Hannebery's gotta go

[vonn]

I just made this comment on the Sydney board and I'll make it here too.

I'm actually quite pleased that was not a free kick to Hurley. To me, it rewards a poor technique that is incredibly dangerous. To have your head in that position and tucked under you, is an extremely easy way to injure your spinal cord. We all know that 'ducking' has been a part of the game since the introduction of the high free kick, and we had the worst example of what can happen if you put your head into the opposition's stomach with Casey in the VFL, and at the end of the day you don't ever want to see that to any player.
I'm not saying that Hurley ducked or that he should be penalized, but that kind of positioning and attack on the ball should not be given a free kick, even if it was technically there just in case it influences another player to try to win the ball that way. Similarly, the free to McVeigh was disappointing too.
It's not just my Sydney bias saying this, I don't really know what else Hanners could have done given he went in with his side, but all this MRP discussion aside I hope they are harsher on playing for a high free.

 

[fabulousphil]

Played over 200 games from 16 to 32 and then coached so I'm more than happy with my experience with the game.

Blaming a guy who is 194cm and leaning forward trying to pick up the ball for getting crunched in the head by someone running the opposite direction is a childish view point. Don't care if you are on here or a commentator because if that's your view you have no idea.

Next you will be blaming the pedestrian crossing a zebra crossing getting hit by a drunk driver who didn't slow down.

The onus is on the player second to the ball to not smash players head high.

Maybe you take off the rose coloured glasses and open the other eye.

Couldn't agree more, played senior football untill mid 30's and have since coached junior football.

I think i have some idea as well, noting several posters telling me i have never played footy or know what i am talking about.

If players are allowed to do what Hannerbery did we would have 100 paraplegics a year, just because you are going the ball does not give you carte blanche to smash someone front on in the head.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

I played, too. 200+ games then another 50-odd as captain coach. I once rucked, roved my own tap and kicked a goal from the centre square.

I am clearly the most qualified to comment.

 

[fabulousphil]

I played, too. 200+ games then another 50-odd as captain coach. I once rucked, roved my own tap and kicked a goal from the centre square.

I am clearly the most qualified to comment.

My guess would be it was a really small ground, Sydney style !!.

 

[Off The Couch]

So on Vonn's reckoning, 4 weeks for Hurley

 

[Ambrosia]

Just saw if for the first time.
Funny thing is, the Aylett hit on Hannebury approximately one second later is probably worse on the elements, (goes in with knee, shoulder to head, stationary opponent), but obviously not on the effect.

Except in what universe is Aylett supposed to anticipate Hannebury bouncing backwards the way he did.

 

[Ambrosia]

So on Vonn's reckoning, 4 weeks for Hurley

Yeah we have to outlaw this dangerous head butting before it catches on.

 

[vonn]

So on Vonn's reckoning, 4 weeks for Hurley

Can you not take your Hawthorn bias and wit off for a second to see the point of my post? This isn't Bay 13. I'm not asking for Hurley to be banned. I'm not saying he should be made an example of. I'm saying that I'm pleased the free wasn't given, just as I am disappointed that McVeigh ducked and was rewarded. On this, I don't care what guernsey the player wears. I cringed extremely hard when I saw that, just like I did with McVeigh's duck. If the AFL don't act soon I fear there will be a serious injury, just like there was in the VFL a few years ago. You don't ever want to see that in sport, and by not rewarding dangerous techniques or stupid head ducks it's a way to somewhat maintain that.

 

[fabulousphil]

Can you not take your Hawthorn bias and wit off for a second to see the point of my post? This isn't Bay 13. I'm not asking for Hurley to be banned. I'm not saying he should be made an example of. I'm saying that I'm pleased the free wasn't given, just as I am disappointed that McVeigh ducked and was rewarded. On this, I don't care what guernsey the player wears. I cringed extremely hard when I saw that, just like I did with McVeigh's duck. If the AFL don't act soon I fear there will be a serious injury, just like there was in the VFL a few years ago. You don't ever want to see that in sport, and by not rewarding dangerous techniques or stupid head ducks it's a way to somewhat maintain that.

Hurley had his head down, looking and following the ball because that is actually how you track it, then pick it up, he may have left himself open, but that does still not excuse Hanners from hitting him.

He did not have his head down, or looking to slip down looking for a free kick Selwood style.

 

[Off The Couch]

Can you not take your Hawthorn bias and wit off for a second to see the point of my post? This isn't Bay 13. I'm not asking for Hurley to be banned. I'm not saying he should be made an example of. I'm saying that I'm pleased the free wasn't given, just as I am disappointed that McVeigh ducked and was rewarded. On this, I don't care what guernsey the player wears. I cringed extremely hard when I saw that, just like I did with McVeigh's duck. If the AFL don't act soon I fear there will be a serious injury, just like there was in the VFL a few years ago. You don't ever want to see that in sport, and by not rewarding dangerous techniques or stupid head ducks it's a way to somewhat maintain that.

