Player Watch #5 Isaac Heeney: 2024 All Australian

[Kennedy Parker]

Isaac Heeney

Isaac Heeney

5

Isaac Heeney

Age

28

Ht

185cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.2

5star

K

10.4

4star

HB

7.7

5star

M

4.9

5star

T

4.1

5star

CL

2.2

4star

D

14.3

3star

K

8.8

4star

HB

5.5

3star

M

4.8

4star

T

2.5

3star

CL

0.8

3star

D

10.4

3star

K

7.2

3star

HB

3.2

3star

M

2.8

3star

T

2.4

4star

CL

0.8

3star

is a crowd favourite and one of the best young players in the competition. The QBE Sydney Swans Academy graduate won the 2018 AFL Mark of the Year award, was selected in the AFL Players’ Association’s 22Under22 team in two of his eligible four years and played his 100th senior game in 2019. Heeney can be used in the midfield, forward line – where he booted four goals in star teammate Lance Franklin’s absence in Round 20 last year – or as a loose man in defence.

Isaac Heeney

5

Isaac Heeney

Age

28

Ht

185cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.2

5star

K

10.4

4star

HB

7.7

5star

M

4.9

5star

T

4.1

5star

CL

2.2

4star

D

14.3

3star

K

8.8

4star

HB

5.5

3star

M

4.8

4star

T

2.5

3star

CL

0.8

3star

D

10.4

3star

K

7.2

3star

HB

3.2

3star

M

2.8

3star

T

2.4

4star

CL

0.8

3star

DOB: 05 May 1996
DEBUT: 2015
DRAFT: #18, 2014 National Draft
RECRUITED FROM: Cardiff (NSW)

Isaac Heeney | AFL

Follow Isaac Heeney's progress through AFL

www.sydneyswans.com.au

 

[Day_night_honourer]

From the AFL blog:

12m ago
17:53
A response consistent with careless

In summarising the Swans case, they are arguing that Heeney intended to swat away Webster's hold and make contact to his hands, which he did. He could not reasonably have expected Webster had stumbled and his swat would also make contact to the defender's face.

The Swans are also highlighting that his response was "surprise" as soon as contact was made to Webster's nose. It was not the response of someone who intended that contact, but someone who had been careless.

By not recognising this, the decision was "so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could come to that decision". - Nathan Schmook

 

[LukeParkerno1]

We appeal and still go in with the Simpsons lawyer lol

 

[tombomb]

 

[zyzzbruh]

Sounds like Heeney absolutely screwed given the Chair of the appeals board didn't like us reciting evidence from the tribunal on Tuesday

Yep, appeal needs to be based on the specific error made by the tribunal. It's not meant for providing a re run and consideration of the incident. Hopefully it was just part of the prologue to what is some legitimate defense.

 

[TheMase]

Based on the argument, I’m not sure we will see this overturned sadly

 

[sataris]

Yep, appeal needs to be based on the specific error made by the tribunal. It's not meant for providing a re run and consideration of the incident. Hopefully it was just part of the prologue to what is some legitimate defense.

The are arguing that the grading of intentional was incorrect and should have been careless.

But the rule says that all strikes are intentional.

 

[sataris]

In reality though, I personally don't give a shit about the brownlow, just upset he's not going to be able to play against #lolNorf.

 

[TheMase]

 

[tombomb]

The are arguing that the grading of intentional was incorrect and should have been careless.

But the rule says that all strikes are intentional.

For all the anger at the Tribunal and our Lawyer, it remains that the only reason it is even at this point is because of the stupid, totally unnecessary, rule that the AFL invented.

 

[TheGoatBaron]

Who the **** are our lawyers?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

My goodness we have a bad legal counsel lol

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Two days to prepare…

“Sir we don’t like that clause”

Yeah what else

“Ummm”

Yeah the clown car is coming

 

[zyzzbruh]

The are arguing that the grading of intentional was incorrect and should have been careless.

But the rule says that all strikes are intentional.

The rule does say 'usually' intentional, not 'always'. Hence we're arguing the provision that a non intentional strike may occur in unusual circumstances.

The ground for our appeal makes sense if argued eloquently, I think we just have a dud lawyer

 

[Kbroome]

Every high fend off is now a fine as per the rules

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Based on the argument, I’m not sure we will see this overturned sadly

That’s what we get for getting our lawyer for free lol

I mean surely he can’t have cost anything lol

 

[zyzzbruh]

That’s what we get for getting our lawyer for free lol

I mean surely he can’t have cost anything lol

No win no fee

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Honestly it’s possible our argument is WORSE than the first hearing

 

[LukeParkerno1]

No win no fee

Poor thing will be on happy meals if this is his usual argument

 

[Jewelsbon]

Poor thing will be on happy meals if this is his usual argument

I was thinking more like The Sally Army soup kitchen!

 

[BloodySwan]

Based on the argument, I’m not sure we will see this overturned sadly

we screwed it

 

[BloodySwan]

As soon as we said Heeney intend to push Webster we lost the case

 

[zyzzbruh]

As soon as we said Heeney intend to push Webster we lost the case

Yep should've just said he was manoeuvring himself to break free for the lead rather than anything involving a fend

 

[MF]

Yep, I don't think it's getting overturned.

 

[TheGoatBaron]

I’ve already given up

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Heeney would have done better representing himself lol