-
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
- Sep 12, 2013
- 5,219
- 5,356
- AFL Club
- Sydney
No he wasn't.
I have no idea what is right or wrong anymore. Glad he got off as it was again a nothing incident. Should of been a free kick to Hurley in my view.
But in all honesty I have not a clue whats going on with the game.
The game I grew up playing and loved there is barely an incident in the last 5 years years I would deem reportable. The bloke from Brisbane was reportable as he deliberately went for the head.
The tribunal would of been laughing at some of these charges 20 years ago.
Am certainly in favour of protecting the head, but accidents happen and it can be a dangerous sport. Don't play it or watch it if you think that serious injury cannot occur.
But in all honesty I have not a clue whats going on with the game.
The game I grew up playing and loved there is barely an incident in the last 5 years years I would deem reportable. The bloke from Brisbane was reportable as he deliberately went for the head.
The tribunal would of been laughing at some of these charges 20 years ago.
Am certainly in favour of protecting the head, but accidents happen and it can be a dangerous sport. Don't play it or watch it if you think that serious injury cannot occur.
wobblyboot
Team Captain
- Feb 23, 2014
- 483
- 126
- AFL Club
- Sydney
thats what I dont like. It should not be what injury occurs. Is the action that matters. Hurley has a responsibility to himself. If both players are playing the ball then play on. Go in hard at the footy. Protect yourself. Get the ball. Is this not what footy is all about ?
How could have Hannebery contested the ball any differently? Head first? Let Hurley (and the ball) go straight past him, then tackle?
- Thread starter
- #656
Not ducked his head looking for a free, gutless twit.....gee some of you people should leave your jealousy at the door before you come on here making absolute dicks of yourselves.....it's about time the MRP used common sense in their deliberations instead of getting caught up in the hysterical rants ofpeople like you.......and may it continue
Think it is pretty clear he did not duck for a free and is not a gutless twit, he actually had his head over the ball like a footballer would hear a million times from the age of 6 from his coach.
And i think you are making a real twit of yourself.
The vast majority of people posting are not posting because of any hate filled rage regarding the Swans or Hannebery, but have differing and valid views regarding the incident, on both sides of it, the only one hysterical is you.
- Jun 26, 2012
- 11,951
- 10,901
- AFL Club
- Essendon
I think the point he was making with this is that both incidents resulted in Sydney goals and both should not have. Umpires are the ones who should be under the real scrutiny here, not Hanebery, Hibberd, Hurley or Mcveigh, well actually maybe Mcveigh because he clearly played for the free kick.
ScoobySnacks
All Australian
- Jul 3, 2010
- 905
- 1,254
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
He was lucky based on whats occurred this year
stevoswan
Senior List
- Banned
- #659
Always knew he'd get off, especially after the Viney appeal, which reset common sense on the whole bumping issue, why, do you still think the MRP/AFL should still have a 'no bump' agenda? Do you like soccer THAT much?Always easy being a hindsight warrior, isn't it?
Common sense prevails.
I wasn't talking about Hannebury. You should read my previous post too. I was referring specifically to the stupid argument that Hurley was negligent himself
The King!
Chosen One
captainCOOL
Debutant
If you can't tell the difference between what Hannebery did and a bump then you really should follow another sport
Banyo Bloods
Norm Smith Medallist
Firstly I agree the suggestion of Hurley tracking the ball in a negligent manner is ludicrous. Anyway MRP got this right IMO and thankfully some of the posters on here have no voice in that. If we want people suspended for contesting the footy and making contact then the whole game has to change. I doubt anybody seriously wants that. The rules are being interpreted to protect players from the deliberate act of the bump when the ball is not your focus or you have other alternatives. This is where letting those types of hits go would seem negligent on the AFL's behalf. They don't apply those same interpretations for accidental or consequential contact for the true contested ball as that is the fabric of the contact sport we enjoy. I am bewildered by the view of the OP that it's all about applying rules to mitigate for every potential serious injury that could happen on the field. To suggest Hanners had the choice to yield and corral is way off the mark. Should we let a player fumble for the next 50 meters sweating on him picking it up and dishing off the handball ? Of course not a fumbled ball is in play and available to "go and get it" the contact in this incident was consequential of a contested ball and argument for the free kick for sure but to essentially demand for a players suspension due to a consequential high impact is way off the mark. I fully appreciate the differing view points in this thread but when somebody want a long stretch of the 4 to 5 weeks variety then it just smacks of NFI
He should have been more aware of who was in the contest. Seemed to have no idea Hannebury was right in front of him. A bit harsh, but not as harsh a some of the judgements here on Hannebury.
Strongly believe that Hannebury's attack on the contest was text book stuff. That's the way kids should be taught to gather possession of a contested ball, and we won't have head clashes and the like.
- Mar 17, 2009
- 3,462
- 2,626
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Someone will get seriously injured in a similar incident. Not sure what the solution is, but I don't think you can have guys going in when a guy already has head over the ball. Although, as many have said, Hurley's way of going in was not ideal for self preservation.
NSWCROW
Make me an Admin!
Geez and i thought Viney was lucky...
So those that are back slapping the MRP about the Hannebery decision, what do you make of Chris Dawes' forearm making a bit of contact with Rance's face being graded as medium contact? That would be the same level (apparently) as Viney's original charge.
How on earth those two incidents can be deemed to be of similar impact, I will never know.
How on earth those two incidents can be deemed to be of similar impact, I will never know.
Thread summed up in one sentence: Haters gonna hate Sydney Swans COLA Protected Species by the AFL.
Messenger
No, I’m just disappointed
Gerald Healy is suggesting precisely that.
The King!
Chosen One
I am supper glad he got off to be honest. It is how the game should be. However based on what we have seen over the past season and a half it leaves me a bit confused. The responsibility is on the player for any contact to the head. They drew a black and white line on this issue and not they have just blurred the line AGAIN. Everyone may like this decision for the good of football. However it will leave many wondering when the next player for a similar situation gets 2 weeks.
I can see the logic and the common sense in the head high law and it will be very hard to get out of players natural instincts. However letting players off in a situation such as this is not helping. Consistency is all I am asking for.
