Hannebery's "Bump"

[Meg]

If anything adverse for Hannebery comes of this, the Swans should hire David Grace QC and fight it. He is the QC used by the Demons for the Viney appeal.

[Swansongster]

Somehow I'm thinking that the footy world won't rally around Dan as they did Viney. Haters are gunna hate.

At the ground, I thought he was gone in real time. Then, I thought he was OK after watching all of the big screen replays. After all of the analysis from Fox suits, I think a good presentation from the Swans will get him off. Don't think HQ will want the bad press of the Viney case again.

That said, who the hell knows what the MRP and subsequent process will throw up. Lots of press on this during the next three days.

Did I mention that Bombers fans are nearly as bad as Adelaide's (if not worse). Astonished by their performance last night.

[R-1]

It looked bad initially but I think he wasn't bumping on rewatching.

No bump probably means no rough conduct which leaves forceful front on contact. Hurley wasn't over the ball though, he was running in, so that offense shouldn't be in play either.

Won't be surprised if he gets deemed to have bumped negligent intent low/medium impact and high contact and a week... but no case to answer is marhinally the most likely outcome.

No cause for outrage.

[Ampersand]

This has nothing to do with protecting player welfare and everything to do with protecting the AFL's bottom line. Trust me, they are watching the NFL concussion controversy closely and want a legal defence when Hurley or some other player sues them for brain trauma 20 years from now. They can say "Those knocks were outside the rules of the game! See? We banned even Hannebery for a game!"

It wasn't even deemed a free kick on the field let alone a reportable offence. Anything beyond that is administrative interference. End of story.

[bondy]

I feel for Hanneberry. The way I saw it, he did everything he could to get the ball. Contact seemed incidental.

After the game Horse asked 'What else could he have done?', which I agree with.

[Auntie.Gerald]

i have never in my life gone straight for the ball head first head down.................as a youngster you were taught to always move in on an angle to brace for the impact exactly how hannes positioned himself and completely the opposite to Hurley

if you go head first you are an idiot and always asking for trouble as you can only use your head to brace

so as Horse said "what else could hannes have done" as it was a complete 50/50 and equal opportunity for the ball

this was not aggressive and Hannes simply braced

Vineys brace is now a precedent and I still think Hannes brace was all he could have possibly done when going for the ball with equal right for a 50 50 possession

it was Hannes rib cage that took the hit

PS - I still can not believe rough head didnt attract more attention given he had eyes for McGlynn the whole way and hammered him head high

[ernie koala]

I keep hearing how simple and clear the rule is...." If you CHOOSE to bump, and make head high contact, you have a case to answer"...in other words, you're in trouble.

In Hanneberys' case, he has his eye's firmly on the ball. He did not choose to bump. He chose to win the ball. The accident happened because Hurley led with his head.

I suspect they'll give him points, because that seems to be their way, when trying to wriggle out of a tricky one.

But with good behaviour and an early plea he'll escape with a reprimand. (I'm assuming he has a clean record?)

[shaun..]

'Hannebery protected himself'

Check this video out, Shaw and Voss do a great job of justifying what Hannebery was trying to achieve and Hurley's inability to protect himself

[Reggi]

Fox went through it for 20 mins last night. Universal opinion, no chance he will go. There view was Hannerbury did exactly what he should. Hurley was at fault. Cannot see him getting suspended for it

[Doctor]

I thought the analysis of the Fox Footy guys was great, even Eddie was on our side, which has to be a first. In essence, a suspension would be punishing Hannebery for poor technique by Hurley. Hanners turned his body correctly to protect his own head and keep his eyes on the footy, Hurley did not.

Any chance we can get the spelling of Hannebery's name fixed in the thread title btw?

[ShockOfHair]

The MRP is influenced by public opinion (viz the Viney case) so I doubt Hannebery will get rubbed out.

I'm all for protecting players' heads, but if any head deserves a whack it's Hurley's. His dismal hairstyle makes him looks like hired help out of Pulp Fiction.

[707]

Roughead got one and was clearly looking at McGlynn when he made contact. Hanneberry was clearing looking at and almost had the ball in his hands when he made contact - no case to answer your Honour!

But then again this is the Match Confusion Panel making a decision .........

[Ludwig]

This seems very similar to the Viney incident, but who knows how it will be adjudicated. I don't know how you can have a situation when a player with bad technique, effectively doing the wrong thing in a legal contested situation, determine how the game should be played. It's not right that a player making a dumb, but brave decision, cause the suspension of another player. If Hanners was standing up when Hurley was following the ball with his head over it, then Hanners is to blame. But Hanners also has his head over the ball, and in fact has better position over the ball. It's Hurley that causes the collision. Hanners didn't choose to bump, he got head butted.

[Matimbo]

Did I mention that Bombers fans are nearly as bad as Adelaide's (if not worse). Astonished by their performance last night.

Agree. It's one thing to cheer when an umpire falls over, but they were absolutely disgraceful to cheer the way they did when he clearly was knocked out cold and in a bad way. Then they boo Adam Goodes presumably because he was given a 50 mtr free and goaled due to a Bombers player stupidity. They also were howling when their defender (forgotten who) deliberately tapped the ball over the line next to the goalpost resulting in a deliberate free and goal to Swans. This was another case of Bombers player stupidity that they apparently think was the umpires and/or Swans fault. Morons.

[Ludwig]

I don't recall Hanners ever getting suspended, so I guess he doesn't have any carry over points. I can't see him getting more than a week down to a reprimand with an early plea.