Player Watch #5 Isaac Heeney

Remove this Banner Ad

Heeney 2.jpg

Isaac Heeney

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


www.sydneyswans.com.au

Isaac Heeney | AFL

Follow Isaac Heeney's progress through AFL
www.sydneyswans.com.au www.sydneyswans.com.au
 
Last edited by a moderator:
maxresdefault.jpg
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Tesla Tenet said:
Dennis Denuto. It's Mabo. It's the vibe. Heeney walks away free.

Sent from my SM-G990E using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Except worse our bloke made heebey tell them he does it 50 times a game lol
 
liz said:
I'm not sure that anyone could watch this incident and think it was intentional by Heeney. But...based on what is in the published transcript, that was an unimpressive case argued by the Swans' counsel.

I reckon in these borderline cases (ie where there is no serious injury, or likelihood or serious injury), the tribunal actually wants to clear players. It's up to counsel to give them an easy way to make that decision.

The challenge to be overcome was the AFL's decision to change the rule over the off-season to say that these kinds of action will "usually" be deemed deliberate. So I would have thought a dive into what incidents caused the AFL to make that change (as research, not necessarily evidence presented at the tribunal) would have been the starting point. And then the focus should have been building an argument about why this was not "usual" - the position of Webster's head compared to where Heeney might reasonable have expected it to be and the motion (a downwards swipe). Those things were brought up in the tribunal testimony but not built into a compelling argument.

Unfortunately an appeal is unlikely to be successful. An appeal isn't a chance to have a second go if the first defence wasn't very good. A club can only appeal based on a) an error of law; or b) a manifestly unreasonable conclusion based on the evidence presented. I don't see either of those avenues as open. The way the AFL wrote the law does make the Heeney action, prima facie, intentional. And I think the appeals board would conclude it wasn't unreasonable for the tribunal to reach the conclusion they did (irrespective of whether a different group of tribunal individuals could have reached a different decision).

The Charlie Cameron ruling from earlier this year has added a whole lot of fog into the system. My guess is that the AFL told the tribunal never to apply such a downgrading again, but what they should have done is appeal the decision at the time. It's hard to see why Cameron's rap sheet (lots of incidents for which he'd previously been fined) was deemed cleaner than other players' rap sheets who have tried - and failed - to since use the "good bloke" card.
Click to expand...
Hi Liz, I'm afraid I disagree with the idea of this being a reasonable decision. To deem the action deliberate is the default position. The reason the term "usually" is used is to recognize that there are exceptions.

The rule is designed to deal with the situation where a player who is being tagged takes wild, head high swings at the tagging player behind him. This is a highly reckless action and should rightly be regarded as deliberate.

To say that the evidence before the Tribunal is a typical " deemed" deliberate act is, however,I would argue, extremely unreasonable based on the evidence before the Tribunal. That evidence being, primarily, the videos supplemented by verbal evidence.

The video evidence clearly shows that Heeney, who is about to have the ball kicked to him, is being held without the ball without the umpires blowing the whistle.

To argue that he was not in the play when he is clearly about to be passed the ball is an unreasonable conclusion by the Tribunal.He is being held with the expectation by Webster that the ball is about to arrive.

The video clearly shows that Heeney's back was turned (because he had eyes on the ball) and could not see that Webster was in the process of falling, a process that took only a split second.That was the only reason that contact to the head was made, the only reason.

The verbal evidence from Heeney was that he was trying to Swat Webster's arms away.

The comments of the Tribunal, where they basically say that Heeney was lying and that he could see that he was going to make contact with Webster's head, is absolutely outrageous, and would in legal circles, be regarded as giving evidence from the bench.There was no such evidence given. This is also unreasonable.

Despite the weak case put forward by our advocate, there are strong grounds for an appeal in my opinion.

PS: I have just seen that we are appealing. YESSS!!


Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk
 
Neverwas said:
Hi Liz, I'm afraid I disagree with the idea of this being a reasonable decision. To deem the action deliberate is the default position. The reason the term "usually" is used is to recognize that there are exceptions.

The rule is designed to deal with the situation where a player who is being tagged takes wild, head high swings at the tagging player behind him. This is a highly reckless action and should rightly be regarded as deliberate.

To say that the evidence before the Tribunal is a typical " deemed" deliberate act is, however,I would argue, extremely unreasonable based on the evidence before the Tribunal. That evidence being, primarily, the videos supplemented by verbal evidence.

The video evidence clearly shows that Heeney, who is about to have the ball kicked to him, is being held without the ball without the umpires blowing the whistle.

To argue that he was not in the play when he is clearly about to be passed the ball is an unreasonable conclusion by the Tribunal.He is being held with the expectation by Webster that the ball is about to arrive.

The video clearly shows that Heeney's back was turned (because he had eyes on the ball) and could not see that Webster was in the process of falling, a process that took only a split second.That was the only reason that contact to the head was made, the only reason.

The verbal evidence from Heeney was that he was trying to Swat Webster's arms away.

The comments of the Tribunal, where they basically say that Heeney was lying and that he could see that he was going to make contact with Webster's head, is absolutely outrageous, and would in legal circles, be regarded as giving evidence from the bench.There was no such evidence given. This is also unreasonable.

Despite the weak case put forward by our advocate, there are strong grounds for an appeal in my opinion.

