Hannebery's "Bump"

[Matimbo]

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.

... and this would be the politically expedient result for the AFL, even though any charge will be the wrong decision. I hope I'm pleasantly surprised by sanity prevailing at the MRP.

[hot potato]

Hanners will be in the clear on this one.

[liz]

This seems very similar to the Viney incident, but who knows how it will be adjudicated.

I don't think it is really very similar to the Viney situation.

In that case, the tribunal initially decided that Viney made a decision to bump. He didn't make head high contact with the player he supposedly bumped but was held responsible for the consequences, which was the head clash between that player and the player behind him. On appeal, it was (correctly, IMO) determined that Viney did not choose to bump but rather than the contact was just a collision that happens from time to time, and that he was not accountable for the accidental injury to Lynch.

I don't believe Hanners decided to bump, but that is where the similarities end, I reckon. I doubt the tribunal / MRP will argue he made a decision to bump. I think it comes down to whether he made negligent or reckless front on contact with Hurley. Should he have anticipated that this contact would have happened if he entered the contest? Was he entitled to contest the ball regardless of whether he could or should have anticipated the nature of the contact?

[Steve]

It won't happen but the AFL really need to provide clarity on what they deem acceptable in these situations, not just decide what isn't OK each time an incident comes up.

Even if they came out and say that once a player puts his head down, everyone else must jump out of the way, not contest the footy and only let the other player gently fall into your arms, not brace themselves and potentially open themselves up to injury etc etc - at least that is clarity.

But going through that process would surely flush out how ridiculous some of the 'he had a choice to avoid ..." comments are, and we'd get back to a reasonable point where if you're going for the ball or bracing yourself in a reasonable way (ie. not initiating or exaggerating the contact/impact) you should be OK.

[Xie Shan]

'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

I'm convinced! Great stuff by Shaw and Voss.

[Meg]

Every time I look at the video it looks as if immediately after the alleged "bump" and as Hannebery falls to the ground, a second Essendon player comes in and knocks Hannebery on the head. So Hannebery ends up first holding on to his head and then on his knees clutching his side from the impact of Hurley's head. Am I right? It is obviously an accident but for anyone who is criticising Dan, why isn't the second Essendon player also being criticised? (I can't tell who it is.)

[Rod_]

Hanner's is first to that ball and the other player head butts him in the Ribs! Look at the white line behind the collision, Hanner's is lower and only has eyes for the ball.

[Meg]

"The AFL has committed to funding an unlimited number of brain scans for retired footballers as the code ramps up its response to one of the most troubling issues in world sport - concussion."

2014 AFL Concussion Cartoon.jpg

Read more: Retired footballers to get free brain scans

[bloodsbigot]

Most hawk supporters online are screaming for Hannebery to get 'at least 4 weeks' and what Hannebery did was dangerous.. blah blah blah... they care about the safety of Hurley... blah blah blah

I wish they'd just be honest and say they want him to get suspended because the swans are a big threat to them.

[Meg]

Re my earlier post re a subsequent hit to Hannebery's head - I have read elsewhere someone saying "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."

[R-1]

I'm still line ball on this. Clearly not a bump but you can also be charged with forceful front-on contact which has a different set of precedents and triggers.

[dimelb]

I'm still line ball on this. Clearly not a bump but you can also be charged with forceful front-on contact which has a different set of precedents and triggers.

I think you're right, but it looks like Hurley would be the one charged with front-on contact; Hanners caught it in the side.

[liz]

I think you're right, but it looks like Hurley would be the one charged with front-on contact; Hanners caught it in the side.

The front-on refers to where the contact is made on the opponent. So Hannebery would be the "guilty party" if it is deemed to be forceful front-on contact.

I suspect he will go. Not sure if he should but think he will. On reflection I think the incident might attract a reckless grading. It was his decision to enter the contest that has to be questioned (if anything is questioned), not that he might have entered it in a different way, less likely to cause injury. I can't contemplate the powers that be suggesting he should have put his head down and entered head first. That would probably have caused more significant head injury to both.

[Ludwig]

The front-on refers to where the contact is made on the opponent. So Hannebery would be the "guilty party" if it is deemed to be forceful front-on contact.

I suspect he will go. Not sure if he should but think he will. On reflection I think the incident might attract a reckless grading. It was his decision to enter the contest that has to be questioned (if anything is questioned), not that he might have entered it in a different way, less likely to cause injury. I can't contemplate the powers that be suggesting he should have put his head down and entered head first. That would probably have caused more significant head injury to both.

It's anyone's guess what will eventuate with the MRP; but when 2 players have an equal chance of getting a ground ball, if players have to pull out those contests then it's the end of footy as we know it. It could equally be said that Hurley's decision to enter the contest also has to be questioned. Given that the ball is coming towards Hannebery, he should be the one deemed most likely to take possession.

There has to be an acceptance than there are going to be dangerous contested situations that are simply the result of incidental high contact. Especially when you have every coach coming out and saying that they want to win the contested possession count.

There was a play in the game when (I think) Heppell had his head over a rolling balling and coming towards Sam Reid, who was upright. Reid stepped aside, but stayed in touch with Heppell until he took possession and could be tackled. It was very well played, because there no way Reid could have contested the ball without fouling. I find that players are very much aware of what they can and cannot due in these situations. But when you have 250 contests a game, there are going to be a fair number that are 50-50 and can easily result in a head knock.

[liz]

It's anyone's guess what will eventuate with the MRP; but when 2 players have an equal chance of getting a ground ball, if players have to pull out those contests then it's the end of footy as we know it. It could equally be said that Hurley's decision to enter the contest also has to be questioned. Given that the ball is coming towards Hannebery, he should be the one deemed most likely to take possession.

I don't disagree. I just wonder if that is how the MRP will see it. If Hurley and the ball had been close to stationary and Hanners had entered the contest as he did. I don't think there is any doubt he'd be in trouble. Opinion is mixed over on BF, with plenty arguing that Hanners did nothing wrong, but those arguing he should go describe the situation as Hurley having his head over the ball and Hanners coming in second.

The fact that the ball was moving, as was Hurley, will be what 'saves' Hanners if anything does. It was a loose ball and he should have been able to contest it. But if the only way he could do so was to make forceful high contact, the MRP/tribunal might argue he shouldn't have entered the contest. They might argue that because Hurley had been trying to pick up the ball for a few metres as it bobbled away from him, he was in the primary position to win possession.

It will be interesting to see how it pans out. In some ways the debate is not dissimilar to the one over sliding into a contest in a manner likely to cause injury, ala Lindsay Thomas. The circumstances are very different, but it becomes a debate around protecting players from serious injury vs our expectations that players contest as fiercely as they can for a disputed ball (and our occasional ridicule of those who don't). Thomas was found not to have a case to answer because the rules at the time did not prohibit him from contesting that situation in the way he did, but the rules have subsequently been changed, putting the onus on players to keep their feet where there is a risk that not to do so may cause injury. There is already a rule in place - "forceful front on contact" - to use to adjudicate the Hannebery incident, which is why I suspect the MRP / tribunal will cite him, despite the fact that the ball was in dispute.