MRP / Trib. 2024 MRP Lotto thread II

[gokangas]

Now that is not how I thought this would end.

 

[Ashley B]

Off to The Supreme Court we go

 

[Hatchy1992]

Off to The Supreme Court we go View attachment 2045372

Wouldn't be shocked if the swans demanded that lol.

 

[Nylex]

Now let’s beat this post climbing, umpire squealing mob

 

[Cyber_punk]

Off to The Supreme Court we go View attachment 2045372

I hear this will be his Lawyer

 

[Rooniversity]

Me casually checking in assuming Heeney got cleared

 

[Passmore]

Excellent. **** them.

Sent from my SM-A908B using Tapatalk

 

[giantroo]

Reasons:

The player has come to the Appeal Board, relying upon three grounds of appeal.

The first ground was that there was an error of law committed by the Tribunal that had a material impact upon its decision.

The second ground was that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to the conclusion that it did.

The third ground was that there was manifest excessiveness in classifying the conduct as intentional.

FIRST GROUND

The question comes down to whether or not a finding of intentional conduct on the part of Heeney was open to the Tribunal.

We stress at this point that this Appeal Board is not here to conduct what lawyers call a merits review.

We are not here to decide the guilt or innocence of the player. We are here to oversee and review the decision of the Tribunal.

It’s enough that we find that there was evidence or material which made it open to the Tribunal to come to a finding of intentional conduct.

We looked at the videos a number of times, and counsel have addressed us about the videos. Certainly there was material before the Tribunal put by Miller that could have suggested carelessness or accidental conduct on the part of Heeney because he stopped momentarily after the incident and looked surprised by it.

There are other matters that may bear upon whether the conduct was accidental
or careless.

For us, viewing the video evidence, reading the transcript of the evidence of Heeney, it's apparent to us and we therefore conclude there was material before the Tribunal in which it was open to the Tribunal to make the finding of intentional conduct.

We therefore dismiss that ground of appeal.

SECOND GROUND

The second ground of appeal only that there was some manifest excessiveness
in categorising the conduct as intentional must also fail, really, for the reasons we've outlined above, that ground of appeal is dismissed.

THIRD GROUND

Thirdly, the ground of appeal dealing with Tribunals acting reasonably - based historically upon the Wednesbury principle - also cannot be made out.

To our mind, having regard to all the material that was before the Tribunal, and looking carefully at the reasons expressed by the Tribunal at the end of the hearing, we do not consider that the Tribunal acted unreasonably or unjustly or unfairly.

We therefore dismiss that ground.

Accordingly, the appeal by Heeney is dismissed.

 

[Passmore]

Can't tell if this bloke is happy or not....

Sent from my SM-A908B using Tapatalk

 

[travelli]

Excellent. **** them.

Sent from my SM-A908B using Tapatalk

I'd hate to see a roos player miss a brownlow for that, but at the end of the day he did smack the other guy in the face, drew blood and put him out of the contest so he could take an easy mark.

Probably should have been 2 weeks.

 

[gokangas]

I'd hate to see a roos player miss a brownlow for that, but at the end of the day he did smack the other guy in the face, drew blood and put him out of the contest so he could take an easy mark.

Probably should have been 2 weeks.

Have a look at what cost McKernan a Brownlow. A joke to this day.

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

Have a look at what cost McKernan a Brownlow. A joke to this day.

They do sometimes pay a free kick for it these days, although on the weekend there was a suns player who got away with one.

 

[Passmore]

I'd hate to see a roos player miss a brownlow for that, but at the end of the day he did smack the other guy in the face, drew blood and put him out of the contest so he could take an easy mark.

Probably should have been 2 weeks.

I’ve seen a North player miss a Brownlow for less.

Sydney have had enough go their way over the years. About time they copped something.

 

[Devington]

Bit surprised that he won't be playing this weekend, but today's appeal was pretty damned weak. Clearly the swans misread the memo the AFL sent to them on how to get out of this one.

