Hannebery's gotta go

[The King!]

We will make him miss next week

 

[Costanza_]

This is completely the AFL's fault, they made any contact with the head a freekick so blokes have started going in head first

Yep. Players prioritise winning the ball/drawing a free kick over getting belted in the head.

The "crackdown" on head high contact over the past 5 years has had the complete opposite of the intended effect. Dozens of times each game we see players lowering their head to draw contact.

They need to stop penalising incidental high contact. It used to be obvious if something was dangerous - a clear coathanger, a bump off the ball.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

Lots of Hawks supporters advocating a suspension. Need the tribunal to help you win a premiership again?

 

[entourage]

This isn't a 'bump' issue and it's NOT a head clash issue so I think comparing it to Murphy and Hodge is wrong. This is the classic front on head contact that can paralyse people, like the incident that ended Carracellas (spelling?) career. Hanners is in trouble. 2 weeks IMO.

 

[The King!]

Lots of Hawks supporters advocating a suspension. Need the tribunal to help you win a premiership again?

They attack swans threads like seagulls to a chip if only their side wasnt completely injured and could attack the ball with the same vigour

 

[The King!]

This isn't a 'bump' issue and it's NOT a head clash issue so I think comparing it to Murphy and Hodge is wrong. This is the classic front on head contact that can paralyse people, like the incident that ended Carracellas (spelling?) career. Hanners is in trouble. 2 weeks IMO.

On first look i thought he was gone, but the ball is under his foot furthest from hurley, is hanners meant to jump away and wait for hurley to finally gather it? Be waiting all day for him to get co ordinates

If hurley didnt fumble so much it wouldnt be an issue. If you want hanners to stop, why shouldnt hurley have to stop, he went in with his head to get a ball he fumbled under someone

 

[PowerForGood]

Let's all remind ourselves as to why the AFL is going the way it is going over the last 6 years... They don't want to see this.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=blake caracella&FORM=HDRSC3#view=detail&mid=4E4BD01ED599AFD9EAF74E4BD01ED599AFD9EAF7

Much as many people over 35 (like me) don't like it, this is why they are sanitising the game. If there are good tough aspects of the game that disappear because of the possibility of an accident like this (like a good hip-and-shoulder or using your body to bump when contesting for a ball in dispute) then the AFL don't care. I might care, but ultimately I don't matter.

This is what I think should happen - players learning to protect themselves when going for a ball (I show this for example - Riccuito was a far tougher player than Peter Burgoyne)



In this example, if Riccuito went in head first to collect the ball, then Burgoyne would have got 4 weeks.

The AFL now want you to stop over the ball and pick it up. No bumping (might hit someone high), no sliding into the ball and legs (might break someone's leg), no diving over the ball (free kick for dragging it in), sometimes not even kicking off the ground (kicking in danger if opponents' hand is there). Just run to the ball with your head down towards the opponent to protect yourself - see the irony - and pick it up if you can.

 

[Obeanie1]

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?

One player had his head down fumbling attempting to pick the ball up.

The other coming from the other direction ended up making forceful front on contact high in an action that has the highest chance of causing serious neck injuries. Hurley could have ended up a paraplegic from that hit and Hannebury was reckless in his attack on the ball / player.

When I saw it in real time and Hurley reached for his head and neck I thought "oooh sh!t that's how you break your neck"

What I was absolutely stunned by was the doctors letting him get up and walk to the sidelines. I've heard of players fracturing their necks and playing on only to find out days later they were millimetres away from incurring a serious spinal injury.

Hannebury will get weeks simply because that bump is the most dangerous incident of any of the head high hits seen in a very long time. I don't think it was malicious but in that situation you simply cannot turn and make forceful front on contact how he did with a player bent down picking up the ball.

 

[Ultimatt]

Haven't read 12 pages but has anyone posted Hurley's bump on Parker that resulted in a headclash and Hurley getting his jaw checked out on the sideline? That would've attributed to Hurley staying down longer the 2nd time even more sore.

