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

[giantsully]

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.

This is only a "strike" in the perverted fantasy legal fiction world that is the AFL tribunal. It doesn't conform to any general understanding of what a "strike" is.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

This is only a "strike" in the perverted fantasy legal fiction world that is the AFL tribunal. It doesn't conform to any general understanding of what a "strike" is.

It’s a strike to basically everyone who isn’t a swans fan

Dunno why you are arguing it. He is guilty of it.

 

[MF]

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

Getting bizarre now

I seem to remember a particular club getting pretty upset over 34 players breaking a clear rule.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

I seem to remember a particular club getting pretty upset over 34 players breaking a clear rule.

You guys don’t like people bringing up Peter Wright but happy to bring up something from over 10 years ago?

Lol

 

[MF]

You guys don’t like people bringing up Peter Wright but happy to bring up something from over 10 years ago?

Lol

I don't care if Peter Wright is brought up. I didn't want him suspended. I said in the thread at the time that it was a genuine accident and he seems like a good bloke who was genuinely remorseful for it.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

I don't care if Peter Wright is brought up. I didn't want him suspended. I said in the thread at the time that it was a genuine accident and he seems like a good bloke who was genuinely remorseful for it.

You want to dredge up the past all you are is creating an avenue for people to bring up you guys getting banned for rorting COLA.

 

[MF]

You want to dredge up the past all you are is creating an avenue for people to bring up you guys getting banned for COLA.

I'm aware it was a cheap shot

 

[zyzzbruh]

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.

The problem is the suspension was based on it being graded as deliberate. You've just admitted it wasn't deliberate. That's why it's outrageous

 

[Partridge]

It’s a strike to basically everyone who isn’t a swans fan

Dunno why you are arguing it. He is guilty of it.

I'm not a Swans fan - and what Heeney did is not within a million miles of a strike.

Just when you think you couldn't get a more ridiculous suspension, they find a way to hit a new low.

 

[zyzzbruh]

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.

Fend offs and pushing to the face still fall under that same rule. It's literally defined within the rule. They are automatically graded as intentional. So technically any push or fend that hits the face or head needs to be cited. It's completely inconsistent, and rich coming from the supporter of a team who's player deliberately clocked another player on the chin and got off.

 

[Underarm]

I'm not a Swans fan - and what Heeney did is not within a million miles of a strike.

Just when you think you couldn't get a more ridiculous suspension, they find a way to hit a new lolow.

In what way is swinging your arm back to make contact with your opponent not a strike?

 

[Satan]

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

can you smell it?

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Fend offs and pushing to the face still fall under that same rule. It's literally defined within the rule. They are automatically graded as intentional. So technically any push or fend that hits the face or head needs to be cited. It's completely inconsistent, and rich coming from the supporter of a team who's player deliberately clocked another player on the chin and got off.

My team, or what players from my team have done, has nothing to do with this incident. Bringing it up just confirms that you've lost the argument.

I'm done debating this incident, but here's one for the road.
High fend offs generally don't meet the threshold for sufficient force to be graded as a reportable act.
This isn't rocket science.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

I'm not a Swans fan - and what Heeney did is not within a million miles of a strike.

Just when you think you couldn't get a more ridiculous suspension, they find a way to hit a new low.

You are clearly a minority. Hence I said basically.

 

[Cool Kangas]

The problem is the suspension was based on it being graded as deliberate. You've just admitted it wasn't deliberate. That's why it's outrageous

Because obviously they considered the outcome and that the act was negligent. He caused damage.

That said I completely agree that tribunal is completely and totally inconsistent and makes no sense.

 

[zyzzbruh]

My team, or what players from my team have done, has nothing to do with this incident. Bringing it up just confirms that you've lost the argument.

I'm done debating this incident, but here's one for the road.
High fend offs generally don't meet the threshold for sufficient force to be graded as a reportable act.
This isn't rocket science.

You're allowed to compare incidents. That's like saying you can't compare an offence of speeding resulting in imprisonment with a murder resulting in a fine because they're not the same. You can absolutely compare different actions to judge whether or not it makes logical sense.

Fact of the matter is George Hewett punching Neale in the chin was a more unsportsmanlike action than Heeney's fend, yet Heeney's the one ineligible. There simply is no justification, the ruling around specific incidents is inadequate.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

You're allowed to compare incidents. That's like saying you can't compare an offence of speeding resulting in imprisonment with a murder resulting in a fine because they're not the same. You can absolutely compare different actions to judge whether or not it makes logical sense.

