Hannebery's gotta go

[Kummerspeck]

Ok mate, thanks for clearing up MY view on what I deem to be worse.
Glad someone sorted out my opinion for me.

You have not seen anyone go for weeks for something less than a situation where a player was bending down over the ball with his eyes and hands on it.

 

[Halftimehero]

Yes, but if you make accidental head contact whilst doing so you are GONE!
Clear.

Apparently not though

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Yes, but if you make accidental head contact whilst doing so you are GONE!
Clear.

No it isn't.

It's clear if you choose to bump. Hannebery was going for the ball. It should have been a free kick and no more.

 

[PACatter]

Good call by the MRP. Looks like they might finally be finding the happy medium.

 

[wobblyboot]

All I will say is it acceptable to hit someone in the head to avoid getting yourself hit in the head?

for sure ..........what would you do

 

[Inertia]

Common sense has prevailed for 2 weeks straight now. Viney and now Hanners. Can they go for 3?

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

So this gives the green light, and open slather, to all such action from now on. Goodo.

So let's stand by for lawsuits against the AFL and MRP when someone gets turned into a paraplegic.

Can anyone guess why I think this is fabulousphil's alternate account?

 

[Halftimehero]

for sure ..........what would you do

I would probably do the same as Hanebery did but that desn't make it acceptable, at the end of the day I believe that the contact to Hurley's head was made by Hanebery choosing to initiate that contact

 

[wobblyboot]

Another baffling decision from the MRP in my eyes. Got to laugh at all the fans who say the decision was correct, remember no free kick was payed either. If a player from one of their own clubs gets cited & charged for a similar incident in the near future let's see if they feel the same way.
And yes I hate Sydney but a bit rich implicating that Hawk's supporters are upset by this! I just want an equitable & fair system that's all!

Both players went for the ball. Play on. One protected himself at the contest. One did not. Who is at fault. If you were in a work situation and you put yourself in a situation where you could get hurt why is it someone else's responsibility for your safety if it jeopardises theirs. BTW we are not playing hopscotch

 

[Arbuckle]

Can anyone guess why I think this is fabulousphil's alternate account?

Can assure you it's not. And you're very welcome to check. I wouldn't want to waste your time, though, given how many thought-provoking, unbiased and incisive posts you 'contribute' for everyone else's eternal benefit.

 

[Keys]

If it's a loose ball and you are making a fair contest to win possession then you'll likely be ok provided the ball remains your focus. That seems reasonable to me

Likewise if another player has possession or if he doesn't have the ball and isn't contesting it, if you elect to bump then you take your chances that contact to the head will get you a holiday

This decision helps clarify what can be done

 

[Island Bomber]

No, where the hell did I say that? I'm talking about turning your body to the side to brace for contact like Hannebury did.

Is it really that hard to understand? I've seen 5 year olds with better comprehension skills than some people here.

So your saying he has to have eyes in the top of his head, as when he is looking at the ball on the ground he also has to be able to see what's coming at him. Ok.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

yes, past the ball. Still frames are very deceptive because it's a fraction of a moment. He was in the act of running past the ball and his momentum took him considerably past the ball (relatively). That's clear as day from the gif. Hanging offence? No, but it is the deciding factor IMO as to whether he'll go. Was it malicious? God no, but I think he's in trouble.

If he gets off you won't hear me gnashing my teeth though

Fair enough if you haven't seen the McVeigh one. I raised it because it was kind of the opposite to this, and a free was paid there and not here. Just one of many puzzling incidents - although for the record, or course, had no impact as the better team won

Reasonable post. Something we need more of.

I can't agree he went considerably past the ball but at the end of the day I don't think that had a bearing on the outcome. It was always about Hannebery's intentions and that he was focussed on the ball just as Hurley was. They touched it at the same time.

That sealed it for him in terms of getting off.

 

[master bate]

Hopefully the AFL players learn from this and:

1. Don't lead with their heads and leave themselves open to be injured

2. Don't act like they did post Jack Viney and go on a bumping spree!

Hannebery would've been up for 3 weeks if he had chosen to bump Hurley and made the same contact. Very dangerous contact. But because he went the ball and got to the ball first/simultaneously with Hurley it shouldn't be worthy of a suspension.