 

[Plugger35]

One player had his head down fumbling attempting to pick the ball up.

The other coming from the other direction ended up making forceful front on contact high in an action that has the highest chance of causing serious neck injuries. Hurley could have ended up a paraplegic from that hit and Hannebury was reckless in his attack on the ball / player.

When I saw it in real time and Hurley reached for his head and neck I thought "oooh sh!t that's how you break your neck"

What I was absolutely stunned by was the doctors letting him get up and walk to the sidelines. I've heard of players fracturing their necks and playing on only to find out days later they were millimetres away from incurring a serious spinal injury.

Hannebury will get weeks simply because that bump is the most dangerous incident of any of the head high hits seen in a very long time. I don't think it was malicious but in that situation you simply cannot turn and make forceful front on contact how he did with a player bent down picking up the ball.

Doesn't Hurley have some responsibility to not go into a contest head first and put himself in a dangerous position that risks a spinal injury? Hurley may well have done it on purpose to draw a head high free kick so why should it be Hannebury's fault if he gets injured?

Hurley's coaches should be telling him to go into a contest the way Hannebury did and not to lead with his head, drawing a free kick is not worth spending the rest of your life in a wheelchair.

 

[PowerForGood]

Doesn't Hurley have some responsibility to not go into a contest head first and put himself in a dangerous position that risks a spinal injury? Hurley may well have done it on purpose to draw a head high free kick so why should it be Hannebury's fault if he gets injured?

Hurley's coaches should be telling him to go into a contest the way Hannebury did and not to lead with his head, drawing a free kick is not worth spending the rest of your life in a wheelchair.

This is the key point.

Does a player have the right to go into a contest for the ball leading with his head down, with a complete and total expectation that everyone else at the contest will look after his best interests (including any accidental head contact) ahead of getting the ball themselves?

AFL says yes.

 

[PowerForGood]

A reminder from 2008 and Mark Williams comments - this situation is nothing new and the fact that we are 6 years later and still debating it means the AFL hasn't got it right.

Power coach Mark Williams urges the AFL coaches association to assess the three-match suspension imposed on Shaun Burgoyne after the Port Adelaide midfielder was deemed to have engaged in rough play after making head-high contact with Hawk Sam Mitchell.
"The result is wrong, there has to be an inquiry into it, there has to be a view of how a coach and team and club plays contested football if that particular incident gets three weeks suspension for a player like Shaun," Williams said.
"The contact was incidental, it was accidental and I'm disappointed for Shaun, but certainly, I'm disappointed for the game because I have absolutely no idea what you are supposed to do in that situation, other than pull out of the situation, and I don't think any of us will accept that.
"This is not about Shaun Burgoyne - it is for a second - the rest of it is about the game and as great as the AFL were a couple years ago about protecting the head over the ball, this is about protecting the integrity of the game.
"It is vital for us to get this right because honestly it tears at the fabric of the game. That's how important it is."

 

[Blotter]

One player had his head down fumbling attempting to pick the ball up.

The other coming from the other direction ended up making forceful front on contact high in an action that has the highest chance of causing serious neck injuries. Hurley could have ended up a paraplegic from that hit and Hannebury was reckless in his attack on the ball / player.

When I saw it in real time and Hurley reached for his head and neck I thought "oooh sh!t that's how you break your neck"

What I was absolutely stunned by was the doctors letting him get up and walk to the sidelines. I've heard of players fracturing their necks and playing on only to find out days later they were millimetres away from incurring a serious spinal injury.

Hannebury will get weeks simply because that bump is the most dangerous incident of any of the head high hits seen in a very long time. I don't think it was malicious but in that situation you simply cannot turn and make forceful front on contact how he did with a player bent down picking up the ball.

Great post.

I honestly can't even believe some of the crap that's going around suggesting that Hannebery shouldn't be suspended. Given the AFL's clear intent to eradicate all head high bumping, it surely can't even be in dispute that there simply has to be a suspension in this case. It's an open and shut issue for me.

