-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Welcome Liam Baker
- Thread starter Tigermad2005
- Start date
If he hit him in the head he deserves a week. From what I could see the arm hit him high up on the chest.
Medical report said he had sore ribs. I would expect 20% of players would come off the field at the end of a game with sore ribs every week
Medical report said he had sore ribs. I would expect 20% of players would come off the field at the end of a game with sore ribs every week
I think the suspension is probably right but the problem is that the AFL are so inconsistent on this.
Whilst it looks poor, the damage was negligible & Melican played on without issue. The contact did not impact him physically or his team on the day.
Compare that with some of the incidents in recent times where players have been severely injured & culprits have gotten off entirely.
My main issue is with the AFL's inconsistency, not the suspension.
If this is the case then one week is justified. You can argue to impact but the AFL has us in the gun and it wont come down from Medium to low even though he bounced back up.
Bakes was lucky to cop what he did. They could have thrown the book.
On the little of the footage I have seen, it was pretty clumsy.
If the shoe was on the other foot, we’d scream blue murder!
On the little of the footage I have seen, it was pretty clumsy.
If the shoe was on the other foot, we’d scream blue murder!
Just wondering if you are aware of any earlier case where the player has been charged with causing "medium impact" to the head, but convicted on the basis that his action had the "potential" to cause damage.
It seems the charge he now faces requires proof of medium impact, which we don't really know about because we are yet to hear from the Sydney Doctor.
The point is that the impact, on the criteria of level of injury actually sustained, seems far removed from medium impact and if that is found to be the case then Baker is entitled to be acquitted. Not sure here but it seems that had he been charged instead with causing a collision, which had the 'potential' to cause damage, then he would certainly go down.
Not saying the actual outcome in either was wrong, but how is Pendleburys hit to Neale low impact and Bakers medium?
Pendlebury got him with force straight in the guts.
Pendlebury got him with force straight in the guts.
Pendlebury was smart, he hit him in the guts knowing full well that the guts aren't "sacrosanct".
And with an open handed slap like his mother used on him when he wet the bed as a 15 year old.
Your interpretation is spot on, so I'm having a go at the system not you.
All of a sudden we are judging an action on the potential for injury, something that has never been done. Look at Hind two rounds ago, raised an elbow, that has the potential to do untold damage. Should've got 12 weeks if "potential" is in the punishment. It's always been the outcome not the action. Until Baker.
We got screwed here.
When Bakes was jumping to that contest you could see he was going to try & punch the ball, he saw that if he did that that he'd hit Pelican in the head so he dropped his hand down. His momentum caused him to impact mainly on the chest area.
If the head is sacrosanct, why weren't the 2 swans players who hit Baker in the head i while he was on the ground mmediately after the incident cited for rough conduct. They deliberately targeted his head.
If the head is sacrosanct, why weren't the 2 swans players who hit Baker in the head i while he was on the ground mmediately after the incident cited for rough conduct. They deliberately targeted his head.
They have to sentence based on potential, as you don’t know actual til after the event. They want to stop all “potentials” accordingly. I agree with this - so long as they are consistent on what is a potential.
The new trick is to still plead guilty but challenge the grading, that way the AFL cant increase the penalty as if they plead not guilty.
Worth a shot, but doubt it will work
Worth a shot, but doubt it will work