 

[Ashley B]

It seems Heeney not that good of a bloke lol

 

[Ashley B]

Swans trying to work out as we speak , how to get the word Fairest out of the Brownlow medal. So far they have come up with “it’s just not fair”.

 

[Mute Point]

Reasons:

The player has come to the Appeal Board, relying upon three grounds of appeal.

The first ground was that there was an error of law committed by the Tribunal that had a material impact upon its decision.

The second ground was that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to the conclusion that it did.

The third ground was that there was manifest excessiveness in classifying the conduct as intentional.

FIRST GROUND

The question comes down to whether or not a finding of intentional conduct on the part of Heeney was open to the Tribunal.

We stress at this point that this Appeal Board is not here to conduct what lawyers call a merits review.

We are not here to decide the guilt or innocence of the player. We are here to oversee and review the decision of the Tribunal.

It’s enough that we find that there was evidence or material which made it open to the Tribunal to come to a finding of intentional conduct.

We looked at the videos a number of times, and counsel have addressed us about the videos. Certainly there was material before the Tribunal put by Miller that could have suggested carelessness or accidental conduct on the part of Heeney because he stopped momentarily after the incident and looked surprised by it.

There are other matters that may bear upon whether the conduct was accidental
or careless.

For us, viewing the video evidence, reading the transcript of the evidence of Heeney, it's apparent to us and we therefore conclude there was material before the Tribunal in which it was open to the Tribunal to make the finding of intentional conduct.

We therefore dismiss that ground of appeal.

SECOND GROUND

The second ground of appeal only that there was some manifest excessiveness
in categorising the conduct as intentional must also fail, really, for the reasons we've outlined above, that ground of appeal is dismissed.

THIRD GROUND

Thirdly, the ground of appeal dealing with Tribunals acting reasonably - based historically upon the Wednesbury principle - also cannot be made out.

To our mind, having regard to all the material that was before the Tribunal, and looking carefully at the reasons expressed by the Tribunal at the end of the hearing, we do not consider that the Tribunal acted unreasonably or unjustly or unfairly.

We therefore dismiss that ground.

Accordingly, the appeal by Heeney is dismissed.

In a nutshell, they wasted not only their own time, but everyone else's by appealing.

 

[The Law]

**** em and **** him.

Sydney have had 943 leg ups from the AFL. The is the first thing that has gone against them.

 

[ArchKing Carey]

Tbh, the Brownlow has been heavily tarnished by umpires "perceptions". I.e. last year, corn Francis getting 3 votes in a game he had 6 possessions. The AFL MVP or AFL Coaches association award is more of a reflection of the best player in the comp. Likely Heeney will win one of those.

 

[Roostorm]

Ah well…don’t swing arms and hit faces…
Must admit…l’m surprised ( yay ) that they actually followed through with upholding the suspension.
Que media and x melts for oh he’s a good guy. Change the fairest section of the Brownlow….. Darn Corey took it on the chin…not like this lot.
Guess they will go and do a Dunkley now based on the vibe .

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Can't tell if this bloke is happy or not....

Sent from my SM-A908B using Tapatalk

FACIAL!

 

[Engimal v3]

WTF I love the tribunal now

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

Tbh, the Brownlow has been heavily tarnished by umpires "perceptions". I.e. last year, corn Francis getting 3 votes in a game he had 6 possessions. The AFL MVP or AFL Coaches association award is more of a reflection of the best player in the comp. Likely Heeney will win one of those.

Heeney will probably only get one vote on Saturday though on account of him hammering Webster on the puss.

 

[muttley45]

So, is that 10 grand for the failed appeal tonight, and 10 grand for the failed tribunal case too ? hope so

 

[hilly]

They do sometimes pay a free kick for it these days, although on the weekend there was a suns player who got away with one.

Was a 50 at worst for slipping over.

On SM-S901E using BigFooty.com mobile app