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.
Ben Somerford
Roar Guru
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!
Josh
Guest
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?
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
And it's official. Baker out for nine weeks after being found guilty by the tribunal of his misconduct charge. He did not end up contesting the third striking charge.
Al
Guest
Let me rephrase that, David Hille x3 anyone?
TheHawk
Guest
After watching the game and reading about I think the match review got it right on the striking charges but not the misconduct charge. Johnson may have been injured but he was not being treated or attempting to leave the field. The AFL needs to protect injured players when they are being treated by a trainer/physio/etc, seeking help or attempting to leave the field, however if they play on injured they should expect the opposition to target the injury, no different to how they will run off players with dodgy ankles and the like.
Mark Young
Guest
It is as bad as diving in Football, endless penalty kicks in Rugby and cheap shots to men on the ground in League. I cringe every time I see it.
Mark Young
Guest
I despise the cowardly off the ball rubbish in AFL. If you are going to try and niggle a man, walk up to his face and niggle. If you want to hit him, come from the front, none of this slapping, elbowing, rubbish from behind. Its the way yellow men and children do physical conflict.
Wayno
Guest
I doubt he'll get of on the misconduct charge. The rule was bought in for a reason and Baker ticked all of the boxes to bring on sanction. Johnson broke his hand during the course the game, not a month before.
Redb
Roar Guru
Probably a cop a fine for the misconduct charge.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
The full details now available, Redb. Looks like the third striking charge will be the one he's contesting, as well as the misconduct charge for striking Johnson's hand. http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/97107/default.aspx He's risking ten weeks, which would put him out until the second/third week of finals. But if the Jack Riewoldt example is anything to go by, the misconduct charge is a good chance to be dropped. As it is, he's looking at an absolute minimum of five games, which would see him back by round 19.
Redb
Roar Guru
ahh gives us a break Al. So you seriously reckon Hille (who has been lucky I admit) has been let off easier than Judd. Did you see Pavlich's face after Judd's elbow! Are you blind or just prejudiced against the mighty red and black?
Redb
Roar Guru
No surprises there, let me guess. 1. 2nd striking charge and 2. knocking the injured hand incident?
Al
Guest
David Hille anyone?
Redb
Roar Guru
... Bazza...had me in stitches with that one! But are you sure you want to be a night club comic?
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Baker will contest two of the four charges at the tribunal tonight at 5.30pm.
bazza667
Roar Rookie
Should the AFL instead be encouraging players to slap the opposition and run away when they don't have the ball?
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Only a couple of minutes until St Kilda's deadline for deciding whether to challenge or not. The Cats have accepted the bans for Steve Johnson and Cam Mooney.
Redb
Roar Guru
The Judd elbow is the most blatant oversight in MRP history no doubt.
Art Sapphire
Guest
Poor Steven Baker. All he did was follow his coach's instructions to the letter and now he is going to be hung out to dry. The ridiculous thing is that the umpires allowed him to get away with it all night. Like a naughty school boy who does not get caught doing something bad, he kept doing it until Johnson took matters into his own hands (elbow in this case). How is it possible to miss 4 reportable offences?? The umpires let Steven Baker down. These umpires should be also rubbed out for 12 weeks Interesting to read Grant Thomas - in this morning's Herald Sun "There is no other explanation for the gross inconsistency." Thomas said there were clearly two sets of rules, after the panel ignored Richmond's Jack Riewoldt hitting Essendon defender Tayte Pears' sore hand in Round 9. "How can they watch Jack Riewoldt hit a player's hand and say that's OK, and then nail Steven Baker?" Thomas said. "When they can see Chris Judd throw his elbow back and put a split in (Matthew) Pavlich's eye and then Steve Johnson gets done ... I just don't get it," Thomas said."There is this big (organisation) called the AFL, and what they say goes." The integrity of the AFL's match review panel has to be seriously questioned. There seems to be one law for the stars of the game and another for the remainder.
Redb
Roar Guru
At least one of the striking charges is very soft and should be appealed and quashed. As for the misconduct for trying to hit S Johnson's hand, it should stand. I dislike that kind of stuff in the game. The calls for early umpire intervention are spot on, pay a free kick and it would soon stop.