Hannebery's "Bump"

[CureTheSane]

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.

Easy answer there is to make them feel worse by coming out and saying how reckless it was and they he really should get 6 and any less than that is favoritism to the Swans by the AFL

[Ludwig]

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.

You've made some good points on the Thomas incident. If Hanners keeps his feet, i.e., doesn't bend down over the ball, then Hurley rams into his legs head-on, potentially causing a serious leg injury. Certainly Hurley would have been suspended if that had eventuated.

There are so many conflicting rules and interpretations on how to approach a contest, especially on the ground ball, the AFL needs to clarify things rather quickly. It's not just us on RWO, but all the so-called experts are totally confused as well.

[Meg]

I too have been thinking about the sliding furore that we went through in 2012. One of the many split second decisions that a player has to make before entering a contest is to try to anticipate the unpredictable - which way the ball will bounce and therefore who is best placed to reach the ball first. When a ball bounces in one player's favour late, it advantages that player and then it looks as if the other player has initiated a collision. Not necessarily what has happened in this case but it makes playing to the sliding and forceful front-on contact rules very problematic.

[Meg]

"SYDNEY Swans star Dan Hannebery would have gone against 15 years of football instinct had he done anything different in the contentious collision with Michael Hurley.

That is the opinion of Hannebery's teammate Dane Rampe, along with former players Matthew Lloyd and Nathan Brown who asked for "common sense" to prevail in the Match Review Panel's assessment of the clash."

"If you pull out, you're going to be branded a sissy or accused of lacking courage," Rampe said of his take on the incident.

"Or you're going to kill yourself if you go in like Hurley did (and butt heads).

"So you have to brace. It's just human nature to protect yourself, that's the way it should be and that's what we're taught when we're growing up.

"We're taught to protect the space and protect ourselves as the ball's coming in."

'Common sense must prevail' on Hannebery bump - AFL.com.au

[swanspant12]

An absolute disgrace if Hanners get's a week for that.

What else does the AFL expect a player to do? Can't slide, can't bump, can't pick up the ball and not dispose of it within 1-2 seconds without getting pinged, and when you try and protect yourself by going in sidewards and knock out a bloke who puts his head down to win a freekick you get cited? Absolutely disgusting what this game has become and the nanny culture they want to run through the AFL.

I'm done with the MRP and those muppets running the system if they can't understand he was going for the ball whilst protecting himself.

[Ludwig]

Many commentators said it should have been a free kick, but I think the umps got it right. If you duck your head into the contest, it's play on. It would seem that's what the officials thought at the time. Why should the MRP overrule them.

[johnno]

I'm very sure I know what the outcome will be.

He'll either get weeks for the incident with Hurly or...........he wont.

[johnno]

...but in all seriousness.

Hurly's head hit Hanner's ribs, not his shoulder, elbow or hips.

So Hanners is safe.

[liz]

This is what the rules have to say about forceful front on contact.

http://www.aflcommunityclub.com.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Umpire_AFL/Laws_of_the_Game/0959_AFL_Tribunal_2013_LR.PDF

Forceful front-on contact
In November 2006 the AFL Commission approved a new Reportable
Offence in the Laws of the Game as follows:
19.2 Reportable Offence
19.2.2 Specific Offences
(g) Intentionally, recklessly or negligently?
(xi) Bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from
front-on when that player has his head down over the ball.
Note:
?? A player can bump an opponent?s body from side-on but any contact
forward of side-on will be deemed to be front-on.
?? A player with his head down in anticipation of winning
possession of the ball or after contesting the ball will be deemed to
have his head down over the ball for the purposes of this law.
Bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from front-on
when that opponent has his head down over the ball, unless intentional
or reckless, will be deemed to be negligent, unless:
a. the player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic
alternative way to contest the ball; or
b. the bump or forceful contact was caused by circumstances outside the
control of the player which could not reasonably be foreseen.

[Reggi]

Liz that final clause says all clear

[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 in a 50 / 50 when the other person is over the ball equally competing for the ball 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

ill stand by sanity prevailing on this matter

lets be plain and simple............if Hannes gets a week or more on this one well every week in every game 1 or 2 players will be missing football the next round

[Bloody Hell]

The more I watch it, the more I think Hurley was in the wrong.

Even though he was tracking it, he was second to the ball, knew Hannebery was going to get the ball first and lunged at the ball head first to make up for his fumbles.

Hannebery did everything right, Hurley did everything wrong.

[Untamed Snark]

Support for Hannebery in how he took on Bomber

[stellation]

Many commentators said it should have been a free kick, but I think the umps got it right. If you duck your head into the contest, it's play on. It would seem that's what the officials thought at the time. Why should the MRP overrule them.

I think it should have been a free kick, I assume the ump was just blindsided. I don't recall hearing them call "ducked your head" or "play on" which is what you'd normally hear if there was a lineball decision and they opted not to pay a free.

[Reggi]

I think it should have been a free kick, I assume the ump was just blindsided. I don't recall hearing them call "ducked your head" or "play on" which is what you'd normally hear if there was a lineball decision and they opted not to pay ae.

No free he ducked his head definitely into the contact. If he hadn't of ducked into it there would never have been contact