The Association Football AFL Thread 3.0

[Bojan KantKick]

Poor bloke can't catch a break.

 

[SM]

Only just seen the BZT incident. Can anyone explain how that's different to Heeney?

 

[Sozabarus]

No they're saying he had to be charged but he'll get off. Hogan, Butters, and others have gotten off with worse.

They got theirs downgraded to negligible contact though which given Webster drew blood I can’t see happening with Heeney.

I presume Sydney’s argument going to be that it was careless rather than intentional.

 

[SM]

They got theirs downgraded to negligible though which given Webster drew blood I can’t see happening with Heeney.

Didn't naughton get concussed?

Hogan, looking at a player, hit him in the face. Heeney, not looking, brushed off Webster. Wasn't a broken nose and he was back on after 5.

 

[Magma]

Only just seen the BZT incident. Can anyone explain how that's different to 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.

whether thats right or not i dont know but i think that's the distinction in the rules.

 

[SM]

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.

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.

 

[Magma]

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.

but i believe they grade it intentional because heeney is the forward and looking to create separation and catches him high.

 

[Sozabarus]

Didn't naughton get concussed?

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.

 

[SM]

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.

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.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

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.

Swinging your arm back like that is now regarded as intent.

 

[SM]

Swinging your arm back like that is now regarded as 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.

BZT swung his arm and concussed a player and it was deemed accidental. Hogan looked at a player and hit him high as did butters, how are those not intentional?

 

[Sozabarus]

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.

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.

 

[SM]

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.

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.

 

[Misher]

Needs Dangerfield’s lawyer

 

[UnitedWarrior93]

Needs Dangerfield’s lawyer

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Only just seen the BZT incident. Can anyone explain how that's different to Heeney?

First time dealing with the clowns at head office?

 

[Misher]

Nice. Here’s my favourite Danger gif

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

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.

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.

 

[Jatz]

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.

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?

 

[SM]

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.

Did 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.

 

[SM]

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?

AV is saying that because he ticked the boxes and gave it a week we challenged it.

 

[Jatz]

AV 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.

 

[SM]

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.

Issue is the rule's use of the word 'usually' which adds an area of grey.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Did 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

AFL News 2024: Sydney Swans, St Kilda, Isaac Heeney hit, Jimmy Webster, suspension

Leigh Matthews says Isaac Heeney should be suspended for his off-ball hit on Saint Jimmy Webster.

wwos.nine.com.au

 

[SM]

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

AFL News 2024: Sydney Swans, St Kilda, Isaac Heeney hit, Jimmy Webster, suspension

Leigh Matthews says Isaac Heeney should be suspended for his off-ball hit on Saint Jimmy Webster.

wwos.nine.com.au

Excuse the grainy snips:


Chin


Knee