Hello and welcome to Zero Hanger’s live coverage of Tuesday’s AFL Tribunal hearings, where Sydney’s Isaac Heeney and Adelaide’s Izak Rankine will each challenge their respective suspensions.
Heeney’s case has concluded, with the star Swan’s one-game ban for striking St Kilda’s Jimmy Webster upheld.
Rankine’s case, which has followed Heeney’s, will see the Crows look to reduce the forward’s four-game suspension for rough conduct on Lion Brandon Starcevich. The MRO graded Rankine’s bump on the Brisbane backman as intentional conduct, severe impact and high contact.
Adelaide have already flagged they will look to have the conduct charge downgraded to careless, which would mean Rankine is suspended for three matches instead of four.
The Crows are scheduled to face St Kilda, Essendon, Hawthorn and Geelong in their next four matches.
Crows look to reduce forward’s ban
8:49: The jury has begun to deliberate. Verdict to come.
8:48: Woods: “There was a significant amount of force.
“This is such a long way from being lawful conduct.”
8:45: Culshaw: “Whatever everyone thought they saw was a collision of body on body, and no one remonstrated and might have thought what happened was what was intended.
“This did not appear to be a big deal until the head clash had happened. It was not deliberately unreasonable.
“I submit the Tribunal should not be satisfied that the level of conduct was intentional, and instead careless.”
8:40: Culshaw: “It was a bump, it wasn’t gentle. But it wasn’t very, very forceful.
“Starcevich was vulnerable but not totally defenceless.
I don’t accept [the bump] was behind the ball or off the play.
8:33: Andrew Culshaw (Adelaide): “The injury suffered by both players shows there must’ve been a head clash.”
8:30: AFL Counsel Andrew Woods suggests Rankine intentionally decided to bump, made evident by his ‘body language’.
8:23: The Crows reveal Rankine will not give evidence.
Rankine suffered a lacerated head as a result of the collision, which the Crows state was a ‘clash of heads’.
8:20: Rankine has pled guilty to rough conduct, with Adelaide arguing the conduct level should be graded as careless rather than intentional. That downgrade would see the ban reduced to three games.
Heeney, Swans fail at Tribunal
VERDICT: Isaac Heeney‘s one-game ban for striking has been upheld. He is unavailable to face North Melbourne this weekend.
The Jury found that Heeney’s actions were appropriately deemed intentional, and that no exemplary circumstances could free the Swans star of his charge of striking.
The result means Heeney remains ineligible for the 2024 Brownlow Medal.
Tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson: “Clause 4.3 B states that if the effect of such an action is that the reportable offence of striking is committed, the strike will usually be graded as intentional. We find that this was the effect, it was a forceful blow to Webster’s face.”
Here’s how the hearing played out…
7:29: The Tribunal has begun to deliberate. Verdict to come.
7:25: Woods: “There is no doubt Heeney has a very good record, but the point that was made in Cameron’s case is that all the factors that intersected in that case were quite unusual. It was a rare case.
“Cameron’s tackle was careless, and at the lower end of carelessness. Here we say [Heeney’s] was intentional.”
Woods notes Cameron’s case had a guilty plea, character references and ownership from Cameron that he could’ve acted differently in his tackling action.
7:23: Woods (AFL) notes that Sydney did not raise they would rely on the exceptional and compelling circumstances prior to the required deadline of 11:00am Tuesday.
7:20: Miller: “Mr Heeney is a 193-game player with two fines. That is not a record that speaks of a player who has a history of illegal conduct. It’s the opposite.
“We are at the lowest end of intentional, should you find it as intentional. It would be appropriate for the exceptional and compelling circumstances to be brought in, and downgrade intentional to a careless classification.”
Miller noted Charlie Cameron‘s record, noted earlier this year at the Tribunal which freed him of a rough conduct charge given a handful of fines from his 200-game career, is the ‘gold standard comparator’.
7:12: Miller: “It’s a courageous decision to say Heeney saw Webster or that he had Webster in his peripheral vision.”
7:06: Miller: “Rather than thinking ‘you beary’ I’m away for a lead, his first reaction is to stop with surprise. The vision shows him go up and check on [Webster] afterwards. That’s telling.”
7:02: Duncan Miller (Sydney Counsel): “This is not off the play or off the ball. This is not a strike with a forearm, it’s a pinkie. This was not a push or a fend.”
6:57: Andrew Woods (AFL Counsel): “It was a strike because it was a forceful swing of an arm/hand into Webster’s head. That is the case, whatever the intention was.
“The first thing to look at in regards to intention is to decide if this was forceful fending off of Webster which ended up in a strike. It’s clear enough that it was a strike and intended to be so.
“He is in a position where Webster is in his peripheral vision. His arm is not only raised but flung back quite forcefully.”
Woods says it would be “unusual” if the Tribunal found Heeney’s action as ‘careless’ instead of ‘intentional’.
6:54: Heeney’s cross-examination has concluded.
6:51: Heeney: “I don’t recall seeing [Webster’s] head in my peripheral vision.
“[My arm] came up to come back and down.
“I wasn’t looking to make forceful contact.”
6:47: Heeney: “It all happened so quickly. His hand is what I intended to swat.”
Heeney states he did not expect to make high contact with Webster, noting he makes a similar action 50-100 times per game.
6:37: Heeney: “As a forward you’re meant to get separation, I remember looking over my shoulder. [Webster] put his hand just below my shoulder blade.
“It’s forward craft, I’m looking to swat his hands away. He had two hands on me, and I needed to get one off by swatting. I remember swatting at an angle of where his hand was on my back in a downward motion. He had a hold of me.
“I did not expect [Webster would be lower]. His head is below my shoulder.
“I accidentally made high contact, which was not my intention. My full focus was off the game, my thought went straight to him as that was not where I intended to swat him.”
6:35: The Swans are set to raise Heeney’s playing record under the exemplary circumstances guideline, which freed Charlie Cameron earlier this year.
6:34: A St Kilda medical report reads that Webster underwent on-field assessment, did not require ongoing treatment and will miss no days of training.
6:31pm: The Swans argue the conduct was careless and not intentional. That downgrade would lead to Heeney receiving a fine rather than a suspension.