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

[HirdsTheWord]

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.

He did strike him.

I'm not calling it Intentional. The rule is calling it intentional

 

[HirdsTheWord]

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.

Ok, but that's not what the rule says.

me and you can agree what we want. The rule itself says it was intentional. The grading is literally written into the rule.

have you actually read the wording of the new rule?

 

[zyzzbruh]

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?

Can you explain how Cameron got off whilst others cannot use the same means? You're pretty clear cut in your understanding of these definitions but you're not explaining how it was justifiable for these other players to get off. The precedence is that you can literally get off under similar circumstances, so not sure how you can feel so assured.

 

[SM]

He did strike him.

I'm not calling it Intentional. The rule is calling it intentional

So not going to answer my question, ok.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

So not going to answer my question, ok.

I did answer your question?

The rule says if you hit someone in the head whilst trying to create separation, it will be graded intentional.

The grading is written into the rule.

 

[SM]

I did answer your question?

The rule says if you hit someone in the head whilst trying to create separation, it will be graded intentional.

The grading is written into the rule.

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

 

[HirdsTheWord]

uh.....

i think you need to go and read the actual rule.

I'm not the one saying its intentional. The rule is.

FYI i dont write the AFL rules.

 

[zyzzbruh]

Ok, but that's not what the rule says.

me and you can agree what we want. The rule itself says it was intentional. The grading is literally written into the rule.

have you actually read the wording of the new rule?

How are we so sure that this incident should be falling under that rule? It isn't the 'backhanded swat' rule. You don't charge someone for speeding if they run a red light..

Whatever rule Hogan's incident fell under is what this one can also fall under then.

 

[Underarm]

Whatever rule Hogan's incident fell under is what this one can also fall under ththen.

Hogan's strike was graded as Intentional.

Hogan Free to Play, Greene’s Ban Upheld

Jesse Hogan has been cleared at the AFL Tribunal, while Toby Greene will miss one match.

www.gwsgiants.com.au

 

[HirdsTheWord]

How are we so sure that this incident should be falling under that rule? It isn't the 'backhanded swat' rule. You don't charge someone for speeding if they run a red light..

Whatever rule Hogan's incident fell under is what this one can also fall under then.

you understand there is a specific rule for this right?

This isn't just a striking rule that Hogan was charged with.

It is a new rule wrote at the end of last year that deals with players throwing a hand behind them attempting to create separation.

Thats why I'm trying to tell you Heeney's and Hogans strikes are not the same thing. They are not linear.

 

[zyzzbruh]

you understand there is a specific rule for this right?

This isn't just a striking rule.

The rule where it states such incidents 'will USUALLY be graded as intentional rather than careless' ?

If it's that one then yeah I know the rule and stand by my point for obvious wording reasons.

 

[The Mares Leg]

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

Cute - hopelessly clueless - but cute.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

The rule where it states such incidents 'will USUALLY be graded as intentional rather than careless' ?

If it's that one then yeah I know the rule and stand by my point for obvious wording reasons.

yep well that's the one

Like is said it will be interesting how the swans argue it.

i think heeney can get off on appeal, but they clearly need to re write the rule than to make it more black and white.

 

[zyzzbruh]

Hogan's strike was graded as Intentional.

Hogan Free to Play, Greene’s Ban Upheld

Jesse Hogan has been cleared at the AFL Tribunal, while Toby Greene will miss one match.

www.gwsgiants.com.au

Even easier then, swans lawyers can provide peer reviewed studies that prove that the nose can bleed under negligable low impact.

 

[SM]

uh.....

i think you need to go and read the actual rule.

I'm not the one saying its intentional. The rule is.

FYI i dont write the AFL rules.

So can't answer it, OK.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

So can't answer it, OK.

yeah i dont think i get what you are trying to ask.

I think you need to put a petition into the AFL. its their rule. I didnt write it.

 

[The Mares Leg]

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.

Oh of course…..silly me!

Both players were stationary, Webster was in front of Heeney, Heeney had ahold of Webster, no one was 30 metres away kicking to anyone , Webster turned around to face Heeney and Heeney back fisted him with a closed fist while turning away from him towards goal.

I wish you’d made me realise this earlier!

 

[Underarm]

Even easier then, swans lawyers can provide peer reviewed studies that prove that the nose can bleed under negligable low impact.

If they wanted to do that, they should have done that on Tueaday. Sydney never questioned the 'low impact grading.

 

[SM]

yeah i dont think i get what you are trying to ask.

I think you need to put a petition into the AFL. its their rule. I didnt write it.

You seem awfully keen to defend it when you can't even explain it.

So if Heeney had struck him in the knee it'd be a ban?

 

[zyzzbruh]

yep well that's the one

Like is said it will be interesting how the swans argue it.

i think heeney can get off on appeal, but they clearly need to re write the rule than to make it more black and white.

Well if the AFL can define their definition of what constitutes 'usually' then they may have a point. My guess is they haven't and would therefore have to prove why his case falls on the 'usually' side despite it being based on... Well.. nothing. Because it hasn't been defined.

There's the loophole, and it wouldn't take much to jump through it other than the AFL trying to spitball their way around it baselessly.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

You seem awfully keen to defend it when you can't even explain it.

So if Heeney had struck him in the knee it'd be a ban?

No, because your knee isn't usually located on your head.

Im not defending anything BTW. I think it was careless, but the rule states it is intentional.

I am quite OK with heeney getting off. But then they need to re write the rule.

 

[Bunnings]

Cute - hopelessly clueless - but cute.

Plugger and Ablett would have got weeks for that in the 80s and 90s, you are too one eyed.
How is Stevie J’s hit here any different? And he copped weeks

 

[The Mares Leg]

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

No, good thing I brought my crayons.

The finding of ‘guilty’ is suspect because Webster was illegally restraining Heeney and the strike would not have occurred if Webster had not been hanging on.

Normally, retribution is no excuse, but this was not the same as two guys punching on - this is the same as a player drawing front on contact and then claiming he was hit in the head.

Now I’m tired of pandering to your misguided guess work - so I’m putting you on ignore.

Enjoy boring others.

 

[zyzzbruh]

No, good thing I brought my crayons.

The finding of ‘guilty’ is suspect because Webster was illegally restraining Heeney and the strike would not have occurred if Webster had not been hanging on.

Normally, retribution is no excuse, but this was not the same as two guys punching on - this is the same as a player drawing front on contact and then claiming he was hit in the head.

Now I’m tired of pandering to your misguided guess work - so I’m putting you on ignore.

Enjoy boring others.

Exactly. There are multiple loopholes in this

 

[The Mares Leg]

Plugger and Ablett would have got weeks for that in the 80s and 90s, you are too one eyed.

Plugger and Ablett actually half killed people - please don’t tell me this is on the same scale.