-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Hannebery's gotta go
- Thread starter fabulousphil
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Thread starter
- #252
I disagree here, the vast majority of games have these front on situations very rarely, anyone who has played footy from a young age soon learns to angle themselves to protect themselves, you can't tell me Hurley does not know how to do this.
Hurley did not expect it, he obviously did not see it and FWI saw, it was Hanners responsibility to stay away from his head, particuarly the front on variety where his head ( Hurley) was down, IMO there was no way Hanners could have entered that contest the way he did without making front on contact.
Any ways I guess we will find out shortly
so now your charging hanners with making forceful contact to an opponent from front-on when that player has his head down over the ball
Intentional High High level 5 = 550 point's
5 weeks off minimum.
your in another hemisphere you don't understand the incident at all you could make a case that it was reckless (he could have reasonably have known his action may have resulted in high contact) but not intentional. I may be a bit sloshed but deadset you must be high.
- Thread starter
- #254
Thats how i saw it, sorry if that either sobers you up, or makes you have another drink.
Plugger35
Umpiring Expert
- Sep 27, 2008
- 139,966
- 162,475
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Chelsea, Black Caps, Sea Eagles, Subiaco
Either that or he has a hidden agenda to see a Sydney player rubbed out for 5 weeks because Freo are competing with Sydney for a top 4 spot, which I suspect is the case.
Hannebury shouldn't get any weeks imo, maybe 1 or 2 weeks at the most if he's unlucky, but he shouldn't be penalised for Hurley using the wrong technique to contest a ball. As others have pointed out you need to protect your own head in those situations which Hannebury did and Hurley didn't. Like tackling you need to put your head to the side or behind an oncoming player, if you tackle them front on head first and they crash into your head it's your own fault and not the player running at you.
no ones disputing that its other factors coming into play, it's the intentional shit your spouting that i draw issue with. according to you hanners tried to and succeeded in hitting him high.
PACatter
Club Legend
Hurley was stumbling along like an idiot. Hannebery didn't bump, he did what he was supposed to do - protect himself while winning the ball. If Hurley had learned to do that, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Hannebery deserves a pat on the back for good technique and winning the ball, Hurley deserves a headache for not having awareness.
When you make the head sacrosanct, you also need to provide a penalty for players using their head to bait other players, or ward them off. That's why the NFL had a rule change last year - after they made head-on contact a penalty, the majority of backs started leading with their head and ducking in to tackles to bait a penalty. I think we're seeing more stuff like this now because the head has been made sacrosanct, and there's no penalty for players over the ball to use their head as a battering ram to force off opposition. They know that if they go in head first after the ball and get hit, they might get a concussion or a headache, but they'll get a 50 and the opposing player will get rubbed out for some games.
Can't believe some of the tripe I am reading in here.
- Hannebury had other options? He was first to the ball, he was attempting to pick up the ball as contact was made, other options are therefore not an issue as he played the ball. The fact people are seriously suggesting players that may or may not get to the contest should stop and wait is laughable. These same people will be the first to complain when we see a contest where nobody bothers to go for the ball.
- Will be interesting to see if the Vic media backs Hanners like they did Viney or if they sell him down the river.
- I said when they first introduced the head high focus that it would encourage players putting their necks on the line (literally). While we all understand the reasoning for protecting the head, I feel like there are more head high bumps now due to players not protecting their own heads.
- Those suggesting Hanners should not have turned his body. Do we want to see two players knocked unconscious or lying there with spinal injuries because we have encouraged them to put themselves at risk?
- Hannebury had other options? He was first to the ball, he was attempting to pick up the ball as contact was made, other options are therefore not an issue as he played the ball. The fact people are seriously suggesting players that may or may not get to the contest should stop and wait is laughable. These same people will be the first to complain when we see a contest where nobody bothers to go for the ball.
- Will be interesting to see if the Vic media backs Hanners like they did Viney or if they sell him down the river.
