They very simply could have been suspensions in 2022 and 2023.
MRP / Trib. Isaac Heeney - High contact on Jimmy Webster
- Thread starter HirdsTheWord
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Feb 13, 2011
- 11,269
- 14,156
- AFL Club
- Richmond
It might have been done to death, but MF still seems confused.
Nothing wrong with Heeneys neck. Much like a bump, it's up to him to make sure he doesn't get him in the head.
Bushdid911
Team Captain
- Oct 9, 2017
- 483
- 837
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
Must be nice to be Sydney, you never actually deserve a suspension or to lose a grand final cause you can just claim conspiracy and claim it never happened.
Occasionally you've gotta tell the social media people to take a walk.
- Aug 20, 2010
- 16,322
- 21,218
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
So you’re asking if it’s usual for a player to intend to strike another player low, but because of the movement of the other player they hit them high instead?
Yes, that’s not at all uncommon.
- Feb 13, 2011
- 11,269
- 14,156
- AFL Club
- Richmond
The Cripps one still was. Carlton found a legal loophole that had nothing to do with the actual case - the initial appeal were too lazy to list all the reasons why it was a suspension. The AFL immediately closed that loophole which is why it wasn't successful tonight when Sydney tried using it again.
The Maynard one was technically still just a smother gone wrong- and again they've immediately rewritten the laws to make it a suspension.
- Apr 17, 2010
- 7,560
- 10,615
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Brilliantly ironic username to content ratio.
Are you considering the AFL/MRO and the Tribunal to be one and the same? At the end of the day, the Tribunal is independent to the MRO/AFL and the Tribunal makes decisions that sometimes backs the MRO/AFL up, and sometimes drives them insane (the Cripps and Maynard ones being examples of that: the AFL tried to suspend them and they got their wings clipped, for different reasons). Likewise I doubt the MRO/AFL was very happy with the Charlie Cameron situation. I think a broad statement like "the tribunal has never been better" would just a bit weird from the AFL, but I just don't think they're worth bringing up here. The AFL has tired to fix up the Cripps and Maynard situlations so next time they happen, they are banned. Heeney just didn't have the benefit of a similar loop-hole here.
- Sep 28, 2007
- 20,150
- 21,129
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Seems drastic, but so is your melt.
How often does it happen in a game would you guess based on your observation vs. Swinging low and connecting with the arms or body?
Apparently its intentional that Heeney hit him in the head while having his back turned to him!!
Thats some good spider senses he has
Good
He's lucky it was only 1 week
It should have been 4 at minimum
He's lucky it was only 1 week
It should have been 4 at minimum
- Aug 20, 2010
- 16,322
- 21,218
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Nobody here has to actually agree it’s a good rule. But that is the rule. That’s the inescapable fact here.
- Mar 26, 2015
- 12,606
- 22,909
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Melb Tigers, Bendigo Braves, Aussie NBA
I'm not surprised to see overly emotional Swans supporters struggling to pick up on the obvious, given the vast majority were way off the mark during this.
The get out of jail free card was the ability to appeal it down to a fine due to the low impact grading. When the visual impact and the blood nose would indicate that it probably should've been medium impact and they'd be arguing 2 weeks down to 1.
The still spending the week in jail part was either down to the ineptitude of the defence, or the fact that there just wasn't enough wriggle room in what he did vs the written rules.
- Feb 13, 2011
- 11,269
- 14,156
- AFL Club
- Richmond
You complain about it being done to death, and then post as if you haven't read or understood a single article or post about why it has to be Intentional.
He Intentionally swung his arm back to hit him. Where it actually hit Webster is irrelevant when grading if it was Intentional or Careless.
- Aug 20, 2010
- 16,322
- 21,218
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Oh like a single digit percent of the time. But it’s certainly not unique.
Stan_Darsh72
Hall of Famer
- Jun 18, 2011
- 39,139
- 65,857
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
I am more shitty that despite having 4 umps on the field there was not a free kick paid.
I feel it is a fine at best.
I feel it is a fine at best.
No they are posters implying he wanted to wack him in the head on purpose
Haha yer that was a bit wild.
Its 1 week and a bloody nose not like he put a guy in hospital
I know this is BigFooty and we shouldn't expect much in the way of constructive input from individuals posting on a social media type platform, but gee whiz most people seem to really prefer conflict over finding agreement on common ground.
Do all the people who agree that the correct decision has been made (and from the rule, I most likely fall into this category) actually believe that he should be ruled out of the Brownlow Medal on the basis of this incident? I do not.
To me, this is the cause of probably over 80% of the consternation over this incident.
As to whether or not I agree with the rule itself, well, that is not a decision made in a vacuum...by which I mean, there are other rules that seem to involve hypocrisy in that a player like Butters is still eligible for the Brownlow even after he hit players deliberately off the ball. Isn't it those non-football actions that should preclude a player from being judged "Fairest" along with the "Best" rather than this incident as an example?
Do all the people who agree that the correct decision has been made (and from the rule, I most likely fall into this category) actually believe that he should be ruled out of the Brownlow Medal on the basis of this incident? I do not.
To me, this is the cause of probably over 80% of the consternation over this incident.
As to whether or not I agree with the rule itself, well, that is not a decision made in a vacuum...by which I mean, there are other rules that seem to involve hypocrisy in that a player like Butters is still eligible for the Brownlow even after he hit players deliberately off the ball. Isn't it those non-football actions that should preclude a player from being judged "Fairest" along with the "Best" rather than this incident as an example?
- Mar 26, 2015
- 12,606
- 22,909
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Melb Tigers, Bendigo Braves, Aussie NBA
This out of character incident aside (not that this incident was sniperish in any way), I've seen nothing from Heeney to suggest he's a sniper.
He broke a rule and got a penalty. That's all. No need to label him like that.
Not sure he loses as heeney guilden papley will take votes of each other
Engimal v3
Premium Gold
Just mucking around, but I'm glad he's not playing this week!
Similar threads
- Poll