As for Hannebery claiming afterwards that he hadn't even seen Hurley and Longmire saying that he had no other option ... sorry, but that's pathetic. Unwittingly, post #264 in this thread not only illustrates that Hannebery's eyes were fixed on Hurley well before the contact but that he hadn't yet even assumed the body positioning that caused the contact. At that point, he has many choices - the most obvious being the one that players now make almost all of the time, which is not to instigate reckless head high contact but to ready himself to tackle.

TBH, this is the most dangerous incident I can remember since the Long-Simmons bump in 2000. And my recollection is that there were howls and screams of protest for weeks about what Long did. And yet Long had far less time than Hannebery did last night to assess his options.

Frankly, it's extremely lucky for both Hurley and Hannebery that nothing more serious happened to Hurley than him being badly stunned. It's only pure chance that he didn't end up paralysed in some form - because that's exactly the kind of contact that leads to it. We are (or at least we were) taught from a young age that you can not bump a player, let alone forcefully, in the head while they are bent down to pick up the ball - and I'm staggered that anyone is pretending otherwise. The head has always been at its most sacrosanct in Aussie Rules in that situation. Hannebery had a clear duty of care in this set of circumstances - and he failed it.

 

[Plugger35]

This is the key point.

Does a player have the right to go into a contest for the ball leading with his head down, with a complete and total expectation that everyone else at the contest will look after his best interests (including any accidental head contact) ahead of getting the ball themselves?

AFL says yes.

As an analogy that's like running a red light at a set of traffic lights and expecting everyone else to stop to avoid a collision.

If they don't stop and crash into you and you get seriously injured or killed who is to blame? The people that crashed into you or you for being an idiot and running a red light?

 

[liz]

This isn't a 'bump' issue and it's NOT a head clash issue so I think comparing it to Murphy and Hodge is wrong. This is the classic front on head contact that can paralyse people, like the incident that ended Carracellas (spelling?) career. Hanners is in trouble. 2 weeks IMO.

Agree that it's not an issue about the bump, or about accidental head clashes that sometimes arise when players choose to bump.

It comes down to whether Hannebery could or should have anticipated the angle at which Hurley's body was when he entered the contest, and whether he (Hanners) was entitled to contest the ball in the way he did, if he could or should have anticipated it. I don't know the answers to any of those questions.

I think most (all?) would agree that contact of that nature has the potential to result in serious neck injury, and that this is something no-one wants to see.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Seriously, is that it? Free kick because it was accidentally high but nothing more.
Unfortunately I suspect that it will be regarded as "medium force, reckless, high" and therefore weeks based on Hurley having his head down two steps before contact was made.

 

[Ultimatt]

 

[Blotter]

As an analogy that's like running a red light at a set of traffic lights and expecting everyone else to stop to avoid a collision.

If they don't stop and crash into you and you get seriously injured or killed who is to blame? The people that crashed into you or you for being an idiot and running a red light?

That's one of the worst analogies I've ever read. Seriously, go back to the drawing board and try again.

 

[Obeanie1]

Doesn't Hurley have some responsibility to not go into a contest head first and put himself in a dangerous position that risks a spinal injury? Hurley may well have done it on purpose to draw a head high free kick so why should it be Hannebury's fault if he gets injured?

Hurley's coaches should be telling him to go into a contest the way Hannebury did and not to lead with his head, drawing a free kick is not worth spending the rest of your life in a wheelchair.

Mate the ball was rolling along the ground and Hurely who is what 194cm was leaning down fumbling try to pick it up. In that position you are at you most vulnerable. You are assuming that in the split seconds involved he should have seen an opponent coming and decide that he should pull out of the contest or spin his body to avoid front on contact? Seriously?

The law protects the player going for the ball, Hurely was trying to pick it up. Onus is on the second player coming in to contest in a safe manner inside the laws of the game.................and not put people in wheel chairs.