- I said when they first introduced the head high focus that it would encourage players putting their necks on the line (literally). While we all understand the reasoning for protecting the head, I feel like there are more head high bumps now due to players not protecting their own heads.
- Those suggesting Hanners should not have turned his body. Do we want to see two players knocked unconscious or lying there with spinal injuries because we have encouraged them to put themselves at risk?
Crows4Eva
Club Legend
It's a really hard one, he was clearly trying to contest the ball and it didn't look like it was his intention to bump but on the other hand, that's exactly the kind of contact the AFL doesn't like to see, Hurley could have seriously injured his neck/spine. They can argue that Hurley ducked but I'm not sure he was ducking or just getting his body over the ball.
- Apr 22, 2013
- 4,707
- 5,843
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Just for the sake of making the point it is worth comparing malceski melksham clash early in the second quarter with this too - melksham approaches contest side on and big collision occurs. I ask genuinely and not rhetorically, has the afl determined that players will be suspended as a consequence of breaching their duty of care if the other player leads with their head, but not if they both clash side on ?
I personally don't care if that is the result as I understand the risks associated with spinal injuries, but if that is it they should change the rule and it's interpretation absolutely unambiguously, and the hullabaloo of the ex players should just be shouted down, and the afl should expressly say the viney and hodge decisions were wrong. That in the future any contact with the head will lead to suspensions and that players chasing the ball front on have right of way. And if two players approach the ball front on and clash heads there will need to be a right of way rule.
I can't really see any other way. Hanners option if I understand the views of the op was to stand in front and wait for Hurley to pick it up and tackle, which I think expressly provides for the closest chaser to have the right of way or if Hurley failed to pick it up gather himself while Hurley continued his momentum and get cannoned into, hoping that hurleys head missed his. Again if this is the correct approach then let's have the afl say it. The player chasing the ball front on has right of way. Because anything else must lead to collisions
This was not a case where he went past the ball to bump. His intention was never to bump but to protect the space where the ball was going, not even to move Hurley from the line of the ball. They were both in a direct line to a bouncing afl ball - a ball which does not necessarily go in a straight line.
I am genuinely conflicted. The head high contact should have got a free and it seems to me that a breach of the law should lead to a suspension if other elements of the offence apply. But to get to that point I think we are effectively saying that the player chasing the ball has right of way. I think the game will have changed for the worse if we adopt the approach that players must be encouraged to cede the right to claim the ball in dispute, to give right of way where someone has their head down until that player has safely gathered the ball and to stand still until the ball comes to you rather than attack it.
I personally don't care if that is the result as I understand the risks associated with spinal injuries, but if that is it they should change the rule and it's interpretation absolutely unambiguously, and the hullabaloo of the ex players should just be shouted down, and the afl should expressly say the viney and hodge decisions were wrong. That in the future any contact with the head will lead to suspensions and that players chasing the ball front on have right of way. And if two players approach the ball front on and clash heads there will need to be a right of way rule.
I can't really see any other way. Hanners option if I understand the views of the op was to stand in front and wait for Hurley to pick it up and tackle, which I think expressly provides for the closest chaser to have the right of way or if Hurley failed to pick it up gather himself while Hurley continued his momentum and get cannoned into, hoping that hurleys head missed his. Again if this is the correct approach then let's have the afl say it. The player chasing the ball front on has right of way. Because anything else must lead to collisions
This was not a case where he went past the ball to bump. His intention was never to bump but to protect the space where the ball was going, not even to move Hurley from the line of the ball. They were both in a direct line to a bouncing afl ball - a ball which does not necessarily go in a straight line.
