on the field, fully knowing he is injured, of course the opposition is going to target it. Once you step over that line, you are declearing yourself fit to play and you have to take everything that comes your way.

[robrulz5]

When Judd was at West Coast did he also thrown an elbow back at Baker at Subiaco one day? I think he got suspended for it as well.

[j-mac31]

Who do people believe the penalties are too harsh?
Lets say these four incidents occured in seperate matches.
The individual punches on Johnson - would we all be so upset if he copped two to three weeks for one of those? I highly doubt it.
You do it four times in one match and you deserve to go if you ask me.

And while I'm commenting here, I'll mention that I anyone who blames the umpires for letting it go is a f***wit. Yes, an early free or two may have stopped Baker from continuing, but at the end of the day he has to take responsibility for his actions.

[F111]

Who do people believe the penalties are too harsh?
Lets say these four incidents occured in seperate matches.
The individual punches on Johnson - would we all be so upset if he copped two to three weeks for one of those? I highly doubt it.
You do it four times in one match and you deserve to go if you ask me.

And while I'm commenting here, I'll mention that I anyone who blames the umpires for letting it go is a f******. Yes, an early free or two may have stopped Baker from continuing, but at the end of the day he has to take responsibility for his actions.

But he's a footballer, who are more renowned for trying to get away with something than being responsible. He is one of the more likely to continue getting away with it if the umpires allow it. Adult learning and ethics don't quite wash on a footy field.