The devil is in the details. The contact was dangerous, but for once the player should be suspended based upon their intention and contribution to that dangerous contact.

 

[wobblyboot]

I would probably do the same as Hanebery did but that desn't make it acceptable, at the end of the day I believe that the contact to Hurley's head was made by Hanebery choosing to initiate that contact

So just instruct your son to lead with his head and put himself in danger. People have a duty of care to themselves. Lets blame everyone else for our own problems.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Reasonable post. Something we need more of.

I can't agree he went considerably past the ball but at the end of the day I don't think that had a bearing on the outcome. It was always about Hannebery's intentions and that he was focussed on the ball just as Hurley was. They touched it at the same time.

That sealed it for him in terms of getting off.

having had the benefit of the discussion on here, and the time to think about it, I am content with the MRP decision. I think the collision is an integral part of the game and Hannebury didn't do a lot wrong. The ball was in dispute, so he had no alternative such as tackling. Fair enough.

 

[master bate]

So your saying he has to have eyes in the top of his head, as when he is looking at the ball on the ground he also has to be able to see what's coming at him. Ok.

It all starts with the right motion. Stand prone bending over the footy and looking at the ground and you won't be able to see anyone around you.

Move through the ball and the contest and your peripheral vision and other senses will likely guide you away from trouble.

Hurley is the old lady driver sitting hunched over the steering wheel unable to see anything more than just in front. Hannebery is the V8 race driver seeing not only what is in front of him but scanning the road looking for the next few corners.

It's an unfortunate series of events that starts with Hurley fumbling the ball. When you fumbled all your attention turns to the ball and making sure you pick it up cleanly the next time. But because of that focus he loses track of the other possibilities.

 

[Plugger35]

So your saying he has to have eyes in the top of his head, as when he is looking at the ball on the ground he also has to be able to see what's coming at him. Ok.

I'm sure Hurley must have been aware that Hannebury was coming towards him, if he wasn't then he has worse awareness than Koschitzke.

 

[captainCOOL]

How can people still not understand the rule.

Hannebery didn't choose to bump, he turned his body to contest the ball which is why he got off. Roughead chose to bump, which is why he got suspended.

It's so ****in simple

 

[stimpy870]

Both players went for the ball hannebery used the correct technique that you teach to under 9's to turn your body protects yourslef and the ball on collision, maybe hurlery should get done for head butting hannebery in the ribs No charges laid common sense prevailed #closethread

 

[Island Bomber]

How can people still not understand the rule.

Hannebery didn't choose to bump, he turned his body to contest the ball which is why he got off. Roughead chose to bump, which is why he got suspended.

It's so ****in simple

It's not so simple, when Hannebery turned his body to contest the ball he made contact with Hurley's head. The AFL continually tells us the head is sacrosanct. So what is it, is it sacrosanct or not?

 

[fabulousphil]

So this gives the green light, and open slather, to all such action from now on. Goodo.

So let's stand by for lawsuits against the AFL and MRP when someone gets turned into a paraplegic.

Well, i wonder what would have happened had Hurley copped a serious neck or spinal injury, which could have easily been on the cards.

I am dissapointed with AFL and MRP on this.

Will this make players more hesitant about bending down to pick up the ball, knowing that someone can just cannon into them stating they had no other option, and they were just going the ball.

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

How can people still not understand the rule.

Hannebery didn't choose to bump, he turned his body to contest the ball which is why he got off. Roughead chose to bump, which is why he got suspended.

It's so ****in simple

No worries Tom

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

Well, i wonder what would have happened had Hurley copped a serious neck or spinal injury, which could have easily been on the cards.

I am dissapointed with AFL and MRP on this.

Will this make players more hesitant about bending down to pick up the ball, knowing that someone can just cannon into them stating they had no other option, and they were just going the ball.

Totally agree.
The MRP have just caused further confusion with this decision - it is not in the slightest the same as the Viney incident.
All you have to argue in defence now, is that you had your hands out-stretched and you were going for the ball. The duty of care arguement has well and truly been given the flick.
Good luck to Hanners he is very lucky but I wounder what the decision might have been had the roles been reversed ie bigger body hitting the smaller body.

 

[JackFlash]

More confusion,this was a no brainer 2 weeks suspension. I don't know what the hell the MRP are doing anymore.