I am genuinely conflicted. The head high contact should have got a free and it seems to me that a breach of the law should lead to a suspension if other elements of the offence apply. But to get to that point I think we are effectively saying that the player chasing the ball has right of way. I think the game will have changed for the worse if we adopt the approach that players must be encouraged to cede the right to claim the ball in dispute, to give right of way where someone has their head down until that player has safely gathered the ball and to stand still until the ball comes to you rather than attack it.
and what you say is exactly why hanners will be offered one or two weeks.
the AFL know this will get tossed out at the tribunal, they cannot say the ball was not being contested so the only alternatives are
1) dont contest the ball
2) risk a head clash.
as the rule specifically states:
Bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from front-on
when that opponent has his head down over the ball, unless intentional
or reckless, will be deemed to be negligent, unless:
a. the player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball; or
b. the bump or forceful contact was caused by circumstances outside the control of the player which could not reasonably be foreseen.
now thats very clear, The man is allowed to contest the ball despite what irrational people are saying, this is not a bump its forceful contact it was not intentional in anyway hanners turned to cover the ball.
so option one is off the table if he's allowed to contest the ball arguments that he should have pulled out and let hurley take possession then tackle him are incorrect.
so option two, there is no way in hell the tribunal will rule that hanners should have lead with his head. If they make this statement and a head clash occurs and a player is badly hurt (seriously look into NFL injuries from this type of hit) the AFL could be sued for promoting it.
so what else could he do? can't go to ground because thats sliding, his only option was to turn his body.
the MRP will hand him a one or two match ban because it was a hard hit and they want to show everyone a hit to head won't be tolerated.
despite what lethal said it doesn't constitute reckless because his intention was the ball not the man, this leaves negligent and for the reasons I'm again outlining Hanners would beat this charge if it was put to him at the 4 weeks such a charge carries. because he has nothing to lose 400 points will reset in case of a loss anyway.
no matter how much the vic media beat this up the MRP will not want this at the tribunal and if it goes everybody will be up in arm's that swans players are protected species because hanners will walk.
the AFL know this will get tossed out at the tribunal, they cannot say the ball was not being contested so the only alternatives are
1) dont contest the ball
2) risk a head clash.
as the rule specifically states:
Bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from front-on
when that opponent has his head down over the ball, unless intentional
or reckless, will be deemed to be negligent, unless:
a. the player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball; or
b. the bump or forceful contact was caused by circumstances outside the control of the player which could not reasonably be foreseen.
now thats very clear, The man is allowed to contest the ball despite what irrational people are saying, this is not a bump its forceful contact it was not intentional in anyway hanners turned to cover the ball.
so option one is off the table if he's allowed to contest the ball arguments that he should have pulled out and let hurley take possession then tackle him are incorrect.
so option two, there is no way in hell the tribunal will rule that hanners should have lead with his head. If they make this statement and a head clash occurs and a player is badly hurt (seriously look into NFL injuries from this type of hit) the AFL could be sued for promoting it.
so what else could he do? can't go to ground because thats sliding, his only option was to turn his body.
the MRP will hand him a one or two match ban because it was a hard hit and they want to show everyone a hit to head won't be tolerated.
despite what lethal said it doesn't constitute reckless because his intention was the ball not the man, this leaves negligent and for the reasons I'm again outlining Hanners would beat this charge if it was put to him at the 4 weeks such a charge carries. because he has nothing to lose 400 points will reset in case of a loss anyway.
no matter how much the vic media beat this up the MRP will not want this at the tribunal and if it goes everybody will be up in arm's that swans players are protected species because hanners will walk.
- Mar 2, 2007
- 43,273
- 62,180
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Cowboys, Packers, Scorchers
I don't believe Hannebery should go for that, but unfortunately I think the AFL will view it differently.
It's ironic that their stated aim is to reduce contact to the head, yet they go about that by punishing guys who protect their head with proper technique like Hannebery did, while (generally) rewarding those who lead with their head to get frees.
It's ironic that their stated aim is to reduce contact to the head, yet they go about that by punishing guys who protect their head with proper technique like Hannebery did, while (generally) rewarding those who lead with their head to get frees.
Hurley should be suspended for head butting and for being really shit.
