swan thug.

[avid]

I'm just looking at multiple repeats of the incident.

It is very hard to see what could have possibly caused the injury -- a vague loose swipe from the side of an open palm?
Heeney was clearly just turning back to push Webster away for a little more separation, and collected his nose down at waist level. Clearly an accident, worthy of a free kick if somebody saw it.

If it were any St Kilda player being charged on that we would all be outraged. Legitimately.
If we believe in the ideal of fair umpiring we should be advocating for a downgrade too.

And a change in the Brownlow eligibility rules.
The original purpose of the disqualification was to ensure no one who engaged in unsportsmanlike conduct could win the 'best and fairest' medal.
The suspension rules now make unintentional contact resulting in injury an automatic suspension. Though this type of contact does need to be discouraged, even sanctioned, it is, when accidental, simply not unsportsmanlike.

[Yorkeys]

I'm just looking at multiple repeats of the incident.

It is very hard to see what could have possibly caused the injury -- a vague loose swipe from the side of an open palm?
Heeney was clearly just turning back to push Webster away for a little more separation, and collected his nose down at waist level. Clearly an accident, worthy of a free kick if somebody saw it.

If it were any St Kilda player being charged on that we would all be outraged. Legitimately.
If we believe in the ideal of fair umpiring we should be advocating for a downgrade too.

And a change in the Brownlow eligibility rules.
The original purpose of the disqualification was to ensure no one who engaged in unsportsmanlike conduct could win the 'best and fairest' medal.
The suspension rules now make unintentional contact resulting in injury an automatic suspension. Though this type of contact does need to be discouraged, even sanctioned, it is, when accidental, simply not unsportsmanlike.

So maybe Jimmy's to blame. Close checking can be annoying. Bleeds too easily. Just an innocent back hander meant to stop the defender in his tracks but not hard enough to cause damage, difficult manoeuvre to pull off. I could have not swung back on the guy, he wasn't holding, but we were in trouble and I'm the man.
A few more appeals, assurances of Heeney being a clean cut all wholesome guy and Jimmy will be lucky not to get a fine. Especially when the implied media consensus is Heeney has the Brownlow in the bag votes wise and it would be cruel to deny him for snotting a Saints player. Accident don't you know.
Of course if a scrubbed kick towards the goal square happens to find its way through for a goal we don't appeal those sort of accidents.
Heeney backhanded Jimmy, injured his face (note the blood), got an unfair advantage, kicked an undeserved but much-needed goal but wants a free lunch. Come off it Swans, it's the age of spin but let's not lose sight of the facts.

[loris]

I still sadly remember Robert Harvey’s speech when he won his first Brownlow Medal. Chris Grant received more votes than Harves, Grant had been reported & suspended during the year so he was ineligible to win the Charlie.

Poor Harves, the humble man that he was/is, said words to the effect that he wasn’t worthy recipient , and it was a hollow victory for him. I cried for poor Harves being placed in that position. So much of night was talking & focusing the votes Grant was accumulating & it would be such an injustice if he was denied a Brownlow. Even the week before the media was all poor Grant not being eligible, he was the media darling.

It was so sad to see Harves thinking he wasn’t a worthy recipient, on the night.

No doubt it steeled our great Rob Harvey, to make sure he won it in his own right the following season.

It annoyed me to see so much focus on Grant that night & in the papers the following day. Like it annoyed me last Saturday evening, how at the end of the match after Saints beat the Swans, the TV cameras kept focusing mostly on the Swans players looking all dejected & despondent more than the victorious Saints. I bet it stuck in their gizzard that they had to interview ecstatic Saints players on the oval a not a Swan player. Possibly they had to get their cameras & interviewers quickly out of the Swans rooms & into the Saints rooms……. Ha ha

[saynta]

I'm just looking at multiple repeats of the incident.

It is very hard to see what could have possibly caused the injury -- a vague loose swipe from the side of an open palm?
Heeney was clearly just turning back to push Webster away for a little more separation, and collected his nose down at waist level. Clearly an accident, worthy of a free kick if somebody saw it.

If it were any St Kilda player being charged on that we would all be outraged. Legitimately.
If we believe in the ideal of fair umpiring we should be advocating for a downgrade too.

And a change in the Brownlow eligibility rules.
The original purpose of the disqualification was to ensure no one who engaged in unsportsmanlike conduct could win the 'best and fairest' medal.
The suspension rules now make unintentional contact resulting in injury an automatic suspension. Though this type of contact does need to be discouraged, even sanctioned, it is, when accidental, simply not unsportsmanlike.

So maybe Jimmy's to blame. Close checking can be annoying. Bleeds too easily. Just an innocent back hander meant to stop the defender in his tracks but not hard enough to cause damage, difficult manoeuvre to pull off. I could have not swung back on the guy, he wasn't holding, but we were in trouble and I'm the man.
A few more appeals, assurances of Heeney being a clean cut all wholesome guy and Jimmy will be lucky not to get a fine. Especially when the implied media consensus is Heeney has the Brownlow in the bag votes wise and it would be cruel to deny him for snotting a Saints player. Accident don't you know.
Of course if a scrubbed kick towards the goal square happens to find its way through for a goal we don't appeal those sort of accidents.
Heeney backhanded Jimmy, injured his face (note the blood), got an unfair advantage, kicked an undeserved but much-needed goal but wants a free lunch. Come off it Swans, it's the age of spin but let's not lose sight of the facts.

