Oppo Camp Other Club News/General Discussion

[ElliottsMaggies]

Not downgraded - they need to get the appeal up on an error of law or the argument that no reasonable tribunal could come up with that decision. They are pushing the proverbial uphill.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

‘What am I supposed to tell him?’ Swans in last-ditch appeal to free superstar as coach left baffled

‘What am I supposed to tell him?’ Swans in last-ditch appeal to free superstar as coach left baffled

www.foxsports.com.au

According to AFL regulations, a successful appeal must satisfy one of the following:

1. Error of law that has a material impact on the decision of the Tribunal.

2. That the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it.

3. Classification of offence manifestly excessive or inadequate.

4. Sanction imposed manifestly excessive or inadequate.

Aren't 3 & 4 considered downgrades?

 

[sideswipe]

‘What am I supposed to tell him?’ Swans in last-ditch appeal to free superstar as coach left baffled

‘What am I supposed to tell him?’ Swans in last-ditch appeal to free superstar as coach left baffled

www.foxsports.com.au

According to AFL regulations, a successful appeal must satisfy one of the following:

1. Error of law that has a material impact on the decision of the Tribunal.

2. That the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it.

3. Classification of offence manifestly excessive or inadequate.

4. Sanction imposed manifestly excessive or inadequate.

Aren't 3 & 4 considered downgrades?

It’s not a re-hearing - the key word is “manifestly” - they need to show it was not just wrong, but a complete f up.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

It’s not a re-hearing - the key word is “manifestly” - they need to show it was not just wrong, but a complete f up.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Well in that case I'm less confident he'll be successful.

 

[Kirby]

Not downgraded - they need to get the appeal up on an error of law or the argument that no reasonable tribunal could come up with that decision. They are pushing the proverbial uphill.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Yes. The problem is the stupid rule unfortunately.

 

[NMBB]

nah... definitely said...."get to the pies, however you can".

Simpson now free to tell Bucks that Rioli blocked Maynard

 

[Anzacday]

If you swing your arm out to push off, it is. And he obviously wasn't aiming for his head.

They adjusted the rules apparently…

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

They adjusted the rules apparently…


View attachment 2044787

..maybe the 'usually will be graded as intentional rather than careless' may be an out ?

Particularly as Webster had slipped, therefore his head was not where Heeney thought it would be.

 

[sam_e]

I haven't read all the in's & outs on this but i'm reasonably confident the appeal will be successful (assuming my non-20/20 vision isn't completely falling off a cliff).

"Clause 4.3(b) states that if the effect of such an action is that the reportable offense of striking is committed, the strike will usually be graded as intentional. We find that this was the effect. It was a forceful blow to Webster's face."

"As we have said, Heeney's swing of the arm was a forceful blow, and he intended that blow to make contact with Webster, albeit not to his face. We are not satisfied that he intended only to make contact with Webster's hands."

"This was an intentional strike resulting in injury, and accordingly, we consider a one-match sanction is appropriate."

Haven't seen any behind-goals footage but it appears to me the swinging arm makes clear contact with Webster's chest /armpit area (and at no time does the 'strike' make contact with his face). Webster then stumbles (perhaps, in part, due to the push/fend/strike) and, on his way to the ground, his nose clips Heeney's knee, resulting in a blood nose.

If (IF) my non-20/20 stacks up, there's plenty of scope to have his appeal upheld.

Updated: off to SpecSavers

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

I haven't read all the in's & outs on this but i'm reasonably confident the appeal will be successful (assuming my non-20/20 vision isn't completely falling off a cliff).

"Clause 4.3(b) states that if the effect of such an action is that the reportable offense of striking is committed, the strike will usually be graded as intentional. We find that this was the effect. It was a forceful blow to Webster's face."

"As we have said, Heeney's swing of the arm was a forceful blow, and he intended that blow to make contact with Webster, albeit not to his face. We are not satisfied that he intended only to make contact with Webster's hands."

"This was an intentional strike resulting in injury, and accordingly, we consider a one-match sanction is appropriate."

Haven't seen any behind-goals footage but it appears to me the swinging arm makes clear contact with Webster's chest /armpit area (and at no time does the 'strike' make contact with his face). Webster then stumbles (perhaps, in part, due to the push/fend/strike) and, on his way to the ground, his nose clips Heeney's knee, resulting in a blood nose.