- Mar 2, 2007
- 43,273
- 62,180
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Cowboys, Packers, Scorchers
If we're going to use super slow-mo and still photos to hang Hannebery then it's only fair we apply them to to Hurley as well.
The image below shows Hurley should have seen Hannebery coming and that he still had time to turn his body. In fact if we're being extra harsh the slow-mo gif also shows Hurley ducking even lower at the last second which makes the contact even worse.
Ten years ago Hurley would have turned his body to protect himself, but the AFL have created an environment where it's beneficial to lead with your head so that's what he did.
Last edited:
I feel like there have been more injuries in the game since this rule change.
When you look at the days when Byron Pickett was cleaning up players a lot of them would shake it off. Not all, but there has always been and always will be injuries in footy.
There is a bit of a difference between putting your body on the line and playing for a free kick. Which I think a lot of players are more inclined to do which is resulting in them putting there body in a position to get hurt.
I think Hurley and Hannebury should have both gone for the hip and shoulder. This is footy for crying out loud! You give the opponent a good hip and shoulder over the ball while protecting yourself and the stronger player knocks his opponent off the ball and wins the footy.
When you look at the days when Byron Pickett was cleaning up players a lot of them would shake it off. Not all, but there has always been and always will be injuries in footy.
There is a bit of a difference between putting your body on the line and playing for a free kick. Which I think a lot of players are more inclined to do which is resulting in them putting there body in a position to get hurt.
I think Hurley and Hannebury should have both gone for the hip and shoulder. This is footy for crying out loud! You give the opponent a good hip and shoulder over the ball while protecting yourself and the stronger player knocks his opponent off the ball and wins the footy.
Should get off.
In reality he'll get 2 weeks because the MRP is incompetent.
In reality he'll get 2 weeks because the MRP is incompetent.
grouse mate
Premiership Player
His problem will be he turned his hip into him. I'm not sure what players are expected to do, the AFL have ballsed this rule up totally.
He will definitely get a week, closely resembles Bartel's at Adelaide last year.
Hurley is the culprit here. Stupid and dangerous act. If he'd gone in to get the ball like everyone is taught then it would have been a both players giving a minor bump.
Was less of a 'bump' than Jack Viney.
Surely even blind freddy can see that Hannebery turns his body to protect the ball & space around it. Accidental contact only, not a friggin bump!
Hannebery has 3 options:
1) go in head first & the players smash heads together;
2) he does exactly what he did in this instance, which is what all footballers are taught from the moment they pick up a ball, & won the ball;
3) he shirks the contest, waits for & watches Hurley pick up the ball, which goes against everything he's been taught since AusKick as 4 year old.
Stop turning our sport into a game played in Softcoxville!
Surely even blind freddy can see that Hannebery turns his body to protect the ball & space around it. Accidental contact only, not a friggin bump!
Hannebery has 3 options:
1) go in head first & the players smash heads together;
2) he does exactly what he did in this instance, which is what all footballers are taught from the moment they pick up a ball, & won the ball;
3) he shirks the contest, waits for & watches Hurley pick up the ball, which goes against everything he's been taught since AusKick as 4 year old.
Stop turning our sport into a game played in Softcoxville!
- Jun 23, 2013
- 10,901
- 13,053
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Los Angeles Clippers
wasnt a bump.
- Jun 23, 2013
- 10,901
- 13,053
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Los Angeles Clippers
interesting to see if you had this view on Viney or you wanted his head like most crows fans
Topkent
Confirmed ITK Drafting King
When does the onus fall on the player who goes in head first
This is completely the AFL's fault, they made any contact with the head a freekick so blokes have started going in head first
Hannebury was perfect in trying to get the footy and Hurley was not
Not even a free kick IMO
Crows4Eva
Club Legend
After I actually saw the incident (I didn't see the game because I was busy that night), I was against him being suspended. I believe that a player should be suspended for his actions, not for the result. Lynch's jaw was broken but IMO Viney did nothing wrong, thus he shouldn't be rubbed out and ultimately he wasn't, pretty simple.
