Sydney has one last chance to clear Isaac Heeney of his one-game striking ban, and make him eligible for the Brownlow Medal, at the AFL Appeals Board this evening. Live below!
The Swans failed in their Tribunal appeal on Tuesday night, with coach John Longmire declaring he “can’t accept” that Heeney’s fend-off which left St Kilda defender Jimmy Webster with a bloody nose was intentional.
Heeney claimed his act was simply forward craft and happens “probably 50 to 100 times in some games”.
Watch every game of every round this Toyota AFL Premiership Season LIVE with no ad-breaks during play on Kayo. New to Kayo? Start your free trial today >
But the Tribunal found Heeney’s swing was “more than a swatting motion” and thus fell under new AFL clause 4.3(b).
“Heeney’s swing of the arm was a forceful blow, and he intended that blow to make contact with Webster, albeit not to his face. We are not satisfied that he intended only to make contact with Webster’s hands,” Jeff Gleeson said in relaying the Tribunal’s reasons.
“This was an intentional strike resulting in injury, and accordingly, we consider a one-match sanction is appropriate.”
To win at the Appeals Board the Swans must successfully argue that either:
– There was an error of law that has a material impact on the decision of the Tribunal;
– That the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it;
– The classification of the offence was manifestly excessive or inadequate;
– Or the sanction imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate.
AFL TRIBUNAL GUIDELINES CLAUSE 4.3
(B) CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN STRIKES
For the purpose of these Guidelines, all Players should note that the following factors are considered when determining the classification of a Striking offence:
Intent: Notwithstanding any other part of these Guidelines, the fact that an act of striking occurred behind the play or off the ball or during a break in play or with a raised forearm or elbow is usually consistent with the strike being intentional. Further, where a Player intends to forcefully push or fend an opposition Player off the ball (including to gain separation for the purpose of contesting the ball) and the effect is that the Player commits the Reportable Offence of Striking, the strike will usually be graded as Intentional.
Duncan Miller for the Swans argued on three grounds:
– The way the Tribunal interpreted clause 4.3(b) was in error;
– That led to the consequence that it made a finding that was not open to it;
– The sanction was manifestly excessive;
Miller argued the issue was centered around the difference between a push or a fend that is a strike, and a push or a fend that has the effect of a strike, and the way the rule is written is “entirely circular”.
He said the rules “make no sense” the way they are written because “there is a distinction without a difference”.
“Reasoning in that way, the Tribunal did not need to and did not go through the ordinary process of reasoning to come up with an actual finding of whether there was intentional conduct or not,” Miller said.
“It did not deal with the state of mind provision, it simply assumed its own conclusion and stopped at that point.”
The ‘state of mind’ element pointed to Sydney’s case in the Tribunal appeal that Heeney stopped and checked on Webster after accidentally hitting him.
Appeal chair Will Houghton questioned the Swans’ argument about “an erroneous construction” of clause 4.3(b) and how it impacted the result, with the Swans saying the Tribunal did not go through the evidence properly because of how it read that clause.
“They looked at the vision to see if they can shoehorn it into rule 4.3(b),” Miller argued.
“Having identified there was a swinging arm … it closed its ears to the evidence of the player, and simply assumed intention.”
Houghton asked why the Tribunal wasn’t open to making the decision that it made.
“There’s not only got to be an error of law but a material effect,” Houghton said.
The Swans went through their original case again, saying while they conceded Heeney intended to make contact, he did not intend to make high contact.
“He’s swatting between waist and chest height. He was not to know the player who’s two inches taller than him had started stumbling behind him,” Miller said.
Houghton responded: “You seem to be saying if there’s no intention to hit the player in the face, there can’t be an intention regarding his contact vis-a-vis a strike, but the two don’t run together do they?”
Follow the Isaac Heeney AFL Appeals Board hearing live below!