Match thread: Swans v Saints.

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • i'm-uninformed2
    Reefer Madness
    • Oct 2003
    • 4653

    Originally posted by Mel_C
    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.
    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.
    'Delicious' is a fun word to say

    Comment

    • liz
      Veteran
      Site Admin
      • Jan 2003
      • 16778

      Did anyone read the MRP’s assessment of the BZT incident and why they chose not to cite him? I often find it hard to locate their MRP pronouncements.

      Comment

      • Mr Magoo
        Senior Player
        • May 2008
        • 1255

        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

        • Kafka's Ghost
          Regular in the Side
          • Sep 2017
          • 903

          Originally posted by Mel_C
          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.
          Maybe they can see the ongoing implications of this and its impact on the competition as a contact sport.


          Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

          Comment

          • i'm-uninformed2
            Reefer Madness
            • Oct 2003
            • 4653

            Originally posted by liz
            Did anyone read the MRP’s assessment of the BZT incident and why they chose not to cite him? I often find it hard to locate their MRP pronouncements.
            They didn't even mention it. Zip.

            MATCH REVIEW: Mitch Georgiades banned, Toby Greene charged
            'Delicious' is a fun word to say

            Comment

            • KSAS
              Senior Player
              • Mar 2018
              • 1793

              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

              • liz
                Veteran
                Site Admin
                • Jan 2003
                • 16778

                Does anyone recall specific instances from prior years that might have prompted the AFL to make this change?

                Comment

                • KSAS
                  Senior Player
                  • Mar 2018
                  • 1793

                  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

                  • liz
                    Veteran
                    Site Admin
                    • Jan 2003
                    • 16778

                    Maybe someone was watching a replay of the 2005 PF and decided they needed to do something about Barry Hall getting to play in the GF…

                    Comment

                    • KSAS
                      Senior Player
                      • Mar 2018
                      • 1793

                      Heeney' s appeal has FAILED. Rubbed out this week & can't win Brownlow

                      Comment

                      • Blood Fever
                        Veterans List
                        • Apr 2007
                        • 4050

                        Originally posted by KSAS
                        Heeney' s appeal has FAILED. Rubbed out this week & can't win Brownlow
                        Disgraceful decision devoid of any common sense.

                        Comment

                        • Sandridge
                          Outer wing, Lake Oval
                          • Apr 2010
                          • 2083

                          Originally posted by KSAS
                          Heeney' s appeal has FAILED. Rubbed out this week & can't win Brownlow
                          Bitterly disappointed! The only very slight positive is that a week off might help him get over any niggles he might have but if he polls most votes on Brownlow night, I'll be livid!!

                          Comment

                          • liz
                            Veteran
                            Site Admin
                            • Jan 2003
                            • 16778

                            The AFL should now give Isaac a whistle he can blow to alert the umpires when he’s being held because he’s clearly not permitted to make contact with his opponent to break the tackle.

                            Comment

                            • Kafka's Ghost
                              Regular in the Side
                              • Sep 2017
                              • 903

                              Originally posted by Blood Fever
                              Disgraceful decision devoid of any common sense.
                              Absolutely. Unfortunately I’ve recently read “The Boys Club”, so my opinion of the AFL is already in the latrine.


                              Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

                              Comment

                              • Blood Fever
                                Veterans List
                                • Apr 2007
                                • 4050

                                Originally posted by liz
                                The AFL should now give Isaac a whistle he can blow to alert the umpires when he’s being held because he’s clearly not permitted to make contact with his opponent to break the tackle.
                                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

                                Working...