Bojan KantKick
Man United Legacy Supporter
- Sep 5, 2014
- 30,680
- 29,222
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Manchester United, Stevenage FC
Poor bloke can't catch a break.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
No they're saying he had to be charged but he'll get off. Hogan, Butters, and others have gotten off with worse.
Didn't naughton get concussed?They got theirs downgraded to negligible though which given Webster drew blood I can’t see happening with Heeney.
i think it's because heeney was the forward and pushing off so it's seen as intentional and zerk thatcher is a defender and was just clumsy.Only just seen the BZT incident. Can anyone explain how that's different to Heeney?
Seem reasonably similar to me. If intent comes into it then Heeney would be fine as he had no intention of getting him high. BZT was standing behind him so knew exactly where his head was.i think it's because heeney was the forward and pushing off so it's seen as intentional and zerk thatcher is a defender and was just clumsy.
whether thats right or not i dont know but i think that's the distinction in the rules.
but i believe they grade it intentional because heeney is the forward and looking to create separation and catches him high.Seem reasonably similar to me. If intent comes into it then Heeney would be fine as he had no intention of getting him high. BZT was standing behind him so knew exactly where his head was.
Didn't naughton get concussed?
The argument is Webster is leaning forward and Heeney catches him on the shoulder/chin, the nose impacts heeneys knee/hip on the fall down. It's reasonable for Heeney, who is not looking, to think he's pushing off Webster's arm/chest and even turns to apologise when he realises he's caught him high. There's zero intent.I was talking about Butters and Hogan, didn’t see your post about Zerk-Thatcher.
That was called an accident, don’t think Heeney will be able to argue that.
I’d like to see him get off but not sure where the argument is.
Swinging your arm back like that is now regarded as intent.The argument is Webster is leaning forward and Heeney catches him on the shoulder/chin, the nose impacts heeneys knee/hip on the fall down. It's reasonable for Heeney, who is not looking, to think he's pushing off Webster's arm/chest and even turns to apologise when he realises he's caught him high. There's zero intent.
Like what? He was pushing off a player who was holding him. And as I said, the nose injury came from him impacting heeneys hip/knee.Swinging your arm back like that is now regarded as intent.
The argument is Webster is leaning forward and Heeney catches him on the shoulder/chin, the nose impacts heeneys knee/hip on the fall down. It's reasonable for Heeney, who is not looking, to think he's pushing off Webster's arm/chest and even turns to apologise when he realises he's caught him high. There's zero intent.
I think he has a case on both. I'm convinced it's not his hand that injures Webster's nose but the impact on the way down.Yeah ok, that’s different to Butters and Hogan then. They were arguing on severity of impact.
Getting something downgraded from intentional to careless is a lot harder.
First time dealing with the clowns at head office?Only just seen the BZT incident. Can anyone explain how that's different to Heeney?
I think he has a case on both. I'm convinced it's not his hand that injures Webster's nose but the impact on the way down.
Correct me if I'm wrong but Christian hasn't referred this to the tribunal at all. He gave the punishment. Sydney challenging it is sending it there, no?Either Michael Christian is a prize peanut for referring Heeney to the tribunal, or Michael Christian is a prize peanut for not resigning when the box ticking exercise makes that a trip to the tribunal.
Either way Michael Christian is a prize peanut.
They showed it slowed down yesterday and there was no impact on the way down.
The Butters one annoyed me as Redman had something similar where he hand jumps off shoulder into the face and yet Redman got a week.
This is different though ..just a swing back of the arm that could’ve gone anywhere ..the rule was changed to stop that.
Correct me if I'm wrong but Christian hasn't referred this to the tribunal at all. He gave the punishment. Sydney challenging it is sending it there, no?
Yeah sure. There's a reason the boxes are there though. Christian is sAV is saying that because he ticked the boxes and gave it a week we challenged it.
Yeah sure. There's a reason the boxes are there though. Christian is s
I think the Rankine one is far more egregious. 4 weeks for that is insane to me.
Huh? Where? The kicking example is just not the same as flinging your arm back like he did. You have to take responsibility for doing thatDid we watch the same vision? He falls down against Heeney's side which is why Heeney ends up almost half lowering him to the ground before running off him. Heeney's arm with the initial contact brushes Webster against the shoulder/chin, not the nose.
Webster was holding Heeney and Heeney puts an arm back to push off him, he had no reasonable way of knowing Webster's head would be that low to the ground. At the end of the day it has to be judged on what a reasonable person would do/know in that situation, and not expect players to have eyes in the back of their head. If Webster had tripped over and was lying on the ground and Heeney kicked off and got Webster in the head with his studs no reasonable person would day he should be banned for kicking him in the head for the same reason.
Huh? Where? The kicking example is just not the same as flinging your arm back like he did. You have to take responsibility for doing that
Nine's Wide World of Sports, Match Results & Live Scores
Nine Wide World of Sports breaking news headlines, live scores and match resultswwos.nine.com.au