Nine weeks for Baker is far too excessive
Columnist By Michael DiFabrizio, 29 Jun 2010 Michael DiFabrizio is a Roar Expert
Related coverage
Steven Baker of St Kilda leaves the field with the blood rule during the AFL Round 13 match between the St Kilda Saints and the Geelong Cats at the MCG, Melbourne. Slattery Images
The nine-week suspension offered to St Kilda’s Steven Baker for four separate incidents with Geelong’s Steve Johnson has got to be the most over-the-top ruling since the match review panel’s inception. No matter which way you spin it, it seems brutal.
If he doesn’t take the early plea, Baker risks an incredible 12 weeks on the sidelines. Even without his prior record, Baker would still be looking at as many as six weeks.
And this is from the same panel that gave Barry Hall seven weeks for his infamous hit on Brent Staker.
From the same panel that didn’t punish Scott Thompson for his Baker-like provocation of Hall earlier in the year.
From the same panel that somehow let off Chris Judd for his wayward elbow just one week ago.
And from the same panel that has offered Johnson only three weeks for his actions on Friday night.
It’s truly remarkable, especially when nobody saw such a harsh penalty coming. The Age’s Jesse Hogan assessed the controversial incidents from the game over the weekend and predicted Baker would be offered a one-match suspension.
My Roar colleague Justin Rodski wrote yesterday that Baker only crossed the line when he physically tested Johnson’s suspected broken hand. Yet this action only accounted for one of the nine weeks offered by the match review panel.
The other eight weeks came from three separate incidents deemed to be “level three striking” offences. All were against Johnson.
Curiously, the incident that appeared to be the worst of the night was Johnson’s very reckless elbow to Baker’s face, which ended badly enough for Baker but could have been a lot worse had Johnson connected with another part of the face. This was also deemed to be a level three striking offence.
None of this is to say suspensions didn’t need to be handed out, even to Baker. But it’s the harshness of a nine-week suspension that seems so astounding.
Nine weeks would be the heaviest match review panel penalty since the panel’s introduction in 2005. The Age are reporting that Baker’s is the biggest suspension for a player extending from any single match in 20 years.
How can this happen when virtually no one saw an extended stint on the sidelines coming?
Of course, the other frustrating aspect of this story – and the Hall-Thompson story before it – is the role umpiring had on the events that took place.
Both Baker and Thompson are players known to tread the line. It is the job of umpires to pull them up when they cross it.
Yet the ten officiating umpires at both games chose not to intervene.
Remarkably, there wasn’t even a report out of Friday night’s game. Remarkably still, footage going around last night showed an umpire metres away from one of Baker and Johnson’s clashes and not taking any action.
The inconsistencies of the match review panel are well known, but in this age where taggers and defenders who can frustrate opponents are often applauded, the umpires can’t escape scrutiny when they let things go and situations escalate.
It will be interesting to see whether there are any changes in officiating of similar incidents as the season continues.
But for now, all eyes will be on Baker and whether St Kilda decide to contest the match review panel’s findings at the tribunal.
On first thought a challenge makes sense, but a 12-week suspension – a ‘Baker’s Dozen’, as the AFL website have coined it – could see the Saints lose a key player until next season. Hardly a good thing as far as September is concerned.
Recommend this story.
Follow Michael on twitter @mdifabrizio
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- AFL, Geelong Cats, Match Review Panel, St Kilda Saints, Steve Johnson, Steven Baker
June 29th 2010 @ 9:51pm
Josh said | June 29th 2010 @ 9:51pm | Report comment
Geez, enough with the “uproar” already. Regardless of whether his striking charges were soft or not (oh remember a time when if a player clocked another on the chin, no matter the “impact” they would still be charged and usually suspended?) there were THREE of them plus another cowardly act by attacking an injury. Furthermore had the guy not had a bad record it would have been only four weeks (assuming early guilty plea I think?). Does anyone think four weeks wasn’t fair enough for the crap that was served up? Forget that it was doubled because of his bad record – that’s the system. It’s there to penalise players with a bad record and so it should.
Of course St Kilda are sufficiently peeved that they will appeal – yawn. Is he really worth that much time and energy?
June 30th 2010 @ 6:51am
Ben Somerford said | June 30th 2010 @ 6:51am | Report comment
I flew out of Australia on the weekend after watching Friday night’s game and only caught up with this news today on Tuesday and was staggered. Can’t comprehend a 9-week suspension!