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

[Underarm]

Putting aside the comedy distractions like the Bushranger and Underarm- it's taken two pages for the discussion to arrive back at my point, posted 2 pages back.

It’s all in the wording of the directive - it says something like - ‘will USUALLY result in a grading of intentional’

I would argue this is not ‘usual’

- The tackling player CONTRIBUTED by slipping and this brought his head down to waist height

- the tackling player was actually ‘hanging on’ and Heeney’s clear intent was to clear the tackle, not strike the player

-Heeney was not watching the tackling player at poc.

- Contact was with the back of the hand and his nose was NOT the 1st POC.

There is simply no way the mechanics of this accident fall into the USUAL actions this rule was drawn up to prevent.

He’ll get off and we can all enjoy watching these poisonous bomber flogs calling for a lynching , burn up in the flames of their own straw arguments.

Repeating it over and over again won't make it true.

 

[DapperDon]

Says another bomber supporter, foaming at the mouth over a Swans player for some pitiable reason or other.

Be proud.

You're having a mare Mare

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I don't see how this can be argued down to careless. They've stated that if you choose to strike off the ball and get your opponent high, it doesn't matter where you intended to strike, it will be graded intentional.
I think they've also done him a favour by grading it low impact and not medium.
Under the criteria for medium impact, it has to clearly have some impact on the player (blood nose) and/or the player leaves the field for a period of time (Webster had to leave under the blood rule and receive treatment).

It certainly fits medium better than it fits low, which has no impact on the game (resulted in an uncontested mark and goal and an opposition player having to leave the ground) and that the player continues to play unabated (clearly not the case when you have to leave the ground with blood pouring out of your nose).

The AFL certainly loves some guidelines made out of spandex. Have to stretch them to fit the occasion.
If it was medium impact, he'd be appealing 2 weeks down to 1 and guaranteed out of the Brownlow race. Massaging the impact down to low, allows him to appeal it down to a fine, whilst looking like they're trying to do the right thing in suspending him.
Will be interesting to see the mental gymnastics required to get this down to careless. There's already talk of a favourable medical report, but I don't see how that affects anything other than the impact grading, which is already at the lowest possible level.

 

[joey_jo_jo]

BZT was not trying to create separation. Heeney was

That’s the difference. The rule specifically uses the word separation

Honestly cant tell if dogs supporters in here are having a laugh or really believe that BZT's act was reportable.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Putting aside the comedy distractions like the Bushranger and Underarm- it's taken two pages for the discussion to arrive back at my point, posted 2 pages back.

It’s all in the wording of the directive - it says something like - ‘will USUALLY result in a grading of intentional’

I would argue this is not ‘usual’

- The tackling player CONTRIBUTED by slipping and this brought his head down to waist height

- the tackling player was actually ‘hanging on’ and Heeney’s clear intent was to clear the tackle, not strike the player

-Heeney was not watching the tackling player at poc.

- Contact was with the back of the hand and his nose was NOT the 1st POC.

There is simply no way the mechanics of this accident fall into the USUAL actions this rule was drawn up to prevent.

He’ll get off and we can all enjoy watching these poisonous bomber flogs calling for a lynching , burn up in the flames of their own straw arguments.

1 week suspension = a lynching?

Some of your justifications are near laughable.

"heeney wasn't watching what he was doing"..........so ****in what lol? How is that an excuse?

You are legit just arguing that websters face got in Heeney's hands way. So by that token didn't Cunningham just get in Peter Wrights way?

We all know the AFL will do what they can for the swans. Not a single person, Essendon supporter or not will be surprised if he gets off.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

View attachment 2043339

this is a thread about Heeney, not Boeing 737 Max.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

I don't see how this can be argued down to careless. They've stated that if you choose to strike off the ball and get your opponent high, it doesn't matter where you intended to strike, it will be graded intentional.
I think they've also done him a favour by grading it low impact and not medium.
Under the criteria for medium impact, it has to clearly have some impact on the player (blood nose) and/or the player leaves the field for a period of time (Webster had to leave under the blood rule and receive treatment).

It certainly fits medium better than it fits low, which has no impact on the game (resulted in an uncontested mark and goal and an opposition player having to leave the ground) and that the player continues to play unabated (clearly not the case when you have to leave the ground with blood pouring out of your nose).

The AFL certainly loves some guidelines made out of spandex. Have to stretch them to fit the occasion.
If it was medium impact, he'd be appealing 2 weeks down to 1 and guaranteed out of the Brownlow race. Massaging the impact down to low, allows him to appeal it down to a fine, whilst looking like they're trying to do the right thing in suspending him.
Will be interesting to see the mental gymnastics required to get this down to careless. There's already talk of a favourable medical report, but I don't see how that affects anything other than the impact grading, which is already at the lowest possible level.

if Heeney gets off, then just remove the rule. What is the point of it?

The new rule literally covers off everything Heeney did. Whether he meant it or not is irrelevant. 90%the suspensions in the AFL are "accidents".

He threw a hand back to create separation and made contact with another player's head.

its hook line and sinker 1 week = per the wording of the rule.

I dont see how you can grade it careless, when the rule itself says it will be graded intentional? if they do it will just be more egg on the omelette that is already on the AFLs face.

 

[The Mares Leg]

Gotta love these oppo supporters desperately convincing themselves into a fever over a 1 weeker for an obvious accident.

I’m betting they’ll be as salty as a Jatz cracker if he gets off.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Gotta love these oppo supporters desperately convincing themselves into a fever over a 1 weeker for an obvious accident.

I’m betting they’ll be as salty as a Jatz cracker if he gets off.

When has it being an accident ever stopped someone being suspended before?

90% of the suspensions this year are from incidents that are accidents, but the ban still sticks.

 

[The Mares Leg]

When has it being an accident ever stopped someone being suspended before?

