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

[SnusCG]

Somewhat ironic that Cripps won his first Brownlow by getting out of the most blatant 3 match suspension in recent memory, and is now likely to win a second one because Heeney somehow got suspended for something this soft.

That surely can't happen, but keep a close eye on the voting patterns for the rest of the season...

If you need assurance the AFL will do this, look no further than Patrick Dangerfield in 2017.
Suspended in round 20, best on ground in each of the last 3 games, polls 3, 0, 2

round 22, 12 point win in a last quarter comeback against collingwood, 32 touches (leading possession winner) 2.2 goals (=highest in the game) 12 clearances (most on ground), 0 votes

loses to Dustin Martin by 3 votes

 

[BringFevBack2021]

Somewhat ironic that Cripps won his first Brownlow by getting out of the most blatant 3 match suspension in recent memory, and is now likely to win a second one because Heeney somehow got suspended for something this soft.


If you need assurance the AFL will do this, look no further than Patrick Dangerfield in 2017.
Suspended in round 20, best on ground in each of the last 3 games, polls 3, 0, 2

round 22, 12 point win in a last quarter comeback against collingwood, 32 touches (leading possession winner) 2.2 goals (=highest in the game) 12 clearances (most on ground), 0 votes

loses to Dustin Martin by 3 votes

Cripps still has to beat out very good oppo in Bont, Daicos and Neale - still not his yet

But it would be very ironic for sure

And I have no doubt umpires dramatically change their voting based on suspensions, especially this late in the year

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

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.

He obviously wasn't trying to deliberately whack him in the head, but he was deliberately trying to whack him.
Not looking isn't exactly an excuse. Not comparing the incidents as a whole (although the actions are similar), Bachar Houli wasn't looking when he knocked out Jed Lamb in 2017 and he knew what he was doing.

 

[Fadge]

Looking forward to Collingwood's round 22 game v. Sydney, where Daicos gets the 3 votes for a 32 and 1 game, and Heeney doesn't poll despite getting 35 and 3.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

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.

How is that hard? They're elite athletes. They have above average spacial awareness.
It's not about whether it was an intentional head strike. It's whether it was an intentional strike.
You can't say that a backwards swinging arm isn't an intentional hit.
They've stated that if you choose to hit and that accidentally gets a player high, it will be deemed intentional. They're trying to discourage the striking action. It's not a natural act, unless you're trying to spoil a mark.

 

[Palantine]

With the force of the hit can’t believe it was only graded low. Lucky for Heeney that Webster is pretty tough and made little meal of it.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[bzparkes]

AFL did the numbers and concluded Heeney's unlikely to win.

Can't be stuffing over their betting 'partners', after all.

 

[.Shotties.]

He obviously wasn't trying to deliberately whack him in the head, but he was deliberately trying to whack him.

Yeah, on the arm holding onto Heeney illegally, which is why Heeney's arm was below shoulder height.

 

[Underarm]

Yeah, on the arm holding onto Heeney illegally, which is why Heeney's arm was below shoulder height.

Once Heeney has made the intention to swing his arm back, its on him to make sure he doesn't get him in the head.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Why post such rubbish?

Anyone can find a vicbias/nonvicbias angle to anything.

Imagine being so daft.

It's literally in the AFL's interests to favour interstate players/teams to grow the game nationally.
The big Vic clubs don't need favouring. They have strong memberships and won't lose support if other teams/players win flags and awards.
If anything, the AFL would prefer to lose a few Vic clubs.

 

[Cmarsh]

How is that hard? They're elite athletes. They have above average spacial awareness.
It's not about whether it was an intentional head strike. It's whether it was an intentional strike.
You can't say that a backwards swinging arm isn't an intentional hit.
They've stated that if you choose to hit and that accidentally gets a player high, it will be deemed intentional. They're trying to discourage the striking action. It's not a natural act, unless you're trying to spoil a mark.

So accidental and intentional at the same time? Yeah makes perfect sense.

 

[.Shotties.]

Once Heeney has made the intention to swing his arm back, its on him to make sure he doesn't get him in the head.

Which is a pretty safe bet when swinging at an illegal hold at about stomach height, no?

 

[.Shotties.]

The big Vic clubs don't need favouring.

Yet here we are.

 

[revo333]

What happened to Bont?

Bulldogs won't win enough games.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Yeah, on the arm holding onto Heeney illegally, which is why Heeney's arm was below shoulder height.