Always it resorts to this sort of crap - you accusing me of bias, deadly accusing obeanie of the same and then the "take it to the bay crap" - can swan supporters ever just respond to the poster rather than the club they support. How about you come back and post these thoughts when it's not a Sydney player involved if we are talking bias or start a new thread with your opinion piece.

Go to the first page and watch the incident - Hurley is running towards the ball with his eyes on the ball, he then bends lower to pick up the ball - did he deliberately go lower than he needed to to draw the high and in turn expose himself to serious injury who knows but as it stands right now that was a free kick every day of the week. There is a massive difference between what Hurley did and what the likes of SJ, mcveigh, Lewis, puopolo, mcglynn etc. do week in week out - that's the type of incidents you are talking about - not this.

 

[Arbuckle]

It strikes me there's some monumental hypocrisy going on in this debate. There's a section of people trying to claim Hannebery somehow had no option (which, in itself, is wrong). But, extraordinarily, many of these people are also somehow accusing Hurley of making a bad decision or having a bad technique etc. I can only ask myself what on earth they think the other options available to Hurley were. He was fumbling, but still the one in key position, making the play, with the ball rolling along the ground, because he was already pushing it along, in front of him - and yet these people somehow want him not to bend and/or put his head over the ball to take full possession of it. What exactly was he meant to do - not bend over, maybe grope for the ball with only his hands outstretched and his body vertical with his head somewhere up in the air? How completely ludicrous.

Hannebery, on the other hand, was not the one making the play, had clearly not got to the ball before Hurley, had multiple options available to him - and should have been aware of the danger of going into that area forcefully.

One of the relevant rules in the Laws of the Game also quite specifically lists "bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from front-on when that player has their head down over the football" as a reportable offence. It adds that "any contact forward of side-on will be deemed to be front-on". All of which surely applies to Hannebery.

It's cut and dried to me, and I can't see how - if the AFL is actually serious about stamping out dangerous head high contact - it can possibly be let go without penalty. If they give such action the green light, then how can it not be expected to happen again - and potentially with far worse injuries than the bad head knock that Hurley got?

Can you not take your Hawthorn bias and wit off for a second to see the point of my post?.

You're actually seriously accusing someone else of bias toward their team after the dreadful pro-Sydney dirge you wrote? What a joke.

 

[Rainfall]

Get rid of him and Malceski!

 

[fabulousphil]

It strikes me there's some monumental hypocrisy going on in this debate. There's a section of people trying to claim Hannebery somehow had no option (which, in itself, is wrong). But, extraordinarily, many of these people are also somehow accusing Hurley of making a bad decision or having a bad technique etc. I can only ask myself what on earth they think the other options available to Hurley were. He was fumbling, but still the one in key position, making the play, with the ball rolling along the ground, because he was already pushing it along, in front of him - and yet these people somehow want him not to bend and/or put his head over the ball to take full possession of it. What exactly was he meant to do - not bend over, maybe grope for the ball with only his hands outstretched and his body vertical with his head somewhere up in the air? How completely ludicrous.

Hannebery, on the other hand, was not the one making the play, had clearly not got to the ball before Hurley, had multiple options available to him - and should have been aware of the danger of going into that area forcefully.

One of the relevant rules in the Laws of the Game also quite specifically lists "bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from front-on when that player has their head down over the football" as a reportable offence. It adds that "any contact forward of side-on will be deemed to be front-on". All of which surely applies to Hannebery.

It's cut and dried to me, and I can't see how - if the AFL is actually serious about stamping out dangerous head high contact - it can possibly be let go without penalty. If they give such action the green light, then how can it not be expected to happen again - and potentially with far worse injuries than the bad head knock that Hurley got?



You're actually seriously accusing someone else of bias toward their team after the dreadful pro-Sydney dirge you wrote? What a joke.

Longmire claiming he ( hannerbery) had no other option, which IMO is wrong and sends a wrong message, i would expect that next week considering players have no other options that the hospital wards will be full and over flowing with paraplegics.

 

[Keys]

Hannebery, on the other hand, was not the one making the play, had clearly not got to the ball before Hurley, had multiple options available to him - and should have been aware of the danger of going into that area forcefully.

I don't think there's anything clear about it. Both players had options I suppose but with the speed of our game now collisions are inevitable when two players are approaching a loose ball from different directions and I think we are asking too much of players to make a split second analysis of their options especially when neither player can accurately predict what the other might do.

What Hannebery did wasn't malicious and he was genuinely trying to win the footy, as was Hurley, and I personally would be sad to see him get suspended for it. I'm also glad Hurley wasn't seriously hurt.

