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

[Underarm]

Which is a pretty safe bet when swinging at an illegal hold at about stomach height, no?

When changing lanes, you look in the mirror and don't see a car - pretty safe bet there isn't a car right next to you.

Do you move across? Or do you do a head check to make sure there's not a car in a blindspot?

 

[Flog_Toolist]

Somewhat ironic that Cripps won his first Brownlow by getting out of the most blatant 3 match suspension in recent memory, and is now likely to win a second one because Heeney somehow got suspended for something this soft.


If you need assurance the AFL will do this, look no further than Patrick Dangerfield in 2017.
Suspended in round 20, best on ground in each of the last 3 games, polls 3, 0, 2

round 22, 12 point win in a last quarter comeback against collingwood, 32 touches (leading possession winner) 2.2 goals (=highest in the game) 12 clearances (most on ground), 0 votes

loses to Dustin Martin by 3 votes

Good point.

Just like Ian Collins own personal intervention in 1997 as the AFL's Director of Football Operations to ensure Chris Grant never won the Chas.

 

[.Shotties.]

When changing lanes, you look in the mirror and don't see a car - pretty safe bet there isn't a car right next to you.

Do you move across? Or do you do a head check to make sure there's not a car in a blindspot?

...are you comparing the likelihood of a car being near you on the road when driving to the likelihood of a player's head being at chest height while they're illegally holding you?

 

[zyzzbruh]

When changing lanes, you look in the mirror and don't see a car - pretty safe bet there isn't a car right next to you.

Do you move across? Or do you do a head check to make sure there's not a car in a blindspot?

That's literally the definition of careless..

Funny how Isaac's flailing arm in a marking contest was judged intentional, yet Hewetts completely intentional strike (which accidentally hit the face, and a completely unfootball related action) was deemed careless. Swans need to challenge the tribunals definition of intentional vs careless using that example.

 

[delta_magpie]

Brownlow medal legitimacy is not changing.
and u cant use this BS "allow it for players that only get 1 week suspensions or less"
A) you need to play every game to win a brownlow (look what happend to Daicos last year)
B) a Toby Green could rack up 6 different 1 week suspensions and still be eligible? lol

 

[Eshay187]

He’s not going to win the Brownlow anyway, Warner and Gulden will take too many votes. He probably has only polled once or twice in the last 7 weeks.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Not really.

I guess it's in the definition of creating space. In this case it wasn't two players standing side by side, one swinging to stun and get a head start, this was a player swinging down, below shoulder height at the grip of a player illegally holding him.


No it isn't. In this case the illegal action of Webster cobtributed to the outcome. Him falling while he illegally held Heeney meant that a swing below shoulder height hit him in the head.

This isn't like a player going at a ball and being cleaned up in a high bump.

yeah, you are basically just saying webster is at fault for getting hit in the head by another player.

Cannot believe the pitchfork job you blokes did on peter wright, but when it's one of your own in the fault is defcon 6 delusion.

I don't recall any of us blaming Cunningham for getting KO'd. In the end I was OK with Wright copping a ban for an accidental outcome, you blokes should be too.

 

[Dave]

Sorry Isaac, no Big Vic discount for you.
At the end of the day that's more powerful than the Brownlow discount.

Charlie Cameron likes thi.....oh wait.

 

[fusion]

Brownlow medal legitimacy is not changing.
and u cant use this BS "allow it for players that only get 1 week suspensions or less"
A) you need to play every game to win a brownlow (look what happend to Daicos last year)
B) a Toby Green could rack up 6 different 1 week suspensions and still be eligible? lol

C) umpires will mysteriously not award him any votes for the rest of the season

 

[Dave]

Obviously not a good enough bloke. All that smiling didn't fool them.

BZT's head likes this.

 

[Andronicus]

Sorry Isaac, no Big Vic discount for you.
At the end of the day that's more powerful than the Brownlow discount.

I'm sure they will get a few more academy pics to more than make up for it.

After locking up a finals spot they can't be seen to be looking after their favourite cash cow too much.

