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

[Maddo11]

Longmire sooking it up about Heeney backhanding a guy in the face is pretty funny after how hard he went on Wright earlier in the year.

Sooking? Lmao, Brad Scott is the reason that Docklands roof is never open because once there was a widdle spwinkle of wain

Brad Scott would have had a 20 minute rant on AFL360 or Footy Classified if the boot were on the other foot

 

[Vindicater]

Sooking? Lmao, Brad Scott is the reason that Docklands roof is never open because once there was a widdle spwinkle of wain

Brad Scott would have had a 20 minute rant on AFL360 or Footy Classified if the boot were on the other foot

"How am I supposed to coach him".

Oh I don't know John. How about you coach him to stop hitting guys in the head.

 

[RUNVS]

"How am I supposed to coach him".

Oh I don't know John. How about you coach him to stop hitting guys in the head.

You make it sound way worse than it was. Heeney clearly did not intend to do that and if the St Kilda player was standing at a normal height he would have hit him in the chest, which is what Heeney was likely aiming for.

 

[mcgrath_truther]

Sooking? Lmao, Brad Scott is the reason that Docklands roof is never open because once there was a widdle spwinkle of wain

Brad Scott would have had a 20 minute rant on AFL360 or Footy Classified if the boot were on the other foot

brad scott has said that accidental incidents (such as this) shouldn't come into consideration for suspension from the brownlow (same as simon goodwin tbf), as was reported on in the news on monday/tuesday.

can't remember specifically but it was along the lines of how football accidents, again, such as this, that may result in a suspension, shouldn't deem one ineligible from getting the brownlow.

 

[Vindicater]

You make it sound way worse than it was. Heeney clearly did not intend to do that and if the St Kilda player was standing at a normal height he would have hit him in the chest, which is what Heeney was likely aiming for.

Heeney threw a blind backhand and copped a guy in the face.

Why didn't he do what most forwards do and have done for a hundred years and engaged from front on and attempt to shove Websters chest to increase seperation?

 

[HirdsTheWord]

You make it sound way worse than it was. Heeney clearly did not intend to do that and if the St Kilda player was standing at a normal height he would have hit him in the chest, which is what Heeney was likely aiming for.

agreed

he's just on the wrong side of a rule.

it's a careless act but the rule itself deems it intentional by default, i suppose the issue is when a rule itself writes in a grading, its very hard to then argue against that grading.

The rule is pretty clear, its just quite harsh when applied.

It will be interesting to hear what the swan's team they actually say in the appeal to argue it. I struggle to see what part of the wording of rule itself they can argue against.

 

[Orange crush]

Sicily copped 3 weeks last year for a nothing tackle …. Heeney shouldn’t get away with a whack in the face

 

[beside the seaside]

He won't get off at appeal.

 

[Maddo11]

Sicily copped 3 weeks last year for a nothing tackle …. Heeney shouldn’t get away with a whack in the face

Wasn't expecting that one to get a mention in here lol

 

[HairyO]

brad scott has said that accidental incidents (such as this) shouldn't come into consideration for suspension from the brownlow (same as simon goodwin tbf), as was reported on in the news on monday/tuesday.

can't remember specifically but it was along the lines of how football accidents, again, such as this, that may result in a suspension, shouldn't deem one ineligible from getting the brownlow.

This wouldnt count because its listed as intentional. Do we all think Cripps gets one week for the exact same action?

 

[skipper kelly]

Wasn't expecting that one to get a mention in here lol

It's like a who's who of tribunal stories.

 

[mcgrath_truther]

This wouldnt count because its listed as intentional. Do we all think Cripps gets one week for the exact same action?

yeah, i know, i don’t think the action was intentional personally (at least to whack him in the face)

given that the AFL (with no help of michael christian) are trying to stamp out inconsistencies, he probably would, although carlton players have gotten off with worse actions before

 

[The Mares Leg]

Heeney threw a blind backhand and copped a guy in the face.

Why didn't he do what most forwards do and have done for a hundred years and engaged from front on and attempt to shove Websters chest to increase seperation?

Because Heeney was being illegally restrained by Webster, while trying to run away from him to get the ball - not sure stopping, turning around, pushing him and then trying to break free is great football craft. - but you might.

There are a dozen differences between your lame summaries and what actually happened - most will slowly work that out.

 

[Vindicater]

Because Heeney was being illegally restrained by Webster, while trying to run away from him to get the ball - not sure stopping, turning around, pushing him and then trying to break free is great football craft. - but you might.

There are a dozen differences between your lame summaries and what actually happened - most will slowly work that out.

 

[The Mares Leg]

….Well….that makes more sense than most of your stuff.

 

[Bunnings]

I must have missed when Spinning Back Fists were allowed in AFL

 

[DapperDon]

Because Heeney was being illegally restrained by Webster, while trying to run away from him to get the ball - not sure stopping, turning around, pushing him and then trying to break free is great football craft. - but you might.

