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

[The Mares Leg]

Throughout this thread you’ve seemed to suggest that the argument for it being unusual is so clear and obvious. You’ve fought many posters on this point.

Yet despite being this overwhelmingly clear in your eyes, the Swans didn’t think to make it?

Either the Swans are completely and utterly incompetent and you should be embarrassed by them, /

Pretty much it. Me and about 100 Swan BF members.

 

[Stax on the mill]

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.

Yep, he’s a blow in from less than 2 weeks ago. So far in this thread alone he’s placed around 10 posters on ignore. Comes across as the sort of person who’s full of his own self importance, and will not abide anyone having the temerity to disagree with him. A pompous piece of work.

 

[The Mares Leg]

But it wasn't accidental. He intended to hit him - Heeney admitted it.

You seriously think being selective with the facts is clever?

You are reverse engineering the evidence and in the process losing credibility by the second.

You don’t think when Heeney admitted to intentionally trying to make contact he meant to Websters arm/body?

You’re selective presentation of ‘the facts’ this way is no more than piss poor ‘verballing’ - it’s not intellectual - it’s not clever.


So as things stand -

• the Tribunal believes it was an ‘intentional’ hit to the face
• Heeney and Webster both displayed through body language at the time, and Heeney through the Appeals process, his ‘intention’ was at the man, the face strike was accidental.

Have a think about the Tribunals position - in effect they are required to say it was probably intentional - Yet - Is there anything in the footage that says it was an intentional hit to the face?

Imagine two car MVAs where one driver MUST be found to have intentionally hit the other!

The AFL clearly have very powerful crystal balls, as do you and others.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

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.

Mate, I've been bang on during this whole thing. You haven't hit the mark once. The closest you got was admitting that you had the initial point of impact wrong (a fairly important fact when assessing the situation), then you went back to going hammer and tongs at people who had a better grasp of the situation.

Anyway, it's done now.
I just hope for Heeney's sake that he doesn't poll the most votes on Brownlow night. I'd hate for him to carry the burden of knowing he would've won if he just hadn't struck another player.

 

[.Shotties.]

What the defender was doing is irrelevant.

Not when the illegal act of the defender directly contributes to the high hit.

Players initially intending to strike low but accidentally hit high? Happens all the time, results in suspensions often.

Examples?

 

[mcgrath_truther]

Not when the illegal act of the defender directly contributes to the high hit.


Examples?

so what acts more illegal to you, hitting someone’s face or a bit of holding in a contest

 

[.Shotties.]

so what acts more illegal to you, hitting someone’s face or a bit of holding in a contest

Do you have a counterpoint to what I wrote?

 

[LordLucifer]

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

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

Rubbish ~~


I reckon it was an utterly ridiculous suspension.


Four umpires on the field and not one of them thought it was worthy of a report.

 

[LordLucifer]

Mate, I've been bang on during this whole thing.

You'll get a few votes in the 'self congratulater' segment tomorrow morning on SEN for that effort.

 

[Underarm]

You seriously think being selective with the facts is clever?

You are reverse engineering the evidence and in the process losing credibility by the second.

You don’t think when Heeney admitted to intentionally trying to make contact he meant to Websters arm/body?

You’re selective presentation of ‘the facts’ this way is no more than piss poor ‘verballing’ - it’s not intellectual - it’s not clever.


So as things stand -

• the Tribunal believes it was an ‘intentional’ hit to the face
• Heeney and Webster both displayed through body language at the time, and Heeney through the Appeals process, his ‘intention’ was at the man, the face strike was accidental.

Have a think about the Tribunals position - in effect they are required to say it was probably intentional - Yet - Is there anything in the footage that says it was an intentional hit to the face?

Imagine two car MVAs where one driver MUST be found to have intentionally hit the other!

The AFL clearly have very powerful crystal balls, as do you and others.

Again, where it struck him is irrelevant to the 'intentional' grading. All that is required for an 'intentional' grading in this case is Heeney intending to strike Webster - which he did.

Where he struck Webster is only relevant when grading whether Heeney hit Webster to the body, or high.

 

[Gavin Excell]

 

[boncer34]

Not when the illegal act of the defender directly contributes to the high hit.


Examples?

Andrew Gaff

 

[.Shotties.]

Andrew Gaff

Okay, we're up to one. Almost at it "happening all the time with plenty of examples".

 

[Underarm]

Okay, we're up to one. Almost at it "happening all the time with plenty of examples".

Camminiti on Murphy last season.

 

[Vindicater]

Sydney fans complying about scragging by a defender when they have cheered on Rampe all his career.

 

[.Shotties.]

Camminiti on Murphy last season.

We've doubled the count! Two examples in six years!

 

[SGBeach]

He did everything the rule says you can’t do.

Whether you don’t think he did anything wrong is irrelevant. That’s what the rule says.

Either heeney gets suspended OR he gets off and the rule is amended at the end of this season.

I’d be OK with Heeney getting off the but the rule should also be amended.

Disagree, but not going to debate you on here. Defenders, illegally hold forwards 50 times each and every game. Forwards illegally(?) swipe the hold away every time a defender does this.
Will defenders now drop their heads to initiate high contact??

My point was that the AFL is manipulating this competition to the point where they're running a circus and if anyone (or everyone) at AFL house has egg on their face, then good.

Being a supporter of one of the big Vic clubs its completely understandable that you have no idea what its like to put up with the f**king bullsh*t the AFL dishes out each and every week to the 'inter-state' clubs.

ps.. why aren't we allowed to write f**k? Dimma said it, so it must be ok

pps.. I hope Heeney gets the most Brownlow votes, and the Swans boycott the Brownlow wank fest in protest

ppps.. I honestly couldn't give a toss about the Brownlow medal. The umpires roll isn't to judge who the best player is, and therefore aren't very good at it.

 

[boncer34]

We've doubled the count! Two examples in six years!

How many times did someone hit someone in the head but coz they meant to hit the chest they got off?

 

[Maddo11]

Sydney fans complying about scragging by a defender when they have cheered on Rampe all his career.

Rent free

 

[boncer34]

Rent free

It's always amusing when posters don't bother try to dispute the content of a post.

Hard disputing the facts I guess.

 

[mcgrath_truther]

Do you have a counterpoint to what I wrote?

just itching your brain mate

 

[Maddo11]

How many times did someone hit someone in the head but coz they meant to hit the chest they got off?

Hewett this year

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

You'll get a few votes in the 'self congratulater' segment tomorrow morning on SEN for that effort.

I don't care about being right, it was a counter to comments about a strawman, inventing truth, avoiding facts, false claims and the truth surviving.

 

[Phone]

Hewett this year

yeah and he wasn't charged due to an interpretation in the rules that Heeney didn't have access to, same as he didn't have access to a downgrade to negligent impact and the charge being thrown out like Hogan and Butters. We obviously know he didn't have access to those things because the MRO/AFL charged him, the Tribunal didn't dismiss the charge and then the AFL Appeals Board said the Tribunal followed correct processes.

The way the rule is written and interpreted this season, Heeney didn't have chance unless the Swans were able to utilise some kind of wonderful argument, which they were not able to do.

 

[boncer34]

Hewett this year

I missed the AFL saying that?