Good post. Nicely summed up.

[bobmurray]

No result on the "appeal" yet but the Swans are so confident Heeney will get off they have named him in their team for the weekend.

Did the AFL give them a hint of the outcome ?

Just heard the Swans DID play the Good Bloke card in the hearing.

[Mr Magic]

No result on the "appeal" yet but the Swans are so confident Heeney will get off they have named him in their team for the weekend.

Did the AFL give them a hint of the outcome ?

I think they have to name him in the 23 in case he gets off?
Rules of naming the team without being fined for adding someone who’s not in the official team or emergencies

[King Max]

He didn’t get off.

[bobmurray]

Heeney's appeal failed.

Is that the end of it now, i'm over hearing about the thug, love how their attempt at the good bloke defence failed.

[loris]

Heeney's appeal failed.

Is that the end of it now, i'm over hearing about the thug, love how their attempt at the good bloke defence failed.

Yes Virginia - there is a Santa Claus

[B.M]

Would’ve preferred a free kick and he got off

Perhaps a fine for flinging his arm back

[Sainter_Dad]

Seems to me that the AFL is setting Heeney up as the scapegoat in order to scrap the Brownlow Fairest rule.

Heeney gets the most amount of votes in Brownlow but due to a lineball suspect 1 week suspension he is ineligible to win .... Media go crazy and kick off demanding AFL to change the rule ...... due to popular demand the AFL change the rule

The afl should definitely change the rule though. Match suspensions have increased 5 fold this years, will be farcical in future years if they keep it like this.

Lose the square of the number of weeks suspended in Votes (each event separately - so 3 x 1 week does not mean 3 weeks squared)

1 week suspended - lose a vote
2 weeks suspended - lose 4 votes
3 weeks suspended - lose 9 votes
etc

Oh and 1 vote for a fine

Still the Fairest and if you truly are the best - you could still win

[B.M]

If they change the rules around the Brownlow- which the should not! - does that mean that Chris Grant wins a Brownlow retrospectively - And Rob Harvey has to hand his back?!

[Scollop]

No but Brian Wilson, Shane Woewodin and Matt Priddis should

[Yorkeys]

Well sucko Swans, and what's with their supporters going "Hola, hola, hola". Particularly when we are the Mexicans geographically.

[Life Long Saint]

And a change in the Brownlow eligibility rules.
The original purpose of the disqualification was to ensure no one who engaged in unsportsmanlike conduct could win the 'best and fairest' medal.
The suspension rules now make unintentional contact resulting in injury an automatic suspension. Though this type of contact does need to be discouraged, even sanctioned, it is, when accidental, simply not unsportsmanlike.

Why change it?
It's one award out of a plethora of awards on offer.
The AFL MVP, Coaches award, AA selection, the list goes on...Kick a footy in to the air and it's bound to land on an award for a player.
The Brownlow Medal IS the umpires award for the fairest and the best. If we don't value the umpires opinion, then we should de-value the meaningfulness of the award and focus on the others...Put up a red carpet parade and make a big song and dance about the AFLPA and AA awards nights.

[Life Long Saint]

No but Brian Wilson, Shane Woewodin and Matt Priddis should

Incredibly harsh on Priddis. He is West Coast's highest overall vote getter.
He was a gun at the Eagles and was also runner up to Fyfe the next season.

More worthy winner than Wanganeen was in 1993 when Diesel should have won by the length of the Flemington straight and would been elevated to join the elite category of triple Brownlow Medallists in the next season.

[Jacks Back]

I still sadly remember Robert Harvey’s speech when he won his first Brownlow Medal. Chris Grant received more votes than Harves, Grant had been reported & suspended during the year so he was ineligible to win the Charlie.

Poor Harves, the humble man that he was/is, said words to the effect that he wasn’t worthy recipient , and it was a hollow victory for him. I cried for poor Harves being placed in that position. So much of night was talking & focusing the votes Grant was accumulating & it would be such an injustice if he was denied a Brownlow. Even the week before the media was all poor Grant not being eligible, he was the media darling.

It was so sad to see Harves thinking he wasn’t a worthy recipient, on the night.

No doubt it steeled our great Rob Harvey, to make sure he won it in his own right the following season.

It annoyed me to see so much focus on Grant that night & in the papers the following day. Like it annoyed me last Saturday evening, how at the end of the match after Saints beat the Swans, the TV cameras kept focusing mostly on the Swans players looking all dejected & despondent more than the victorious Saints. I bet it stuck in their gizzard that they had to interview ecstatic Saints players on the oval a not a Swan player. Possibly they had to get their cameras & interviewers quickly out of the Swans rooms & into the Saints rooms……. Ha ha

The next year Harvs tied with McKernan who was also ineligible due to a suss suspension.

