You know, broken hand during push n shove’ stats.
1 Like
That’s right. I HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEENEY! broke his hand in a push n shove with BZ-T.
That’s right. I HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEENEY - the only player to push and shove his opponent and break his hand, and the AFL deems it necessary to acquit BZT
I understand that BZ-T had no case to answer? And nor should he.
This article provides a clear example of why Essendon get screwed by the Umps and Tribunal constantly. The default position is that Zerk Thatcher did something wrong. It doesn’t even cross their mind that Heeney may have done something wrong.
When you are only looking for infringements from one team, that is all you are ever going to see.
7 Likes
It was a decent punch and BZT should of dropped to the ground and withered in pain.
Very surprised he was deemed to be considered a case to answer
In fairness to The First Order (aka, AFL), any off the ball incident that results in a serious injury to a participant would be looked at.
People are complaining because BZ-T was found to have no case to answer?
@Diggers, I know your only taking the pi$$ mate, but sometimes discretion is better. This may be one of those times.
So, the game is at a neutral ground not the SCG. Great, but wait, the AFL is not beaten yet, they can just send up some of our favourite (not) umpires up there. You know, maybe Nicholls, Fisher, Margetts and co.
1 Like
But not R Chamberlain?
Giddee-Up!
They’re probably complaining because there actually was a BZT case to consider, even if he was deemed a receiving participant
The pushin’ and a shovin’ went both ways but I think its fair to say that one of them needs to work on their technique more than the other.
BZT should have got in a cheap medium impact spinning elbow and relied on the bracing for impact and instinctively planting the foot principle.
Why? He had no case to answer. But if you want the AFL to revisit it then the first step would be to write to them requesting that they have another look.
Seems like they even considered BZT had a case to answer;
The league has reviewed the incident from multiple angles and found Zerk-Thatcher has nothing to answer as Heeney’s injury was self-inflicted.
That BZ-T had no case to answer is well established and quite frankly, beyond dispute.
Yes- but they did consider a possible infraction by the player who received a push in the chest.
Which of course is bewildering. despite the pusher breaking his hand.
Like I said earlier, the AFL would routinely investigate any incident in which a player is injured. There’s nothing sinister about it nor is it a conspiracy against the EFC.
Don’t go down that ‘Rabbit Hole’. It’s not good down there.
Kindly provide the previous incident that was investigated/considered for investigation by the AFL in which a player is injured by softly pushing an opponent in the chest.