 

[J_Moore]

Lots of Hawks supporters advocating a suspension. Need the tribunal to help you win a premiership again?

yeah I've read the first few pages and it's bizarre. Posters like Shakespeare seem like genuinely damaged units, though.

 

[fabulousphil]

Great post.

I honestly can't even believe some of the crap that's going around suggesting that Hannebery shouldn't be suspended. Given the AFL's clear intent to eradicate all head high bumping, it surely can't even be in dispute that there simply has to be a suspension in this case. It's an open and shut issue for me.

As for Hannebery claiming afterwards that he hadn't even seen Hurley and Longmire saying that he had no other option ... sorry, but that's pathetic. Unwittingly, post #264 in this thread not only illustrates that Hannebery's eyes were fixed on Hurley well before the contact but that he hadn't yet even assumed the body positioning that caused the contact. At that point, he has many choices - the most obvious being the one that players now make almost all of the time, which is not to instigate reckless head high contact but to ready himself to tackle.

TBH, this is the most dangerous incident I can remember since the Long-Simmons bump in 2000. And my recollection is that there were howls and screams of protest for weeks about what Long did. And yet Long had far less time than Hannebery did last night to assess his options.

Frankly, it's extremely lucky for both Hurley and Hannebery that nothing more serious happened to Hurley than him being badly stunned. It's only pure chance that he didn't end up paralysed in some form - because that's exactly the kind of contact that leads to it. We are (or at least we were) taught from a young age that you can not bump a player, let alone forcefully, in the head while they are bent down to pick up the ball - and I'm staggered that anyone is pretending otherwise. The head has always been at its most sacrosanct in Aussie Rules in that situation. Hannebery had a clear duty of care in this set of circumstances - and he failed it.

My thoughts exactly, i think a lot of posters are just thinking about their team (Sydney)and not long term ramifications, or are just to immature to see it for what it really was.

As one poster said, " the most dangerous act this year".

 

[Obeanie1]

As an analogy that's like running a red light at a set of traffic lights and expecting everyone else to stop to avoid a collision.

If they don't stop and crash into you and you get seriously injured or killed who is to blame? The people that crashed into you or you for being an idiot and running a red light?

Oh my!!!!

This is easily the worst attempt at justifying something I have read in a very, very long time. And that's after logging on here most days.

I think I'll let the Rookies play and have fun with this comment.

 

[J_Moore]

Anyway, I reckon Hannebery will probably go, because he's marginally second to that contest. But players need to learn to not run head first at balls like that. Not really something you can address in the rules, just common sense. This "head over the footy and run straight at it" stuff is nonsense.

 

[TripleB]

As for Hannebery claiming afterwards that he hadn't even seen Hurley and Longmire saying that he had no other option ... sorry, but that's pathetic. Unwittingly, post #264 in this thread not only illustrates that Hannebery's eyes were fixed on Hurley well before the contact but that he hadn't yet even assumed the body positioning that caused the contact. At that point, he has many choices - the most obvious being the one that players now make almost all of the time, which is not to instigate reckless head high contact but to ready himself to tackle.....

It's not the least bit pathetic. Hanners certainly had eyes for Hurley well before the contact, no doubt sizing up how he was going to tackle him when he grabbed it. Hurley then fumbles and the ball spills towards Hanners who immediately fixes his eyes on the footy and attacks it, as he should, turning his body to absorb contact. Unfortunately Hurley continues to move forward leading with his head. It's just an unfortunate set of circumstances, but suggesting Hanners has just lined him up and showed no duty of care towards Hurley is just bollocks...

 

[Obeanie1]

Seriously, is that it? Free kick because it was accidentally high but nothing more.
Unfortunately I suspect that it will be regarded as "medium force, reckless, high" and therefore weeks based on Hurley having his head down two steps before contact was made.

Hurely had his head down and fumbling the ball for much more that 2m before the bump. Go and wind the time back another 5 seconds and reattach the footage.