 

[giantsully]

He was a long way off getting his arm.
This is just the new reality for players. They want to eliminate those types of actions. If you choose to swing an arm like that and it unintentionally gets a player high, you have to cop the consequences. Been that way for a little while and a natural progression from the bumping rules, where if you choose to bump, leave the ground and unintentionally get a player high, you're done.

Such calm rational analysis - now put Cripps in Heeney's shoes, someone who is scragged and tagged every week, and he does the same action - and misses out on a Grand Final. You still all good with this?

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Such calm rational analysis - now put Cripps in Heeney's shoes, someone who is scragged and tagged every week, and he does the same action - and misses out on a Grand Final. You still all good with this?

You don't like the rule? or just the fact heeney the one who broke it?

Its ****in laughable that if Cripps is the one who got done for the same action Heeney did, Swans fans would 100% be in here saying he should be banned for it. It's just the fact Heeney is the one who copped it, you take issue.

You blokes are as rose tinted as rose tinted gets.

 

[00Stinger]

what Heeney did wrong was not look at the player before making contact

Others who have done that have gotten off this year, the umpiring & rules are a ****ing joke at the moment

 

[HairyO]

MRO doing all he can to get Daicos a Brownlow.

Neale is next.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Such calm rational analysis - now put Cripps in Heeney's shoes, someone who is scragged and tagged every week, and he does the same action - and misses out on a Grand Final. You still all good with this?

It would absolutely suck, but it would be 100% Cripps' fault.
If you want to whack a scraggers arms out the way, you swipe down across your body, where the contact is, not out and backwards blindly.

 

[Superstar swan]

Brownlow medal legitimacy is not changing.
and u cant use this BS "allow it for players that only get 1 week suspensions or less"
A) you need to play every game to win a brownlow (look what happend to Daicos last year)
B) a Toby Green could rack up 6 different 1 week suspensions and still be eligible? lol

Well missing too many games kind of counteracts your vote winning ability.

If your goon enough to miss 6 games and still win, fair play

 

[Stax on the mill]

MRO doing all he can to get Daicos a Brownlow.

Neale is next.

Yawn. You need a new joke writer. You’ve been boring for a long time.

 

[HairyO]

It would absolutely suck, but it would be 100% Cripps' fault.
If you want to whack a scraggers arms out the way, you swipe down across your body, where the contact is, not out and backwards blindly.

The AFL would deliberately **** up the Tribunal then tell you what grounds to appeal on. And ensure the appeal wins.

 

[TheFourPillars]

yep. Intentional body low needs to be brought up from a fine to one week. Butters is deliberately whacking blokes in the guts every week but this accidental hit is automatically a week, so dumb

Is it though? If it is a hit to the head it doesn't matter if it is accidental. Isn't that your line mate? In other so called MRP cases in the past you have had a hard and fast rule haven't you? He meant to hit him there, right?

For what it's worth it is a ridiculous suspension in line with some that have been handed out in the past for accidental contact that happens in a game.

 

[MF]

When changing lanes, you look in the mirror and don't see a car - pretty safe bet there isn't a car right next to you.

Do you move across? Or do you do a head check to make sure there's not a car in a blindspot?

One of the most useless comparisons I've ever heard

 

[PerthBoy86]

So wait, when you do a dont argue fend off and it lands too high its just a free kick, but this is a fine and possible suspension? Geez our game is getting soft.

 

[kickthething]

Let’s see how the appeal goes

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

So wait, when you do a dont argue fend off and it lands too high its just a free kick, but this is a fine and possible suspension? Geez our game is getting soft.

A few things wrong with this.

Usually a high fend off is a lower impact that falls below the threshold for a reportable offence.
If you did a high fend off that resulted in injury or a blood nose, it would likely be looked at.
A fend off is in the contest and a football act.

This was a strike, not a fend off.
This resulted in a player injury, with the impact being high enough to warrant MRO scrutiny.
This was off the ball (well off it) and is not a football act.

 

[Stax on the mill]

You went so hard, so early and now you are resorting to childish insults.

Keep swinging man.

Yes, 134 posts in the 10 days since he apparently first joined BF, with the posts becoming increasingly more strident and personal. Hmm.