A loose bouncing ball in space with players converging is the most dangerous situation in football due to the unpredicatably of the direction the ball might take and the speed of the players approaching.

 

[Off The Couch]

And it's a shame Keyser Soze that the afl and the rule makers don't see it the same way
There are so many conflicting variations to the current rule that it's not surprising that nobody really has a clue as to what to expect

 

[Mister B]

Played over 200 games from 16 to 32 and then coached so I'm more than happy with my experience with the game.

Blaming a guy who is 194cm and leaning forward trying to pick up the ball for getting crunched in the head by someone running the opposite direction is a childish view point. Don't care if you are on here or a commentator because if that's your view you have no idea.

Next you will be blaming the pedestrian crossing a zebra crossing getting hit by a drunk driver who didn't slow down.

The onus is on the player second to the ball to not smash players head high.

Maybe you take off the rose coloured glasses and open the other eye.

That's right! The only problem is Hanners was not second to the ball. There was no reason for him to slow down because he reached the contest at the same time as his opponent. It's interesting you tell others to take off their rose coloured glasses yet you ignore facts and use false statements to try and justify your point.

 

[Kummerspeck]

Hannebery, on the other hand, was not the one making the play, had clearly not got to the ball before Hurley, had multiple options available to him - and should have been aware of the danger of going into that area forcefully.

The ball was loose. At the point Hannebery got the the ball it was clear of Hurley. Both players came to a loose ball at the same time. Both players had hands down at the ball trying to win it. You say Hannebery had multiple options with the benefit of repeat viewings from multiple angles at various states of slow motion.

 

[Mister B]

Hannebery, on the other hand, was not the one making the play, had clearly not got to the ball before Hurley, had multiple options available to him - and should have been aware of the danger of going into that area forcefully.

Have you even watched it? The ball has spilled free and is on the ground. Both players attack the ball and they both get their hands on it at the same time. To say that Hurley clearly got to the ball first is complete bullshit. Are you are suggesting that Hurley should be considered in control of the ball because he fumbled it?

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

I think he should get 2 weeks.
I also think he should be cleared.
I actually have no idea what the rule is.

Regardless, it should have been at least a free kick to Hurley right?

 

[Crowked]

He's gone. 2 min.

 

[Banyo Bloods]

Or if you were the MRP applying the rules of the game - based on that, hannebury will be suspended.

Doubt it

 

[Arbuckle]

Longmire claiming he ( hannerbery) had no other option, which IMO is wrong and sends a wrong message, i would expect that next week considering players have no other options that the hospital wards will be full and over flowing with paraplegics.

Well, to a point, I can understand Longmire saying it - because he's doing what many coaches do when their player is likely to be cited and desperately searching for something to try to sway the opinion of the MRP. (In his case, he also knows much of the pro-Sydney media will faithfully lap it up and helpfully spread that message for him as well.) But it doesn't make what he said right. I also assume he won't object in any way at all the next time some Sydney player is violently struck in the head.

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

I think he should get 2 weeks.
I also think he should be cleared.
I actually have no idea what the rule is.

Regardless, it should have been at least a free kick to Hurley right?

That's the odd thing. No free to Hurley, when clearly got hit high. Therefore, can we deem from that the umpire, i.e. the guy controlling the game, deemed that it was a fair contest for the ball, and just incidental contact that occurs occasionally in footy.

I'm a bit like you, I'm not sure how it will go.

 

[lmaohelp]

It strikes me there's some monumental hypocrisy going on in this debate. There's a section of people trying to claim Hannebery somehow had no option (which, in itself, is wrong). But, extraordinarily, many of these people are also somehow accusing Hurley of making a bad decision or having a bad technique etc. I can only ask myself what on earth they think the other options available to Hurley were. He was fumbling, but still the one in key position, making the play, with the ball rolling along the ground, because he was already pushing it along, in front of him - and yet these people somehow want him not to bend and/or put his head over the ball to take full possession of it. What exactly was he meant to do - not bend over, maybe grope for the ball with only his hands outstretched and his body vertical with his head somewhere up in the air? How completely ludicrous.

Hannebery, on the other hand, was not the one making the play, had clearly not got to the ball before Hurley, had multiple options available to him - and should have been aware of the danger of going into that area forcefully.

I could not agree more!!!! I could not believe what I was hearing from the FoxFooty guys after the game. I was so angry at how wrong they could be. blaming hurley for not turning his body and protecting himself. It was crazy what they were saying. Hurley was somewhat in control of the situation (I know he was fumbling) but he was the main person in the play. Hannerbery was secondary so the ownessis on him to make the correct decision and not hit someone high like he did. I hope he gets 3 weeks for it.

 

[Kummerspeck]

In his case, he also knows much of the pro-Sydney media will faithfully lap it up and helpfully spread that message for him as well.

...aaand your opinion was just invalidated.