He was a long way off getting his arm.
This is just the new reality for players. They want to eliminate those types of actions. If you choose to swing an arm like that and it unintentionally gets a player high, you have to cop the consequences. Been that way for a little while and a natural progression from the bumping rules, where if you choose to bump, leave the ground and unintentionally get a player high, you're done.

 

[Obeanie1]

It's literally in the AFL's interests to favour interstate players/teams to grow the game nationally.
The big Vic clubs don't need favouring. They have strong memberships and won't lose support if other teams/players win flags and awards.
If anything, the AFL would prefer to lose a few Vic clubs.

You poor poor Vic teams.

Im sure your you will be crying poor hosting an interstate team in the GF at the MCG.

Again.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

So accidental and intentional at the same time? Yeah makes perfect sense.

Don't be obtuse.
Intent to strike that results in high contact is still an intentional strike.
You don't have to be intent on hitting the head. Once you choose a striking action, the onus is on you to make sure it's a legal blow.
It's not some magical thing. It's pretty obvious, explained and not new.

 

[ITCHY EYEBALLS]

Flabbergasted
Amazed
Stunned

Netball is officially tougher than AFL

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

You poor poor Vic teams.

Im sure your you will be crying poor hoating an interstate team in the GF at the MCG.

Again.

Who's claiming poor? Not me. It's a national comp. Has been for a long time.
My team's been poor for a large part of that. That was the fault of the powers that be at the club, not the AFL favouring other clubs.
If the AFL wanted to favour Vic clubs, there's no way we would've been down that long.
We're starting to get a fair way away from the topic though.

 

[BF Tiger]

It's just a bit weird because I think most of us see Heeney's actions as a football act that went wrong and he cops a week, but we see Greene's act as a non-footballing action deliberately executed and with more force only ever intended to hurt and he walks away free to play (and win the Brownlow).

Seems a double standard.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Which is a pretty safe bet when swinging at an illegal hold at about stomach height, no?

That’s what the rule says.

You clearly have a problem with the rule itself, rather than Heeny getting done for it. Not sure what you are trying to argue.

Heeney literally did everything the new rule says you can’t do. If you don’t like the rule fine, but that’s what it says.

If you swing an arm in the attempt to create separation and you hit a player high it will be graded intentionally as a default.

Arguing Websters head got in the way of heeneys hand is not going to get you far. It’s the exact same thing as bumping. If you leave the ground and you choose to bump, you own the outcome of it. If you throw a hand behind you, you own the outcome of it.

It’s not rocket science.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

It's just a bit weird because I think most of us see Heeney's actions as a football act that went wrong and he cops a week, but we see Greene's act as a non-footballing action deliberately executed and with more force only ever intended to hurt and he walks away free to play (and win the Brownlow).

Seems a double standard.

There a plenty of football acts that can lead to suspensions.

The rule is clear as day and what heeney did was dead set word for word what the rule says you can’t do.

Just because you think another player should have been suspended, does not mean heeney just gets off.

You don’t fix a mistake by making another mistake.

Consistency is always good, but no one with half a brain can read that new rule and then argue heeney isn’t guilty. 99% of the people arguing heeney shouldn’t be suspended probably don’t even know the rule was changed last year.

 

[Maddo11]

It's just a bit weird because I think most of us see Heeney's actions as a football act that went wrong and he cops a week, but we see Greene's act as a non-footballing action deliberately executed and with more force only ever intended to hurt and he walks away free to play (and win the Brownlow).

Seems a double standard.

yep. Intentional body low needs to be brought up from a fine to one week. Butters is deliberately whacking blokes in the guts every week but this accidental hit is automatically a week, so dumb

 

[bloodsbigot]

It's a national comp.

As long as the most important game of the year is held every year in Victoria with no rotation policy, it'll always be a Victorian league with a few teams from other states attached for TV money.

 

[BF Tiger]

There a plenty of football acts that can lead to suspensions.

The rule is clear as day and what heeney did was dead set word for word what the rule says you can’t do.

Just because you think another player should have been suspended, does not mean heeney just gets off.

You don’t fix a mistake by making another mistake.

Consistency is always good, but no one with half a brain can read that new rule and then argue heeney isn’t guilty. 99% of the people arguing heeney shouldn’t be suspended probably don’t even know the rule was changed last year.

Where have I said anything that disagrees with you?