![](https://images.bigfootymedia.com/icons/mobile-bullets/port_adelaide.png)
Let me guess his middle name.Did you know that Sir Isaac Isaacs was Australia's 9th Governor General?
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.
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round F1
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
AFLW 2024 - Round 1 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Let me guess his middle name.Did you know that Sir Isaac Isaacs was Australia's 9th Governor General?
Let me guess his middle name.
It's the Isaac and Izak show at the tribunal tonite folks. Did you know that Sir Isaac Isaacs was Australia's 9th Governor General? You do now.
Yeah, I have never heard a proper explanation as to why SPP was sent straight to tribunal & Rankine/ others weren’tRankine's case was another example of the MRO using his discretion, not sending it to the tribunal and giving a match penalty when a concussion has occured.
He gave him 4 games and the crows decided to appeal it.
That is either the 3rd or 4th occasion this year where he has used his discretion when the player hit, has been concussed, but has failed to explain why he used his discretion, and the media too dumb to follow up why.
I have listed the other cases in this thread. Its a subtle difference, but it should be explained why the MRO can or cant make a penalty ruling.
SPP's trial game bump on Keane, was sent straight to the tribunal. Why?? Beacuse the MRO didnt really know what penalty to give? or he wanted more than the 4 games?
The reasoning is never revealed.
Unaccountable swill continues.
Lets see how independent The Appeals Board chair is. It will be one of Renee Enbom KC and Will Houghton KC. There are 2 panel members. I have no idea who those 2 people are but usually its ex players.Whether or not Heeney wins his appeal, you will know that the AFL has had a quick look at the Brownlow votes...
I still think most people think Rioli got Jordan Ridley with the elbow on his leading arm. Hence the calls about the two week penalty for him not being enough.I don't understand some of the outrage regarding Heeney's suspension. Rioli Vs Jordan Ridley, did something significantly less intentional and softer, and copped a 3 week ban argued down to 2. Rioli has an accidental trailing arm clip the player. Heeney intentionally throws an elbow and smacks someone in the head.
It's pretty open and shut. If I was Heeney I'd be running laughing to the bank that you only got one.
No current season stats available
Put simply, it’s where a decision is so unreasonable no reasonable decision maker could have made it.WTF is the Wednesbury principle??
The concept of Wednesbury unreasonableness as a ground of review raises concerns as to the extent to which both constitutional and practical limitations of judicial power are maintained. It has been suggested that the courts, when reviewing decisions under this ground, essentially look at the substance result of the decision rather than the process by which the decision is made. By holding that an actual decision reached by an administrative body is deficient on its face rather than considering the way in which the decision was made, the courts are arguably usurping the power of Parliament.
......
The concept of unreasonableness as an independent ground of review was defined by Lord Greene in the UK Court of Appeal decision in Associated Provincial Picture House v Wednesbury [1948] 1 KB 223. Essentially, it subjects to review, decisions that are ‘so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to [them]’.3 This ground of review was envisaged by Lord Greene as a safety net, which operated to catch those decisions that were manifestly absurd but might escape review on the other more specific grounds.4 Alternatively, it has been suggested that the ground was to serve as an ‘umbrella’, under which to gather related themes and principles applying in judicial review, or as a ‘springboard’, from which to define new (or adapted) legal standards to guard against executive abuse.5
.......
MrMeaner this is your field
Put simply, it’s where a decision is so unreasonable no reasonable decision maker could have made it.
Has anyone won the brownlow when there is 7 games to go? Ollie polled 12 votes and Dusty 15 and they have polled the most with 36.Nick Daicos must've been far enough ahead in the voting to save the AFL's blushes. Now put those voting slips back in the safe before anyone sees them.
Nothing to see here.APPEAL BOARD REASONS
The player has come to the Appeal Board, relying upon three grounds of appeal.
The first ground was that there was an error of law committed by the Tribunal that had a material impact upon its decision.
The second ground was that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to the conclusion that it did.
The third ground was that there was manifest excessiveness in classifying the conduct as intentional.
FIRST GROUND
The question comes down to whether or not a finding of intentional conduct on the part of Heeney was open to the Tribunal.
We stress at this point that this Appeal Board is not here to conduct what lawyers call a merits review.
We are not here to decide the guilt or innocence of the player. We are here to oversee and review the decision of the Tribunal.
It’s enough that we find that there was evidence or material which made it open to the Tribunal to come to a finding of intentional conduct.
We looked at the videos a number of times, and counsel have addressed us about the videos. Certainly there was material before the Tribunal put by Miller that could have suggested carelessness or accidental conduct on the part of Heeney because he stopped momentarily after the incident and looked surprised by it.
There are other matters that may bear upon whether the conduct was accidental or careless.
For us, viewing the video evidence, reading the transcript of the evidence of Heeney, it’s apparent to us and we therefore conclude there was material before the Tribunal in which it was open to the Tribunal to make the finding of intentional conduct.
We therefore dismiss that ground of appeal.
SECOND GROUND
The second ground of appeal only that there was some manifest excessiveness in categorising the conduct as intentional must also fail, really, for the reasons we’ve outlined above, that ground of appeal is dismissed.
THIRD GROUND
Thirdly, the ground of appeal dealing with Tribunals acting reasonably - based historically upon the Wednesbury principle - also cannot be made out.
To our mind, having regard to all the material that was before the Tribunal, and looking carefully at the reasons expressed by the Tribunal at the end of the hearing, we do not consider that the Tribunal acted unreasonably or unjustly or unfairly.
We therefore dismiss that ground.
Accordingly, the appeal by Heeney is dismissed.
Yeah, I have never heard a proper explanation as to why SPP was sent straight to tribunal & Rankine/ others weren’t
At the time I recall the MRO deduced 3 games for SPP but made a comment that this was inadequate given the public sentiment re head knocks, with Brayshaw just retiring, so used his discretion to send it to the tribunal. Eg he wanted a harsher sentence. Whilst in Rankines case the MRO felt the 4 games adequate
I guess he can use his discretion based on the vibe
Yeah, I have never heard a proper explanation as to why SPP was sent straight to tribunal & Rankine/ others weren’t
At the time I recall the MRO deduced 3 games for SPP but made a comment that this was inadequate given the public sentiment re head knocks, with Brayshaw just retiring, so used his discretion to send it to the tribunal. Eg he wanted a harsher sentence. Whilst in Rankines case the MRO felt the 4 games adequate
I guess he can use his discretion based on the vibe
According to the umpire - "Play on"
From memory the player with the ball then waltzed past Evans who was on the ground clutching his head, and the suns kicked a goal (I think?)
Glenelg’s Oscar Adams has been handed a reprimand for striking Port’s Tom Scully at Alberton Oval on Saturday.
Oscar Adams (Glenelg) – Striking
Finding: This is deemed as a low-level offence.
Penalty: Reprimand