[Scollop]

No but Brian Wilson, Shane Woewodin and Matt Priddis should

Incredibly harsh on Priddis. He is West Coast's highest overall vote getter.
He was a gun at the Eagles and was also runner up to Fyfe the next season.

More worthy winner than Wanganeen was in 1993 when Diesel should have won by the length of the Flemington straight and would been elevated to join the elite category of triple Brownlow Medallists in the next season.

Yeah, I know. But I'm also harsh on Brad Crouch

Would you rate him Brownlow medal worthy? Not surprised that their stats are similar

https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_ ... 2=C&type=A

[B.M]

McKernan tied with Hird and Voss in 96

Grant beat Harvey by 1 vote in 97

Harvey won outright in 98 with a then record of 32 votes

[Jacks Back]

McKernan tied with Hird and Voss in 96

Grant beat Harvey by 1 vote in 97

Harvey won outright in 98 with a then record of 32 votes

Thanks for that BM. I could of sworn it was like I have said but, looking it up, you are correct. Funny what the mind remembers over time.

[saynta]

Heeney's appeal failed.

Is that the end of it now, i'm over hearing about the thug, love how their attempt at the good bloke defence failed.

That's what Appeals bodies do...Shoot the wounded.

Obviously didn't like the arrogance on display from the Swine.

[Life Long Saint]

No but Brian Wilson, Shane Woewodin and Matt Priddis should

Incredibly harsh on Priddis. He is West Coast's highest overall vote getter.
He was a gun at the Eagles and was also runner up to Fyfe the next season.

More worthy winner than Wanganeen was in 1993 when Diesel should have won by the length of the Flemington straight and would been elevated to join the elite category of triple Brownlow Medallists in the next season.

Yeah, I know. But I'm also harsh on Brad Crouch

Would you rate him Brownlow medal worthy? Not surprised that their stats are similar

https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_ ... 2=C&type=A

I rate Priddis miles ahead of Crouch.

[loris]

I still sadly remember Robert Harvey’s speech when he won his first Brownlow Medal. Chris Grant received more votes than Harves, Grant had been reported & suspended during the year so he was ineligible to win the Charlie.

Poor Harves, the humble man that he was/is, said words to the effect that he wasn’t worthy recipient , and it was a hollow victory for him. I cried for poor Harves being placed in that position. So much of night was talking & focusing the votes Grant was accumulating & it would be such an injustice if he was denied a Brownlow. Even the week before the media was all poor Grant not being eligible, he was the media darling.

It was so sad to see Harves thinking he wasn’t a worthy recipient, on the night.

No doubt it steeled our great Rob Harvey, to make sure he won it in his own right the following season.

It annoyed me to see so much focus on Grant that night & in the papers the following day. Like it annoyed me last Saturday evening, how at the end of the match after Saints beat the Swans, the TV cameras kept focusing mostly on the Swans players looking all dejected & despondent more than the victorious Saints. I bet it stuck in their gizzard that they had to interview ecstatic Saints players on the oval a not a Swan player. Possibly they had to get their cameras & interviewers quickly out of the Swans rooms & into the Saints rooms……. Ha ha

The next year Harvs tied with McKernan who was also ineligible due to a suss suspension.

I’m sure that is not correct “Jack’s Back”, and that Harves clearly won the Charlie outright, the second time
- however, I apologize if I’m wrong, as I’m definitely an individual that sees no wrong with great man Robert Harvey - love him to bits!!

[meher baba]

Voss and Hird were tied with the ineligible McKernan in 1996.

The ineligible Grant was tied with Harves in 1997.

Harves won it by a country mile in 1998.

[Jacks Back]

I still sadly remember Robert Harvey’s speech when he won his first Brownlow Medal. Chris Grant received more votes than Harves, Grant had been reported & suspended during the year so he was ineligible to win the Charlie.

Poor Harves, the humble man that he was/is, said words to the effect that he wasn’t worthy recipient , and it was a hollow victory for him. I cried for poor Harves being placed in that position. So much of night was talking & focusing the votes Grant was accumulating & it would be such an injustice if he was denied a Brownlow. Even the week before the media was all poor Grant not being eligible, he was the media darling.

It was so sad to see Harves thinking he wasn’t a worthy recipient, on the night.

No doubt it steeled our great Rob Harvey, to make sure he won it in his own right the following season.

It annoyed me to see so much focus on Grant that night & in the papers the following day. Like it annoyed me last Saturday evening, how at the end of the match after Saints beat the Swans, the TV cameras kept focusing mostly on the Swans players looking all dejected & despondent more than the victorious Saints. I bet it stuck in their gizzard that they had to interview ecstatic Saints players on the oval a not a Swan player. Possibly they had to get their cameras & interviewers quickly out of the Swans rooms & into the Saints rooms……. Ha ha

The next year Harvs tied with McKernan who was also ineligible due to a suss suspension.

I’m sure that is not correct “Jack’s Back”, and that Harves clearly won the Charlie outright, the second time
- however, I apologize if I’m wrong, as I’m definitely an individual that sees no wrong with great man Robert Harvey - love him to bits!!

You are correct that that is not correct as BM said earlier.