The Sydney Swans made a submission objecting to fend off rule change but never heard back from the AFL

In another twist to the continuing saga surrounding Isaac Heeney’s Brownlow chances, the Swans made a submission objecting to the rule change that looks to have sealed the star’s fate.

MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA - JULY 07: Isaac Heeney of the Swans reacts following the round 17 AFL match between St Kilda Saints and Sydney Swans at Marvel Stadium, on July 07, 2024, in Melbourne, Australia. (Photo by Morgan Hancock/AFL Photos/via Getty Images)

Sydney made a submission against the rule change which resulted in Brownlow Medal favourite Isaac Heeney being suspended but never heard back from the AFL.

Swans CEO Tom Harley confirmed to this masthead that football boss Leon Cameron sent a submission to the league outlining the club’s issues with the proposed rule amendments, specifically surrounding a fend off being deemed as an intentional strike. The submission was sent on January 19.

On Tuesday night Sydney were unsuccessful in overturning Heeney’s one-match ban for striking St Kilda’s Jimmy Webster at the Tribunal.

They argued the incident was careless and not intentional as originally graded by the Match Review Officer.

Isaac Heeney and the Swans have appealed the Tribunal decision to suspend him for one week. Picture: Morgan Hancock/AFL Photos/via Getty Images

But the AFL, using the new rule amendments which were introduced this season, argued Heeney’s action was a strike, leaving Webster with a bloody nose, and therefore intentional.

The Swans pre-season submission is almost word-for-word what happened with Heeney with Cameron saying the proposed changes had the potential to result in “unfair and harsh” outcomes.

“We do not support the proposed amendment to the guidelines to provide that where a player intends to 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 “strikes” their opponent, the strike will usually be graded as intentional,” Cameron wrote.

“In our view, a push or fend would not ordinarily constitute a strike.

“Nevertheless, the Guidelines ought to still make allowance for accidental or unintended contact that amounts to a strike. Intention and a player’s state of mind is an objective fact to be determined based on the facts.

“The grading of any push or fend that is found to constitute a strike (whether inadvertent or accidental) as intentional has the potential to result in unfair and harsh outcomes in circumstances where a push or fend (for example to gain separation from an opponent) executed properly forms an accepted and commonly occurring act in the game.”

Isaac Heeney gave Jimmy Webster a bloody nose after this incident.

When asked about the submission by this masthead, Swans CEO Tom Harley confirmed the club’s position, and also stated that they never heard back from the AFL to discuss their concerns.

“All clubs were counselled and our feedback was there’s still a space in the game where these incidents do occur and it shouldn’t automatically result in an intentional strike,” Harley said.

“The outcomes of that, which we’re seeing play out now from a player executing a swat, push or a fend which happens often, is very severe from Isaac’s point of view.

“(We did not hear from the AFL) specific to this submission, no. I’m not sure what the process was post feedback gathering, but clearly the rule was changed and that is the AFL’s prerogative.

“Our position at the time, without any examples or foresight, was that this amendment had the potential of this exact scenario playing out.

“We take feedback opportunities really seriously. It was submitted by our GM of football Leon Cameron who clearly would have consulted with our coaches and our players on what the lay of the land is, and that was our response.”

Sydney is taking its case to the Appeals Board on Thursday night hoping to keep their star midfielder’s Brownlow Medal hopes alive.

The Swans exact grounds of appeal are still to be determined by their legal team but of the four possibilities, it’s likely that they will argue that the decision was unreasonable and that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to the decision given the evidence in front of it.

Harley conveyed that the club is confident in their decision to appeal, but more importantly, want to show that they are prepared to back Heeney in.

Swans CEO Tom Harley. Picture: Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images

“It’s important when you’ve got someone in your football club like Isaac of the highest character that you support your players,” Harley said.

“We feel as if the tribunal’s decision was unfair, and therefore, that’s the primary driver behind our appeal.

“(The Brownlow Medal) is not necessarily at the front of the appeal, but it’s certainly a consideration. There have been past examples of players who have been deemed ineligible. One of the disappointing aspects is it wouldn’t have been deemed the same way if it happened last year.

“As a former player, who has a feel for this exact contest between forward and defender, they each used their own craft to try and win the contest and gain separation. Isaac is an experienced forward, and equally Jimmy an experienced defender.

“The situation was clearly players in motion and a jostling for position. As Isaac explained, he went to swipe Webster. That is a common occurrence for as long as I can remember.”

During the Tribunal hearing on Tuesday, the Swans directly referenced three mitigating factors for the incident.

Firstly, the fact that Webster was crouched with his head dipped, well below his normal stance, and was holding onto Heeney which is an offence in itself.

Secondly, that Heeney’s arm clearly swatted in a downward motion, and was only deflected upwards after making contact with Webster’s outstretched hand.

And third, they argued both Heeney and Webster were both in play as the obvious progression of the contest. Sydney’s Justin McInerney was clearly going to kick in their direction, which they felt should have negated the notion that this was an off-ball incident.

Neither of those factors were referenced in the findings read out by chair Jeff Gleeson during his reasons for upholding the one-match ban.

Originally published as The Sydney Swans made a submission objecting to fend off rule change but never heard back from the AFL