MRP / Trib. Isaac Heeney - High contact on Jimmy Webster

[AnEmptyChair]

he didn't deliberately do it.

But he still did it.

he absolutely deliberately turned and hit him. you can argue about whether he was aiming for teh face, but the fact is he deliberately struck him and that strike was to the face and caused an injury. it's cut and dry

 

[The Mares Leg]

Turns out it wasn't so unusual after all.

Nope…guess not.

But at least I considered the possibility…..Genius.

 

[The Mares Leg]

just another neutral who likes seeing justice done.

I accepted Peter Wright got suspended, you should do the same.

As neutral as James Hird in 86.

 

[LSRU]

As much as I want to be upset I just can’t be. We ask for consistency and we got it.
If you choose to bump, tackle or swing your arm back and you **** it up you pay the consequences.
Blokes dreadfully unlucky but not the first and won’t be the last.

 

[Phone]

Heeney confirmed not a good bloke

it's a little bit interesting, because it seems the Swans didn't submit the claim before 11am today which is what the Tribunal guidelines says needs to happen

The Swans argued there were exceptional and compelling circumstances, aka the “good bloke” rule, saying Heeney’s 193 games with two fines were at least close to the “gold standard” of Charlie Cameron escaping a ban for his 207 games of a good record (though he had been fined five times).

The AFL argued the rule did not apply, firstly because the Swans had not raised it before the hearing, but also because Tom Barrass failed with that ruling having played some 70 fewer games, and because Cameron’s case was unusual for several other reasons.

‘Bog standard’ act ends Swan’s Brownlow dream as Crow stays sidelined for a month

‘Bog standard’ act ends Swan’s Brownlow dream as Crow stays sidelined for a month

www.foxsports.com.au

but it seems that the Tribunal listened to it anyway, and then declined it

Then a submission that the act attracts the operation of regulation 19.6(a) two, in that there are exceptional and compelling circumstances which would make it inappropriate to apply the consequences of appendix one to the classification that's been determined by the tribunal for an offence.

We do not find that the circumstances of this strike that has been graded as intentional render it appropriate to apply the appendix A classification.

 

[fusion]

As neutral as James Hird in 86.

What did he do in high school?

 

[Collateral]

he absolutely deliberately turned and hit him. you can argue about whether he was aiming for teh face, but the fact is he deliberately struck him and that strike was to the face and caused an injury. it's cut and dry

How do you watch tv whilst being blind? Is there some new Braille tech TVs out there? Amazing times we live in!

 

[the big lebowski]

That’s a shame

 

[Maddo11]

Getting my tin foil hat on, the AFLs "betting partners" all just made bank on Heeney for brownlow losses, and now all the major contenders are Victorian, where the weight of consumers is who might have a wager on Bont or Cripps now

Entertainment league, not a sports league.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

he absolutely deliberately turned and hit him. you can argue about whether he was aiming for teh face, but the fact is he deliberately struck him and that strike was to the face and caused an injury. it's cut and dry

nah i reckon Heeney deserves the week but i 100% disagree he did it deliberatley

he hasnt even looking when he swung his arm back and hit the head.

 

[Saint12]

There are at least TWO reasons why Heeney’s case should be considered ‘UNUSUAL’.

1 - The rule was AMENDED to ‘intentional’, to catch players who were jostling prior to a lead and making head contact as they grappled. Heeney was neither grappling or jostling.

2 - Heeney was being ILLEGALLY restrained by Webster, had Webster not ‘clung on’ Heeney would not have need to try to clear his arms and thus made contact.

By rights, the Umpire was to blame for not paying holding the man against Webster.

As such, the action DOES NOT fit the intention of the rule, nor would a guilty finding serve the natural justice of the situation.

AND - to throw a wrench in the works, I think Dempsey MAY have collected Heeney’s knee…falling fwd. Lets see what comes up at the hearing.