90% of the suspensions this year are from incidents that are accidents, but the ban still sticks.

I referenced the ‘accident’ as it wasn’t deliberately dirty play -

Nothing to do with whether he’s guilty or not.

An accident, yet the panty-wetters still need to want to see a stake driven in - to justify their perverted sense of what’s right - when really its just jealousy of a top class player.

 

[Dogflogger]

I referenced the ‘accident’ as it wasn’t deliberately dirty play -

Nothing to do with whether he’s guilty or not.

An accident, yet the panty-wetters still need to want to see a stake driven in - to justify their perverted sense of what’s right - when really its just jealousy of a top class player.

St kilda has had 4 players accidentally hit someone in the head this year, they have all be rubbed out for multiple weeks, Should players be judged differently by which team the player for or how high they might be on a brownlow betting site?

Do you think it's fair that they make an example of average players at the tribunal and give those "top class players" slaps on the wrists?

 

[Mighty Storm]

All the MRO can do is tick boxes.
The rule is written to have an out, just in case a high profile player was to challenge it.

There is no way the AFL is going to allow Heeney to be suspended.
He will get off and may even get an apology letter from St Kilda for that dirty player putting his blood on young Heeney.

It is Sydney, they found a way to get Barry Hall off, this one will be easy.

Agree and I wish you could bet on the appeal,gets off for sure for me

 

[The Mares Leg]

We all know the AFL will do what they can for the swans. Not a single person, Essendon supporter or not will be surprised if he gets off.

This statement is exactly the reason I don’t give you the credit to justify a response to the other points you raised. You’re a flag-waver first and foremost.

It’s endemic of most non-Swans supporters on BF because it's a cheap way to run us down - regardless of how many trade sanctions, lost players and legitimate arguments exist - the old ‘AFL’s pets’ gets thrown up as the best shot you’ve got.

Weak.

 

[The Mares Leg]

St kilda has had 4 players accidentally hit someone in the head this year, they have all be rubbed out for multiple weeks, Should players be judged differently by which team the player for or how high they might be on a brownlow betting site?

Do you think it's fair that they make an example of average players at the tribunal and give those "top class players" slaps on the wrists?

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.

 

[astrowizzle]

for this? Not even close to similar.

Talking about the suspensions he has had over the last few years for punching in the guts about as hard as you swipe a fly

 

[.Shotties.]

Talking about the suspensions he has had over the last few years for punching in the guts about as hard as you swipe a fly

Would you have supported a suspension if the player Merrett struck slipped and the strike hit the other player high?

 

[astrowizzle]

Have Essendon fans always been this broken or did one of their players bring suspended for shoulder charging another player in the head push them over the edge?

Yep. Chuck in the Redman suspension, the Zac Merrett gut punch suspensions, the weiderman suspension. Consistency is pretty much what everyone wants. There is none

 

[kingswood71]

I don't see how this can be argued down to careless. They've stated that if you choose to strike off the ball and get your opponent high, it doesn't matter where you intended to strike, it will be graded intentional.
I think they've also done him a favour by grading it low impact and not medium.
Under the criteria for medium impact, it has to clearly have some impact on the player (blood nose) and/or the player leaves the field for a period of time (Webster had to leave under the blood rule and receive treatment).

It certainly fits medium better than it fits low, which has no impact on the game (resulted in an uncontested mark and goal and an opposition player having to leave the ground) and that the player continues to play unabated (clearly not the case when you have to leave the ground with blood pouring out of your nose).

The AFL certainly loves some guidelines made out of spandex. Have to stretch them to fit the occasion.
If it was medium impact, he'd be appealing 2 weeks down to 1 and guaranteed out of the Brownlow race. Massaging the impact down to low, allows him to appeal it down to a fine, whilst looking like they're trying to do the right thing in suspending him.
Will be interesting to see the mental gymnastics required to get this down to careless. There's already talk of a favourable medical report, but I don't see how that affects anything other than the impact grading, which is already at the lowest possible level.

Will be interested to see if the AFL counsel mention that re: low v medium.
Could see it downgraded to careless but upgraded to medium.

 

[brutus76]

Play the GOOD GUY card - PLAY IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Fabab]

Hope he gets off . Why so many bombers fans foaming at the mouth about this ?

 

[Maddo11]

Based on Heeney admitting he brought his arm back to break the hold, can't see it being over turned.

 

[Flog_Toolist]

Hope he gets off . Why so many bombers fans foaming at the mouth about this ?

So only bloods players can draw blood? And in Cripps case, only Blues players can put others in Hospital and still be deemed Brownlow winners?

 

[EagleShore]

He will get off...the AFL has made a rod for their own back with this failure to adapt to the evolving standards of the game as they pertain to certain infractions resulting in suspensions.

I don't know of anyone who has said that this act from Heeney should result in him being disqualified for the Brownlow Medal.

According to the rules, he should be suspended for the one week.

Because he is one of the Brownlow favourites, he will get off due to the consideration by the AFL that it was not an offence worthy of being disqualified for the Brownlow Medal.

 

[The Mares Leg]

Hope he gets off . Why so many bombers fans foaming at the mouth about this ?

Boes back to Dunkley/Hird. They lost, but still want us to keep losing - seriously perverted.

 

[The Mares Leg]

He will get off...the AFL has made a rod for their own back with this failure to adapt to the evolving standards of the game as they pertain to certain infractions resulting in suspensions.

I don't know of anyone who has said that this act from Heeney should result in him being disqualified for the Brownlow Medal.

According to the rules, he should be suspended for the one week.

Because he is one of the Brownlow favourites, he will get off due to the consideration by the AFL that it was not an offence worthy of being disqualified for the Brownlow Medal.

Yes…Which the amendment allows for. ‘Usually’.