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

[Heeney2Franklin]

Merrett outside chance? or to far behind

 

[Vindicater]

Merrett outside chance? or to far behind

Nah he will get done for his annual tackle suspension at some point.

 

[.Shotties.]

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

How many times has the lowering of a player's body contributed to the mitigating of the sentence is a more accurate question, and so far it's happened in one of the two examples.

In any case, I was responding to someone saying that a player swinging below shoulder height happened often and was penalised often.

 

[The Mares Leg]

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.

Again, claiming that ‘he said he struck him, so it’s intentional’ is ludicrous and crowd-shouting.

The only SALIENT fact was not tested - “is this usual of an intentional strike”……and it was not tested.

My opinion is no, it was not ‘usual’ - player was behind him, Heeney was unsighted, strike was not head high in normal circumstances, Heeney clearly showed contrition, Heeney could not remember what part of his body made contact, Heeney was being illegally impeded, etc.

Can hardly be summarised by ‘he said he meant to fend him so it was intentional’.

Unless of course you want a lynching.

 

[Randomizor]

Again, claiming that ‘he said he struck him, so it’s intentional’ is ludicrous and crowd-shouting.

The only SALIENT fact was not tested - “is this usual of an intentional strike”……and it was not tested.

My opinion is no, it was not ‘usual’ - player was behind him, Heeney was unsighted, strike was not head high in normal circumstances, Heeney clearly showed contrition, Heeney could not remember what part of his body made contact, Heeney was being illegally impeded, etc.

Can hardly be summarised by ‘he said he meant to fend him so it was intentional’.

Unless of course you want a lynching.

Heeney was being held. Happens to forwards all the time. You trying to say that’s unusual?

Stop victim blaming. The tribunal doesn’t go for it. It’s a shitty argument.

 

[beside the seaside]

Jesus wept.

 

[Randomizor]

How many times has the lowering of a player's body contributed to the mitigating of the sentence is a more accurate question, and so far it's happened in one of the two examples.

In any case, I was responding to someone saying that a player swinging below shoulder height happened often and was penalised often.

Are you saying that Gaffs hit should have been downgraded because Brayshaw lowered his body a little? That’s the argument you’re making here. It’s nonsense on stilts.

 

[skipper kelly]

Bingo. We have a winner.

 

[astrowizzle]

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

So he accidentally swung his arm backwards and collected another player. Hahahahaha

 

[JackHiscoxWasFast]

When is Tom Stewart facing the Tribunal for that ‘intentional’ hit Friday night ?

 

[The Mares Leg]

Heeney was being held. Happens to forwards all the time. You trying to say that’s unusual?

Stop victim blaming. The tribunal doesn’t go for it. It’s a shitty argument.

Who said ‘being held’ was what made it unusual? That crystal ball of yours needs a serious tune up.

It is unusual to have incidental contact held up as ‘striking’- which is where the tribunal differed with counsel.


And no, it’s not victim blaming as the victim did nothing consciously to make the situation look worse than it is - so your straw man is in flames already, speaking of shitty arguments.

Inventing facts to put another in a poor light is both childish, a sign of a lack of serious intellect and purile.

Don’t bother replying, you’re ignored.