Fact of the matter is George Hewett punching Neale in the chin was a more unsportsmanlike action than Heeney's fend, yet Heeney's the one ineligible. There simply is no justification, the ruling around specific incidents is inadequate.

There's simply no comparison to be had from the Cripps incident. They are VASTLY different.

I don't have an issue if the Hewett one cops a week, but they're graded differently.
Ultimately, the fact that Hewett went to whack Neale in the chest with his forearm at the same time Neale went to give Hewett one in the stomach, caused Hewett's to glance off Neale's shoulder into his jaw.
It was classed as on ball, being at a stoppage, and could be graded careless.

 

[cobra land]

Andrew Dillon has just come out and said that the AFL Tribunal system “has never been better”

Just to review how our AFL tribunal works.

Pick the on field act worthy of suspension.
A, B, C?

Lock in B please Eddie....

 

[Vindicater]

The mares guy with the most posts in this thread seems to have disappeared.

I'm guessing he is using chatgpt to come up with his own defense in an attempt to take it to a higher court.

He did have a mate yesterday.

 

[zyzzbruh]

There's simply no comparison to be had from the Cripps incident. They are VASTLY different.

I don't have an issue if the Hewett one cops a week, but they're graded differently.
Ultimately, the fact that Hewett went to whack Neale in the chest with his forearm at the same time Neale went to give Hewett one in the stomach, caused Hewett's to glance off Neale's shoulder into his jaw.
It was classed as on ball, being at a stoppage, and could be graded careless.

I'm sorry but that's just a rubbish way to put it if you're not prepared to offer Heeney the same consideration. We were literally arguing the exact same thing about webster suddenly falling over causing Heeney to hit him high unintentionally - that's exactly the same reasoning as you've just provided. If anything Hewett's was much more unreasonable as choosing to give Neale a whack was not a football action. You've made it make even less sense in an attempt to clarify it.

And i'm not saying Hewett shouldn't have got off either, but so should've Heeney. If you look at both and had to pick which one was careless and which was intentional, Hewett's was the clear deliberate offence of the two.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I'm sorry but that's just a rubbish way to put it if you're not prepared to offer Heeney the same consideration. We were literally arguing the exact same thing about webster suddenly falling over causing Heeney to hit him high unintentionally - that's exactly the same reasoning as you've just provided. If anything Hewett's was much more unreasonable as choosing to give Neale a whack was not a football action. You've made it make even less sense in an attempt to clarify it.

And i'm not saying Hewett shouldn't have got off either, but so should've Heeney. If you look at both and had to pick which one was careless and which was intentional, Hewett's was the clear deliberate offence of the two.

This has been explained. That's the difference between an on ball action and an off ball one. On ball, there's more leniency for incidental contact. Off ball, there's less (almost none).

You don't have to like it, but arguing it won't change it.

 

[Maddo11]

This has been explained. That's the difference between an on ball action and an off ball one. On ball, there's more leniency for incidental contact. Off ball, there's less (almost none).

You don't have to like it, but arguing it won't change it.

So it's "on the ball" despite the fact the ball is on the umpires hands and the clock is stopped, but trying to stop an illegal hold so you can lead for a team mate is "off the ball"

This Leagues priorities are cooked 'ey

 

[zyzzbruh]

This has been explained. That's the difference between an on ball action and an off ball one. On ball, there's more leniency for incidental contact. Off ball, there's less (almost none).

You don't have to like it, but arguing it won't change it.

Hence why we are pleading for common sense. The rules are the rules, my point is they are shit rules and there should be room to judge individual incidents using common sense rather than trying to fit them into gradings that don't have a justifiable consequence for the overall act. As a result we are seeing malicious acts receive less severe consequence than the latter.

 

[AndyLucimitis]

Keep the striking but remove the fairness clause from the Brownlow - fixes everything.

 

[The Mares Leg]

How can you look at one picture and be so far off the mark on all points?

Yep, that straw man you’re building is getting bigger.

I’m not going to ask which points - because you’ll just invent the truth some more.

I’m not goung to debate each point, because you’ll avoid the facts and resort to false claims I said things I didn’t.

I just going to ignore you - the truth will survive that way.