![](https://images.bigfootymedia.com/icons/mobile-bullets/carlton.png)
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #3
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Sydney Swans vs GWS Giants - 3:20PM Sat - 1st QF
Squiggle tips Swans at 63% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
LIVE: Brisbane Lions vs Carlton - 7:30PM Sat - 1st EF
Squiggle tips Lions at 73% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
AFLW 2024 - Round 2 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
To appease the fanbase as well I suppose.Could be as much "we'll try everything to try and get you off Isaac " more than a genuine belief that they can get him off maybe.
Respectfully, totally disagree.You can't just recklessly throw an arm.back like that. Doesn't matter whether he wanted to get him high. He wanted to strike him. He was negligent in that action.
It's not overly dissimilar to Houli on Lamb in terms of action.
The biggest difference is the outcome of injuries, which just shows the high potential for injury and how lucky Heeney was to get a low impact grading.
Because it's a disgraceful decisionI'll be staggered if the Swans get this overturned from here.
How could anyone successfully argue that a 1 week suspension is "manifestly excessive"?
It's not even remotely arguable. It gets him plum in the mush. He's not swiping down at the arms to break contact. It's an indiscriminate backwards strike. A completely reckless technique for trying to get separation, leaving him completely open to incidental head contact that is foreseeable based on the height, reach and lack of sight when thrown.Respectfully, totally disagree.
It’s arguable that’s Heeney’s arm even struck his face.
Gerard Healy on SEN had a classic editorial on the incident, well worth a listen ( and yes I know, Swans bias and all that).
I guarantee if it was Crippa up on the same charge, this joint would be in complete meltdown.
Not in a manifestly excessive way though.Because it's a disgraceful decision
It's not even remotely arguable. It gets him plum in the mush. He's not swiping down at the arms to break contact. It's an indiscriminate backwards strike. A completely reckless technique for trying to get separation, leaving him completely open to incidental head contact that is foreseeable based on the height, reach and lack of sight when thrown.
View attachment 2044565
So... can we appeal the Greene fine on that last point? That it is manifestly inadequate?Swans heading to the AFL Appeals Board to appeal Heeney's 1 match ban
![]()
Remind them of Barry Hall and how the corrupt AFL allowed him to play in the grand final that they went on to win.Reading the Heeney thread on the Sydney board.
Insane cope. Along the lines of “Curnow would get away with it!”. “Carlton stars would never get penalised for it”.
Miller (Swans) suggests upholding the decision would "wreak complete violence on the rest of the rules and guidelines."
"It would mean a lawful action which might accidentally result in a strike would somehow automatically be deemed to be intentional."
Andrew Woods (AFL) says the Swans are just dissatisfied with the existence of the clause rather than making any valid legal points about why the case should be overturned.
Hogan on Young…. I think the afl does it to get media attention from the controversy. Cannot see any other valid reason for the obvious inconsistency. The only thing they are consistent at is being inconsistent.But Zac butters can deliberately punch someone in the face & only get a fine….what flipping joke!
Hogan on Young…. I think the afl does it to get media attention from the controversy. Cannot see any other valid reason for the obvious inconsistency. The only thing they are consistent at is being inconsistent.