PS: I have just seen that we are appealing. YESSS!!


Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Excellent comments! 👍🤓

Can you please assist our legal team on the appeal 🙏
 
Neverwas said:
Hi Liz, I'm afraid I disagree with the idea of this being a reasonable decision. To deem the action deliberate is the default position. The reason the term "usually" is used is to recognize that there are exceptions.

The rule is designed to deal with the situation where a player who is being tagged takes wild, head high swings at the tagging player behind him. This is a highly reckless action and should rightly be regarded as deliberate.

To say that the evidence before the Tribunal is a typical " deemed" deliberate act is, however,I would argue, extremely unreasonable based on the evidence before the Tribunal. That evidence being, primarily, the videos supplemented by verbal evidence.

The video evidence clearly shows that Heeney, who is about to have the ball kicked to him, is being held without the ball without the umpires blowing the whistle.

To argue that he was not in the play when he is clearly about to be passed the ball is an unreasonable conclusion by the Tribunal.He is being held with the expectation by Webster that the ball is about to arrive.

The video clearly shows that Heeney's back was turned (because he had eyes on the ball) and could not see that Webster was in the process of falling, a process that took only a split second.That was the only reason that contact to the head was made, the only reason.

The verbal evidence from Heeney was that he was trying to Swat Webster's arms away.

The comments of the Tribunal, where they basically say that Heeney was lying and that he could see that he was going to make contact with Webster's head, is absolutely outrageous, and would in legal circles, be regarded as giving evidence from the bench.There was no such evidence given. This is also unreasonable.

Despite the weak case put forward by our advocate, there are strong grounds for an appeal in my opinion.

PS: I have just seen that we are appealing. YESSS!!


Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That is great news. I too agree it WAS a combination of unusual circumstances - and as much an ‘accident’ as could be expected to qualify as ‘Not Usual’.

And I’m glad you made the point about them asserting Heeney could see Webster’s head - talk about a ‘hanging panel’.
 
LukeParkerno1 said:
Now we appeal!

Please tell me we have better legal councel today and not the second coming of Danny DeVito
Click to expand...
Forget Danny DiVeto, we need Joe Pesci
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Neverwas said:
Hi Liz, I'm afraid I disagree with the idea of this being a reasonable decision. To deem the action deliberate is the default position. The reason the term "usually" is used is to recognize that there are exceptions.

The rule is designed to deal with the situation where a player who is being tagged takes wild, head high swings at the tagging player behind him. This is a highly reckless action and should rightly be regarded as deliberate.

To say that the evidence before the Tribunal is a typical " deemed" deliberate act is, however,I would argue, extremely unreasonable based on the evidence before the Tribunal. That evidence being, primarily, the videos supplemented by verbal evidence.

The video evidence clearly shows that Heeney, who is about to have the ball kicked to him, is being held without the ball without the umpires blowing the whistle.

To argue that he was not in the play when he is clearly about to be passed the ball is an unreasonable conclusion by the Tribunal.He is being held with the expectation by Webster that the ball is about to arrive.

The video clearly shows that Heeney's back was turned (because he had eyes on the ball) and could not see that Webster was in the process of falling, a process that took only a split second.That was the only reason that contact to the head was made, the only reason.

The verbal evidence from Heeney was that he was trying to Swat Webster's arms away.

The comments of the Tribunal, where they basically say that Heeney was lying and that he could see that he was going to make contact with Webster's head, is absolutely outrageous, and would in legal circles, be regarded as giving evidence from the bench.There was no such evidence given. This is also unreasonable.

Despite the weak case put forward by our advocate, there are strong grounds for an appeal in my opinion.

PS: I have just seen that we are appealing. YESSS!!


Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Is there also a flaw in the rule, why is this incident the only incident that comes with intentional grading regardless, every other indiscretion has the ability to be classified in 3 ways. It’s a contradiction that just creates inequities.
 
Have we started that Go Fund Me page to secure the future services of the legal Maestro Bret Walker?? Coz I reckon we’ll need him at some point.
 

Player Watch #5 Isaac Heeney

Similar threads

Heeney2Franklin
Autopsy 53 point win against GCS
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
266
Views
7K
Wolfgang West
W
D
POTY Round 5 vs Richmond
2
Replies
25
Views
851
scaryness
scaryness
Heeney2Franklin
Autopsy After a slow start a swarm of Swans crush Carlton by 52.
15 16 17 18 19
Replies
466
Views
13K
Kiama Chris
Kiama Chris
SwansProudly
  • Locked
Game Day 2023 Round 21 • GWS v Sydney • Saturday 5 August • 7:30 PM @ Giants
41 42 43 44 45
Replies
1K
Views
12K
ShireSwan
S
Ticky009
AFLW Autopsy 2023 Season 8 Round 10 - Fremantle vs Swans Sunday 5th Nov 5:05pm
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
161
Views
3K
SwansProudly
SwansProudly
Ticky009
  • Poll
Live Event Sydney Swans Bob Skilton Medal 2023 Thursday 5th Oct @ 6:30pm
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
264
Views
7K
Nuggetz
Nuggetz
SwansProudly
AFLW Autopsy 2023 Season 8 Round 06 - Port Adelaide v Swans Saturday 7 Oct 5:05 pm @ Alberton
2 3 4 5
Replies
120
Views
2K
Kiama Chris
Kiama Chris

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top