If (IF) my non-20/20 stacks up, there's plenty of scope to have his appeal upheld.

I don't think Sydney even suggested Heeney's knee connected with Webster's nose ..

 

[NMBB]

.......Webster then stumbles (perhaps, in part, due to the push/fend/strike) and, on his way to the ground, his nose clips Heeney's knee, resulting in a blood nose.....

Did Webster get a lift with Heeney?

 

[sideswipe]

I haven't read all the in's & outs on this but i'm reasonably confident the appeal will be successful (assuming my non-20/20 vision isn't completely falling off a cliff).

"Clause 4.3(b) states that if the effect of such an action is that the reportable offense of striking is committed, the strike will usually be graded as intentional. We find that this was the effect. It was a forceful blow to Webster's face."

"As we have said, Heeney's swing of the arm was a forceful blow, and he intended that blow to make contact with Webster, albeit not to his face. We are not satisfied that he intended only to make contact with Webster's hands."

"This was an intentional strike resulting in injury, and accordingly, we consider a one-match sanction is appropriate."

Haven't seen any behind-goals footage but it appears to me the swinging arm makes clear contact with Webster's chest /armpit area (and at no time does the 'strike' make contact with his face). Webster then stumbles (perhaps, in part, due to the push/fend/strike) and, on his way to the ground, his nose clips Heeney's knee, resulting in a blood nose.

If (IF) my non-20/20 stacks up, there's plenty of scope to have his appeal upheld.

Except appeals haven’t been hearings de novo for a good decade or so. They need to satisfy a grounds of appeal, not have the matter re-heard.

And high contact is not limited to the head - can include contact to the top of the shoulders.

Can’t believe Heeney got away with low impact given the potential to cause injury is meant to be considered for intentional strikes.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Anzacday]

I think he’s more suited to the Tassie job.
He’s too polarising to take on the Eagles job imo.
He will be crucified by the supporters and media alike who hate Collingwood.
I think he’s good enough mates with Simmo to know what he went through and would say no anyway.
Just my guess.

I’m think the way the WA media disrespected Simmo will have a big influence on who considers applying.

WA and SA clubs show no mercy to coaches from Vic once things go wrong

Spot on…

 

[jimmy35]

They want Cox.

 

[Mollythedolly]

Possible, given he was sub last week. Had 8 touches, no tackles.

8 possessions in 23%ToG isn’t that bad.

 

[Jen2310]

 

[danielnajdek]

He was never going to get off. Waste of time and money from the Swans.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

He was never going to get off. Waste of time and money from the Swans.

They had to try. Imagine if he received enough votes to win the Brownlow & they hadn't even tried to appeal.

 

[Black_White]

They want Cox.

Big American going nowhere……

 

[NMBB]

They had to try. Imagine if he received enough votes to win the Brownlow & they hadn't even tried to appeal.

Seems weird to me that Heeney may still be awarded votes that can no longer count - still it's an AFL rule....

 

[Jafo]

He was never going to get off. Waste of time and money from the Swans.

For Heeney and their supporters they had to show something

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Seems weird to me that Heeney may still be awarded votes that can no longer count - still it's an AFL rule....

Well if he's one of the 3 best players in a game, he should still get votes. I don't suppose umpires will ever tell us whether they vote differently for a suspended player though.

 

[sideswipe]

Seems weird to me that Heeney may still be awarded votes that can no longer count - still it's an AFL rule....

You want voting to change mid-season? So the #2 player in rd 17 gets 3 instead of 2 because Heeney would have been the 3? Clueless


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

 

[Jafo]

Seems weird to me that Heeney may still be awarded votes that can no longer count - still it's an AFL rule....

Bit of a contentious issue this one. Insert McKernan and Grant.

It is too a lot easier to be suspended these days. So let’s say we take the three or more weeks suspension is the new threshold to miss out, then I think it would be ridiculous that Sicily misses from last year (provided he gets the points) vs other suspensions for shorter periods that might be seen as more “damaging” to the Oppo player but less suspension time.

I’m sure this debate will go on for a long time. Even if they tweak the rule on suspension vs getting the Brownlow.

 

[Doc1763]

bottoms up!!!