There are a dozen differences between your lame summaries and what actually happened - most will slowly work that out.

Are you looking at the correct incident?

I think this may be your problem, go find the correct backhand from Heeney then comment, it will save future incorrect takes such as this.

 

[Vindicater]

….Well….that makes more sense than most of your stuff.

Your argument was that Heeney was allowed to whack a guy in the head because he was being illegally held.

 

[astrowizzle]

Because Heeney was being illegally restrained by Webster, while trying to run away from him to get the ball - not sure stopping, turning around, pushing him and then trying to break free is great football craft. - but you might.

There are a dozen differences between your lame summaries and what actually happened - most will slowly work that out.

Oh no s someone is holding I on to me I better smash them in the face coz that's all fair

 

[zyzzbruh]

agreed

he's just on the wrong side of a rule.

it's a careless act but the rule itself deems it intentional by default, i suppose the issue is when a rule itself writes in a grading, its very hard to then argue against that grading.

The rule is pretty clear, its just quite harsh when applied.

It will be interesting to hear what the swan's team they actually say in the appeal to argue it. I struggle to see what part of the wording of rule itself they can argue against.

Rule is clear blah blah. Please then explain how Hewett and Hogan got their intentional incidents downgraded then.. literal deliberate fists to the face.

Can argue about the rule being the rule till we're all blue in the face but simple fact is there is precedence for arguing your way out of 'intentional'. It may not make sense legally, but it's happened multiple times now, so therefore unfair to rub out other players for similar incidents for the remainder of 2024. Not to mention Charlie Cameron getting off based on a character reference.

With those examples in mind I struggle to see why you're struggling to see.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Rule is clear blah blah. Please then explain how Hewett and Hogan got their intentional incidents downgraded then.. literal deliberate fists to the face.

Can argue about the rule being the rule till we're all blue in the face but simple fact is there is precedence for arguing your way out of 'intentional'. It may not make sense legally, but it's happened multiple times now, so therefore unfair to rub out other players for similar incidents for the remainder of 2024. Not to mention Charlie Cameron getting off based on a character reference.

With those examples in mind I struggle to see why you're struggling to see.

Hewitt and Hogan should have been suspended also.

Just because they weren't, doesn't mean Heeney gets off.

The rule is crystal clear in Heeney's case. if they just go into the appeal and say Hogan and Hewitt got off so should I, they will lose. They need to somehow argue that the Tribunal made an error of law with the rule. And based on the wording of the rule, i can't see what argument they would make.

Heeney may indeed get off mind you I'm not saying he won't, i just think the argument itself would be interesting.

 

[SM]

Hewitt and Hogan should have been suspended also.

Just because they weren't, doesn't mean Heeney gets off.

The rule is crystal clear in Heeney's case. if they just go into the appeal and say Hogan and Hewitt got off so should I, they will lose. They need to somehow argue that the Tribunal made an error of law with the rule. And based on the wording of the rule, i can't see what argument they would make.

Heeney may indeed get off mind you I'm not saying he won't, i just think the argument itself would be interesting.

That's usually how precedent works.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

That's usually how precedent works.

Precedent isn't precedent when the situation is different.

neither of those players were trying to create separation. Heeney was. You are just focusing on the strike, nothing else.

By your token, why didn't Heeney get the good guy allowance? Like Charlie Cameron? Wasn't that Precedent?

 

[SM]

Precedent isn't precedent when the situation is different.

neither of those players were trying to create separation. Heeney was. You are just focusing on the strike, nothing else.

By your token, why didn't Heeney get the good guy allowance? Like Charlie Cameron? Wasn't that Precedent?

You keep calling it a strike, but it was a downward motion to break free of the restraining hold. Calling it a strike is disingenuous.

How can you intentionally strike someone in the head with a downward motion starting at chest height?

You're quite right, why didn't he? Maybe they'll say he hadn't played enough games. Barrass didn't get it either.

 

[zyzzbruh]

Hewitt and Hogan should have been suspended also.

Just because they weren't, doesn't mean Heeney gets off.

The rule is crystal clear in Heeney's case. if they just go into the appeal and say Hogan and Hewitt got off so should I, they will lose. They need to somehow argue that the Tribunal made an error of law with the rule. And based on the wording of the rule, i can't see what argument they would make.

Heeney may indeed get off mind you I'm not saying he won't, i just think the argument itself would be interesting.

But it does mean you can manage to get off...

Pretty easy argument - Heeney intentionally attempted to swat Webster's hand, any force beyond Webster's hand was incidental momentum and cannot be classed as intentional. The strike then occurs unintentionally. The incident is literally the definition of careless.

If you're driving a car and merge without doing your absolute best example of a head check, and cause an accident - you didn't intentionally cause an accident, it was carelessness resulting in the accident. If you say that according to the rule the act itself is always 'intentional' by default, then a grading of 'careless' would never exist. It's impossible for the two to coexist under that definition.