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

[Art Vandelay_]

Not sure what is more baffling and irritating here.

That the tribunal had two chances to make the right call and ****ed it up twice. Or the idiotic calls of vicbias the collective chips on the shoulders when clubs willingly join a comp with 9 clubs in 1 city then complain when the league is centred around where most of the teams are at.

 

[ferball]

Bit of a shame he's now been captured by ISIS

Just when footy couldn't get any better.

 

[LordLucifer]

Quite possibly, the most frivolous report & suspension I've ever seen in my 55-years of watching this game.

 

[.Shotties.]

Oh like a single digit percent of the time. But it’s certainly not unique.

Given the amount of holds that are broken at stoppages and on leads in each game, I'm surprised there haven't been more intentional/high contact/low impact fines handed out.

Id also argue that something than happens less than 10% isn't what could be called a usual occurrence.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

No they are posters implying he wanted to wack him in the head on purpose

I haven't read every post here, but what I have read here and on other social media sites, I haven't seen a single person claim that.

 

[PoppedCorn]

will get off

Oh well
That’s a shame

 

[Tedeski]

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.

A lot of effort here.
Wow.

 

[Captivating]

Take note he was almost BOG in every game up till round 12-13ish.

He had one of the best ever recorded blocks to start the season and maintained it

AFL might have a embarrassing evening

It wont be embarrassing at all. We've had this situation twice before, so it's now something that we accept can and does happen.

 

[MF]

Not sure what is more baffling and irritating here.

That the tribunal had two chances to make the right call and ****ed it up twice. Or the idiotic calls of vicbias the collective chips on the shoulders when clubs willingly join a comp with 9 clubs in 1 city then complain when the league is centred around where most of the teams are at.

Agreed... Never attribute to malice what could be attributed to incompetence

 

[astrowizzle]

Just for those who think Heeney is squeaky clean

Star Swan breaks hand in bizarre off-the-ball incident

Isaac Heeney is subbed out after this altercation with Brandon Zerk-Thatcher

www.afl.com.au

He has a habit of punching people of the ball

 

[giantsully]

A few things wrong with this.

Usually a high fend off is a lower impact that falls below the threshold for a reportable offence.
If you did a high fend off that resulted in injury or a blood nose, it would likely be looked at.
A fend off is in the contest and a football act.

This was a strike, not a fend off.
This resulted in a player injury, with the impact being high enough to warrant MRO scrutiny.
This was off the ball (well off it) and is not a football act.

Wrong on both counts.

Give me an example of a fend off that fell "above the threshold" for a reportable offence.

The definition of a "strike" isn't determined by a player's injury. The fact that it's off the ball only goes to the AFL's fantasy world of "intention" which is what everyone is complaining about in the first instance.

Don't pretend to play the lawyer when you're clearly just making stuff up. The original analogy is spot on - what is normally a free kick for a high fend off has been farcically turned into a week's suspension by the ridiculous rule change that no one at the AFL was clever enough or had sufficient foresight to sit down and think: "Hmm, I wonder if this could lead to an unjust result?"

This will certainly arise again in the finals series - I look forward to the AFL tying itself up in knots trying to get some star off the rap or risk looking even more amateurish.

 

[Unfazed]

Bit of a shame he's now been captured by ISIS

This video for a ONE week suspension is the funniest thing ever.

 

[giantsully]

It wont be embarrassing at all. We've had this situation twice before, so it's now something that we accept can and does happen.

No one has ever won a Brownlow and been ineligible for an action that was unintentional. We're on new ground here, don't you worry about that.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

No one has ever won a Brownlow and been ineligible for an action that was unintentional. We're on new ground here, don't you worry about that.

Except it was intentional

 

[HirdsTheWord]

This video for a ONE week suspension is the funniest thing ever.

Have never seen a club get so upset for a player breaking a clear rule

Getting bizarre now

 

[giantsully]

Except it was intentional

I'm afraid you're on your own with that one - even the oppo coach noted it wasn't.

 

[giantsully]

Not sure what is more baffling and irritating here.

That the tribunal had two chances to make the right call and ****ed it up twice. Or the idiotic calls of vicbias the collective chips on the shoulders when clubs willingly join a comp with 9 clubs in 1 city then complain when the league is centred around where most of the teams are at.

I have no truck with the conspiracy theories or institutional bias.

But as a non-Vic supporter, it's hard not to have the suspicion that the media would have been a tad less strident or the tribunal a touch more accommodating if it had been a Cripps or a Bont. We're all beholden to our vested interests and there are no doubts about who that is in the AFL.

 

[Cool Kangas]

I don’t get the outrage of a suspension. Was it deliberate? No, but he did negligently swing an arm and caused damage to another players face off the ball. I agree the tribunal is very confusing and inconsistent but in this case, given where the incident took place and the outcome, if he didn’t cop a sanction I think that would’ve been more baffling.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I have no truck with the conspiracy theories or institutional bias.

But as a non-Vic supporter, it's hard not to have the suspicion that the media would have been a tad less strident or the tribunal a touch more accommodating if it had been a Cripps or a Bont. We're all beholden to our vested interests and there are no doubts about who that is in the AFL.

Is this the same tribunal that is yet to suspend Butters after 4 striking charges.

 

[Unfazed]

I don’t get the outrage of a suspension. Was it deliberate? No, but he did negligently swing an arm and caused damage to another players face off the ball. I agree the tribunal is very confusing and inconsistent but in this case, given where the incident took place and the outcome, if he didn’t cop a sanction I think that would’ve been more baffling.

It's because people expect a Brownlow contender to be treated differently. Because they usually are.

 

[Cool Kangas]

It's because people expect a Brownlow contender to be treated differently. Because they usually are.

And that’s the problem with the tribunal.

 

[Dave]

Yer but no malice or intention to harm Webster at all he turned around and apologized to him right away.

I mean its fine i respect your opinion i just think its absolutely wild you can lose a brownlow for a action like that.

Corey McKernan and Chris Grant like this

 

[Dave]

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.

He did once punch a player in the head behind play so hard he broke his hand…..but he’s generally a clean player.

 

[Dave]

Is this the same tribunal that is yet to suspend Butters after 4 striking charges.

has the MRO referred him to them?

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Wrong on both counts.

Give me an example of a fend off that fell "above the threshold" for a reportable offence.

The definition of a "strike" isn't determined by a player's injury. The fact that it's off the ball only goes to the AFL's fantasy world of "intention" which is what everyone is complaining about in the first instance.

Don't pretend to play the lawyer when you're clearly just making stuff up. The original analogy is spot on - what is normally a free kick for a high fend off has been farcically turned into a week's suspension by the ridiculous rule change that no one at the AFL was clever enough or had sufficient foresight to sit down and think: "Hmm, I wonder if this could lead to an unjust result?"

This will certainly arise again in the finals series - I look forward to the AFL tying itself up in knots trying to get some star off the rap or risk looking even more amateurish.

This was NOT a fend off, so comparing it to one is futile.
A fend off is a push with an open hand, or an arm bar that ends with a push off.
This was a strike. A swinging arm that connected with force. No pushing motion involved.