There was a section with Luke Hodge on SEN yesterday (from memory) where he very clearly went through the oddness of Zerk-Thatcher being cleared when Heeney was pinged. Both were using their arms to clear space from their opponents so they had a better shot at getting to the ball first (one via a block, the other via a fend) and the outcome in the Zerk-Thatcher income was a broken nose and concussion, yet zippo from the MRP.
Match thread: Swans v Saints.
Collapse
X
-
-
Its hard to understand the difference between them. Its bizarre to me that they based the intention on the fact he chose to push off rather than an intention to strike. It was very obvious to all who understand the game that he was pushing off to create space and the contact was incidental.
If you accept that it is now the intention to do the action that matters then anyone who jumps for a mark over the top of a player and strikes them in the head in doing so is also intentional in that action. Therefore if the result of that marking action is a player being hit in the head then they should also suspended as they could have chosen not to jump. Are we really at that point in the game??Comment
-
So happy we are appealing. The hearing is tonight. It probably won't make a difference, but reading the criteria for appealing, I think we can argue 2 of them.
- That the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard for the evidence before it.
- Classification for offence manifestly excessive or inadequate.
I thought maybe we were all being one eyed about this, but pleasingly there has been a lot of outrage from other supporters. Also most commentators and a couple of coaches have spoken out.
Gesendet von iPhone mit TapatalkComment
-
'Delicious' is a fun word to sayComment
-
What is so ironic, is that it has now been revealed when the AFL proposed to make changes to the rule back in January so that Heeney's action on Webster CAN be deemed reportable, the club (Leon Cameron) sent a submission to AFL objecting to the change highlighting accidental situations like Heeney's being found guilty and it's implications. This occurred 6 MONTHS before Heeney's report on Sunday!
Of course the club didn't receive any correspondence back from the AFL with their submission, who decided to implement the rule change regardless!!! This was revealed on The Midweek Tackle last night. It is unclear if any other clubs also made submissions.
No wonder the club is very angry with this whole episode! This should also be taken into account with tonight's appeal.
FREE HEENEY!!!Comment
-
Hi Liz, I can't recall any specific previous instances to prompt this rule change but it was mentioned on the show last night the thinking behind this change was primarily focused on backmen impeding forwards with behind the play hits. The club's submission highlighted forwards actions to break away from defenders grasps (like Heeney's) could also be deemed reportable, hence their objection.Comment
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
The AFL are now so paranoid about high contact that it is ruining the game as we have known it. Have some sympathy on this issue in relation to concussion and the various class actions being taken by ex players but this is in the realm of the absurd.Comment
Comment