News

Australian Rules > In the end, they'll get you
By Roger Vaughan
June 30, 2010

In the end, they usually get you.

If you bend and break the rules enough, eventually whoever makes the rules will get a chance to enforce them.

The nature of Steven Baker's playing role for St Kilda and the way he goes about his job means he often sails very close to the wind.

Every successful team has a Steven Baker or a variation on that style of player, a mean defender/tagger whose sole job is to restrict the effectiveness of his opponent.

His hard work and unwavering loyalty makes him a club favourite, but the way he goes about his work polarises opinion.

Baker is an expert practitioner and some of his tactics are dark arts in the eyes of the AFL.

He had already received a seven-week suspension three years ago.

The Saints, their fans and even some outside the club are outraged that Baker now has a nine-week ban.

Even most who are pleased with Baker's enforced holiday were shocked at the severity of the punishment.

Baker's total penalty came from four incidents during Friday night's bruising grand final rematch against Geelong, all involving his direct opponent Steve Johnson.

It's certainly a hefty ban, the biggest total suspension since the current tribunal system started five years ago.

He is out of action until the finals.

But life isn't fair - Saints fans are painfully aware of this, more than most football supporters.

It's worth noting that a perfect storm of circumstances conspired against Baker this time, so when he sailed too close to the wind he was swamped.

* One of the central tenets of the tribunal system is that you are a repeat offender at your peril - a bad record means extra loading when your punishment is calculated. Steve Baker is no angel.

* Baker and Johnson had a well-publicised matchup during last year's grand final. It was a no-brainer for Channel Seven to have one of their cameras specifically following them during Friday's game. That meant if anything happened, even well off the ball, there would be clear video evidence.

* Under tribunal rules, the way the total penalty is calculated for multiple offences in one game added to Baker's pain. Any carryover points from each invidividual charge were added to the total suspension, not held over, and that meant extra matches.

They're facts. But there are a couple of other points that need mentioning.

Baker's punishment came only a week after the panel did not charge Carlton captain Chris Judd for hitting Fremantle counterpart Matthew Pavlich.

The Dockers forward needed stitches in his cheek because of the blow - it was a ridiculous decision not to charge Judd and it rightly received widespread condemnation.

Also, a few weeks ago, there was video footage of Richmond forward Jack Riewoldt trying to hit the arm of Tayte Pears in a match.

It was Pears' first game back from a broken arm.

Now, the AFL stress that the match review panel is a totally-independent body. But even if there wasn't a quiet phone call or two, you wonder if the Judd and Riewoldt incidents encouraged the panel to flex some demerit points muscle at Baker's expense.

Regardless, Baker's nine-week ban represents a big statement from AFL House about what a tagger can and cannot do during a match.

And you can almost hear the AFL heavies saying: "in the end, we'll get you."
Share |