5 minutes ago, DiscoStu17 said: 
i’m still getting my head around Zerk-Thatcher not being suspended for knocking out Naughton, but I can’t be bothered looking for a replay. Good to see there can still be accidents I guess.

Didn’t knock him out, surprisingly broke his nose but appeared unintentional contact. Probably should have got the same as Heeney - both off or both one week. 

1 minute ago, demosaw said:

Didn’t knock him out, surprisingly broke his nose but appeared unintentional contact. Probably should have got the same as Heeney - both off or both one week. 

My bad. I thought he was subbed out after failing the HIA?

9 minutes ago, DiscoStu17 said:

My bad. I thought he was subbed out after failing the HIA?

Yes he was diagnosed with concussion and will miss 12 days/2 games as mandatory precaution. Don’t think he lost consciousness though.

Edited July 9, 2024Jul 9 by demosaw

What gets me is the inconsistency. 

Hogan gets off

Pendlebury gets off

That bloke from Collingwood gets off.

And this gets a week? 

1. Let’s not forget a similar action fractured Mays cheekbone and he didn’t plant for a couple of weeks.

2. This get ms a week and I hate to bring it up again, but Maynard get zilch. [censored] how putrid is this game becoming. It’s a freaking laughing stock.

3 hours ago, monoccular said:

Also, where was the Charlie Cameron "never been suspended" rule here?

This is my entire issue with how ridiculous that decision was. Heeney is a more important player, with a cleaner record than Cameron, but he doesn’t get the rule applied to him?

It hasn’t been applied since, and probably never will again. What an absolute joke.

Whilst I don't think it deserves a week, I am happy as it makes the Bont one step closer to winning the Brownlow and I dropped money on that pre season 🤣

Heeney needs to go to the “Tom Hawkins School of Accidental Contact.”

9 hours ago, DubDee said:

so are you saying it doesn’t deserve a week or you think the brownlow rules should be changed back? 

Both but definitely the latter.

The front on video shows it was accidental light head contact, after a deflection from Webster’s hand.

if we were playing the Swans next week he would have definitely got off.

You can bet if he'd gotten off there would be just as many on here bemoaning the fact.

Same as an Arab Hitchhiker.

1 hour ago, loges said:

You can bet if he'd gotten off there would be just as many on here bemoaning the fact.

Your point? That people do disagree?  

Personally, I haven't made up my mind (probably because I can't be bothered - there are plenty of other MRO decisions which are so blatantly wrong/biased that I don't have the energy to engage with this one).

14 hours ago, picket fence said:

Further evidence that the inconsistences of this Basket Case Russian Roulette of a system is a disgrace. NO WAY HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONVICTED. I Feel for the young superstar 😇

SHOCKING 🤮

It's not very often I agree with you PF but 100% on this one. The inconsistency is breathtaking.

Zac Butters and Toby Greene are both repeat offenders for whacking opponents in the stomach but that's ok as long as nobody gets hurt. Just fine them. It won't happen but I'd love one of these two to finish second in the Brownlow behind Heeney and therefore win it. Fairest and Best?

 

4 hours ago, loges said:

You can bet if he'd gotten off there would be just as many on here bemoaning the fact.

Surely the AFL conspiracy theory narrative has him getting off - Brownlow to a northern state team, or at a minimum a gripping night at the Brownlow.

14 hours ago, DubDee said:

Im glad the Tribunal didn’t fold under the weight of a brownlow chance and an AFL favourite to let him off

Clear week imo

Who should i back now DD? 

15 hours ago, BAMF said:

Webster was holding him back from leading to the contest. Heeney swung his arm back below shoulder level to break the hold. Webster had slipped down hence the high contact. No way Heeney would have known his head was there.

Not a fan of the suspension.

Don't care about the Brownlow. Don't care much about Heeney either.

If a bloke is tagging and scragging then he leaves himself open to getting wacked especially when his head position changed. (again a Brayshaw issue vs West Coast where there was some doubt about "shifting targets"

Gus wasn't tagging anyone and did not get protected.

well it's off to the appeals board

more publicity for afl and it's media partners

He said sorry, and he is a good bloke, what more,  The vision of Blood coming from the other guys nose well, he was a wimp, should have got up and kept playing   clearly only a love tap,

 

 

Three guarantees in life:

Death

Taxes

Consistently inconsistent AFL

1 hour ago, 640MD said:

He said sorry, and he is a good bloke, what more,  The vision of Blood coming from the other guys nose well, he was a wimp, should have got up and kept playing   clearly only a love tap,

 

 

Webster did slip and faceplant into the turf unrelated to any impact. 

100% certain were the “assailant” named Daicos (or Cripps) there would be “benefit of the doubt” nothing to see here.

Christian used to appear on TV with his deadpan stare justifying either the charge or the exoneration - does he still do this?  Every time I saw him I thought he just looked as thick as ……

No strong view on this but for the inconsistency 

 

how does Cameron get off?

the game is a joke

Pathetic.

But whatever.

21 hours ago, FearTheBeard said:

Really classy comparing the afl to the Gestapo.

What would you prefer, without getting 'political', as a comparison?

10 hours ago, Biffen said:

Same as an Arab Hitchhiker.

Che? What about a Mauritian or an Inuit hitchhiker?