Issac Heeney Tribunal Disgrace

[WalkingCivilWar 39,271]

@picket fence, are you a member of the Magpie Army?

 

Coz you (mis)spell ‘Isaac’ the same way they do 😁

[jimbo1982 94]

6 hours ago, daisycutter said:

well it's off to the appeals board

more publicity for afl and it's media partners

He’ll get off. 
 

I don’t believe in MRO/Tribunal penalties until the player has ‘actually’ missed a game. 
 

AFL only wanted four days of being able to say they are making the game safer. They will fold and accept the overturn on Thurs night, and they won’t appeal the appeal. 
 

it is the way.

[Lexinator 1,650]

Heeney clips Webster's nose grappling in a contest, gets a week but Pendlebury smashed his hand into Neale's stomach with significant force, with intent, and off the ball but just a fine? Can't see the intent by Heeney, careless at most.

[DubDee 24,891]

He’ll 100% get off. it’s the usual circus 

AFL won’t like the Brownlow talk

ZERO doubt he gets off

[dpositive 1,662]

15 hours ago, DeeMee said:

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

Did he plead the "Football Act" defence?

[Gawndy the Great 9,010]

It’s the 100th anniversary of the Brownlow and the AFL won’t want the controversy. 

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

4 hours ago, jimbo1982 said:

He’ll get off. 
 

I don’t believe in MRO/Tribunal penalties until the player has ‘actually’ missed a game. 
 

AFL only wanted four days of being able to say they are making the game safer. They will fold and accept the overturn on Thurs night, and they won’t appeal the appeal. 
 

it is the way.

100% agree. 

As sure as night follows day it will be overturned!

Can't believe so many ppl fall for the AFL circus claptrap so often.

[Oxdee 303]

On 09/07/2024 at 21:19, Swooper1987 said:

Over his career Heeney has shown himself to be a very fair player.  That in all probability it costs him a Brownlow seems an incredibly high price to pay for what is really incidental contact.  If Webster's nose didn't bleed there was absolutely nothing to see there. I'd be surprised is this was the intended outcome of the rule change. I hope they challenge this and bring in the Carlton lawyers.

Heeny swung his arm with enough force to almost break Websters nose. Intent has been removed from the tribunal system and rightly so because it’s impossible to prove or disprove. All that matters is the outcome. Head high contact in today’s game is unacceptable and he got suspended. 

[640MD 3,327]

2 hours ago, Oxdee said:

Heeny swung his arm with enough force to almost break Websters nose. Intent has been removed from the tribunal system and rightly so because it’s impossible to prove or disprove. All that matters is the outcome. Head high contact in today’s game is unacceptable and he got suspended. 

The rulings and laws must change. So that it is the outcome of your acts that are then applied to give penalties. 

no football acts

no good guys 

no history.

no I am sorry. Have some chocolate and booze. 
 

basically, if you do the crime you do the time.   Lawyers will still try and change tribunal rulings. The AFL needs to tighten its playing laws.

full time umpires 

and an unbiased  tribunal review officer would both help

[Dee Zephyr 19,250]

11 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

@picket fence, are you a member of the Magpie Army?

 

Coz you (mis)spell ‘Isaac’ the same way they do 😁

We should start a Get Issac Allan thread.

[Guest]

Should be overturned.  If anyone was reckless it was his opponent.  Scragged him then lowered his face to just behind the hand that he was scrragging with.  Heeney tries to smack his hand away and his face is behind where his scragging hand is.

No case to answer.

 

 

[picket fence 16,824]

On 09/07/2024 at 21:32, Redleg said:

Read the report of the Tribunal.

” Front on vision shows Webster bending forward lowering his head, the first contact was to Webster’s hand and then the side of Heeney’s hand was deflected to a glancing blow to Webster’s nose”.

That is not a suspension or unfairness that should rule you out of a Brownlow.

This offence didn’t exist when “best and fairest” was coined for the Brownlow.

Would Cripps or Daicos have been found guilty?

You KNOW the answer re Cripps and untouchable man!

[old55 23,109]

58 minutes ago, picket fence said:

You KNOW the answer re Cripps and untouchable man!

Cripps got off on a legal technicality based on the wording of the charge against him - blame the lawyers getting involved ....

[picket fence 16,824]

23 minutes ago, old55 said:

Cripps got off on a legal technicality based on the wording of the charge against him - blame the lawyers getting involved ....

As they are now and so they should!

[58er 6,107]

On 10/07/2024 at 00:38, The heart beats true said:

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.

Surely the defence should have tried it. “ The good bloke card”

[Jibroni 4,949]

I hope he gets off but again it makes a mockery of the reporting/tribunal process his suspension is overturned.

[picket fence 16,824]

Tribunal is garbage, aw yeah the AFL want Crippa or Bont or no legs to win!! Of course why didn't I think of that!!

[DubDee 24,891]

Ban is upheld 

Nice to see the AFL not play favourites with superstars and the Swans for once. 

[Oxdee 303]

3 minutes ago, DubDee said:

Ban is upheld 

Nice to see the AFL not play favourites with superstars and the Swans for once. 

Agree… no way he was ever going to get off with a smack to the face with enough force to gush blood 

[John Demonic 5,621]

18 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Tribunal is garbage, aw yeah the AFL want Crippa or Bont or no legs to win!! Of course why didn't I think of that!!

You mean Daicos? Wasn't it Michael Christian threatening to stand down if Maynard was suspended? 

[wonnabeeri 274]

Seem to be the odd one out, but I'm ok with this suspension. Heeney didnt need to swing his arm. 

[Sir Why You Little 36,773]

2 minutes ago, wonnabeeri said:

Seem to be the odd one out, but I'm ok with this suspension. Heeney didnt need to swing his arm. 

Fair call, but why wasn’t Pendlebury Suspended earlier 

Don’t get me started on Maynard, the consistency of the Tribunal is non existent 

[Clintosaurus 7,724]

Guessing Carlton's lawyer represented the AFL? It's all about Naicos or Cripps winning the Brownlow. Not Bont.

[Little Goffy 14,170]

How is it going with the Toby Greene suspension for the punch to Kemp?

Edited July 11 by Little Goffy