MRP / Trib. 2024 - MRO Chook Lotto - Carlton Tribunal News & Reports

[Aphrodite]

 

[Jatz]

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.

To appease the fanbase as well I suppose.

I'm surprised he was suspended in the first place but having seen the criteria they're trying to overturn, I just don't see an adequate argument being made.

 

[ITCHY EYEBALLS]

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.

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.

 

[Opium]

I'll be staggered if the Swans get this overturned from here.

How could anyone successfully argue that a 1 week suspension is "manifestly excessive"?

Because it's a disgraceful decision

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

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.

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.

 

[Jatz]

Because it's a disgraceful decision

Not in a manifestly excessive way though.

I don't agree with it either, with the language used in the appeals spiel though, I just don't see them being able to overturn it.

 

[Accidental genius]

I laugh at some in media arguing heeney was trying to push himself away from Webster

You donut push yourself away by swinging your arm

Heeneys action was all about striking but most likely intended to the body but Webster did lower himself a little as he was running so copped it across the nose.

1 week ever day of the week.

 

[Sector 7G]

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

Tried to hit him in the chest and got him in the face. Clear 1 week.

Houli did the same thing on Lamb 5 or so years ago and got him harder and got 2 weeks.

Gaff didn't mean to get Brayshaw in the head but broke his jaw and got 8 weeks.

Only 100% sure way to make sure a strike doesn't get someone in the head is to not throw it.

 

[Dramoth]

Swans heading to the AFL Appeals Board to appeal Heeney's 1 match ban

So... can we appeal the Greene fine on that last point? That it is manifestly inadequate?

 

[skadoosh]

So... can we appeal the Greene fine on that last point? That it is manifestly inadequate?

 

[Aphrodite]

 

[Aphrodite]

 

[Aphrodite]

Not looking good for Sydney

 

[Aphrodite]

 

[Aphrodite]

Appeals Board is now deliberating

 

[YeoShuey]

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”.

 

[Aphrodite]

Appeal FAILED!

 

[BrianSetzer]

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”.

Remind them of Barry Hall and how the corrupt AFL allowed him to play in the grand final that they went on to win.

 

[4flagsin5yrs]

 

[My Hat]

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.

I mean, the Swans are right. The redefinition of 'intentional' was always a clumsy retrofit to allow the AFL to get the sort of outcomes they wanted. But the AFL is also right: under the definitions they've established, this is the clear outcome.

More tinkering isn't going to fix it. The whole system needs a rethink.

 

[Bluechip66]

But Zac butters can deliberately punch someone in the face & only get a fine….what flipping joke!

 

[TimeFor17]

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.

 

[Jatz]

As I expected, they had no grounds on which that appeal would be overturned.

The problem was the first tribunal hearing, their lawyers suck.

 

[Jatz]

To further add to that, it seems pretty clear their lawyers were in over their head. Clearly misunderstood the appeals process.

 

[Blue Pulse]

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.

Hogan threw a punch at Young and because it did no damage, he was given the all clear. Is this equivalent of going in to rob a bank and they have no cash so you leave with nothing and therefore, all clear? The intention was to cause harm.

Sydney should have argued the fact that Heeney had tried to hit the arm of Webster which Webster's intent was to hinder Heeney's progress to the contest. Heeney's intent is to slap away the arm reaching for his jumper, his hand striking at a level below Heeney's shoulder, therefore he never intended to hit Webster in the face as he wasn't to know Webster had stumbled causing his face to be lower than it normally would be. In this case there was no intention to cause harm.

If the AFL had any real logic behind their system, any striking action would be at least 1 week pending severity as this would stop all striking actions and would stop confusion. It is an illegal action within the game, get rid of it!

 

[Aphrodite]