Reading this jumble of words gave me a headache....wrench in the works lololol

 

[Cmarsh]

nah i reckon Heeney deserves the week but i 100% disagree he did it deliberatley

he hasnt even looking when he swung his arm back and hit the head.

That's the thing that's hard to fathom out of this. I don't understand how they can uphold it was intentional when he wasn't looking in his opponents direction.

 

[beez]

Getting my tin foil hat on, the AFLs "betting partners" all just made bank on Heeney for brownlow losses, and now all the major contenders are Victorian, where the weight of consumers is who might have a wager on Bont or Cripps now

Entertainment league, not a sports league.

Why post such rubbish?

Anyone can find a vicbias/nonvicbias angle to anything.

Imagine being so daft.

 

[AnEmptyChair]

How do you watch tv whilst being blind? Is there some new Braille tech TVs out there? Amazing times we live in!

answer these three qwuestions:

1. did he swing the arm?
2. did he swing knowing webster was there?
3 did the swinging arm strike webster in the face and cause injury?

WHen you answer yes (the only correct response) to all three of those questions, then if you have a modicum of sense, youll reach the natural conclusion that he was lucky to get off with only a week and anyone arguing he should have got off is legit taking the piss almost certainly because their Swans bias is seriously clouding their judgment

 

[Underarm]

Nope…guess not.

But at least I considered the possibility…..Genius.

Nah you just fell for the time honoured trap of defending Heeney because he plays for the club you support regardless of if he was guilty or not.

 

[Tbonefreo]

Can they do a Carlton and appeal again?

 

[Fadge]

Swans to appeal and he'll get off.

Nothing surer.

 

[matty lloyd the champ]

Getting my tin foil hat on, the AFLs "betting partners" all just made bank on Heeney for brownlow losses, and now all the major contenders are Victorian, where the weight of consumers is who might have a wager on Bont or Cripps now

Entertainment league, not a sports league.

If you want to play the Vic Bias angle, Butters got off earlier in the season. So did Cameron.

Fyfe as well a few years ago in 2015 for this incident.


I say this as a supporter that hates Victorian sides.

 

[Xtreme]

Should have got 3 weeks

Head high contact is not on, even if you swing your arm wildly unable to see who/what you hit.

 

[AnEmptyChair]

Sorry, my mistake. You’re not blind, you just need to lay off the meth.

as expected, youre not intellectually honest enough to respond to some simple questions.

 

[Maddo11]

as expected, youre not intellectually honest enough to respond to some simple questions.

someone who's "intellectually honest" wouldn't describe it as "turning and deliberately punching him in the face" like you did lol

 

[The Mares Leg]

I fought the law and the law won.

 

[Maddo11]

Why post such rubbish?

For a lark. Throughout the thread I've said multiple times I reckon they can't over turn it.

Firmly tongue in cheek

 

[Phone]

If you want to play the Vic Bias angle, Butters got off earlier in the season. So did Cameron.

Fyfe as well a few years ago in 2015 for this incident.


I say this as a supporter that hates Victorian sides.

Yeah but Butters escaped because they were able to argue that the impact did not meet the threshold of a Reportable Offence (negligible vs low impact) and Cameron got off using a rare clause that I very much doubt AFL house was happy about

There's no conspiracy here just as there was no conspiracy when Jesse Hogan and Butters got their charges squashed.

What's funny here is, for the all the Essendon and Swans supporters posting and arguing, the suspension this is probably most like from this season is Mason Redman's one. These were both almost perfect examples of what the AFL is trying to stamp out, and they didn't have an escape route like Hogan and Butters did.

Whether the AFL should be trying to crackdown on this is a perfectly reasonable argument, but the way the rule is written, Heeney (& Redman) didn't have much of a chance of getting it thrown out

 

[justlookingaround]

Well, I hope for his sake he doesn’t poll the most votes on Brownlow night. Wonder if umpires will start to ‘subconsciously’ stop sending votes his way…