MRP has no idea

[6621104]

Apparently Dan Hannebury cleared - the only bump of the recent high profile spate of bumps in the news that could have led to serious injury - Hurley hit on the vertex (top of the head) with head down and neck flexed and they apparently have no concerns. This was the Neil Sachse/Michael Long type hit. Bumps etc from the side are all about concussion and its minimisation to avoid later law suits. The front on hit, particularly with momentum and with a firm part of the body such as the hip is the most dangerous. I knew some footballers were thick - but do all of them have to sit on the MRP at once?????????????

[plugger66]

Thought it was a great decision. Both going for the ball and one just protected himself better. Hurley was open. He should have done the same as hannebury. Sometimes there are accidents and this was one. sometimes they arent and that was a few last week including the WB player.

[Toy Saint]

I've got no problem with the decision, however I'm sure that if Dan Hannabury was Steven Baker he'd be looking at 12 weeks.

[Rosco]

Probably

Hurley should get weeks for his contribution to a head high hit, hannebury did the best he could in the situation, Hurley trying to draw a free?

[CURLY]

Good decision in some ways but typical but typical bias towards one of the AFL love childs.

[8856brother]

What would have happened if Hurley ended up in a wheelchair? Same result? Can't believe listening to so called experts who are somehow blaming him for fumbling. Are they serious?

[stinger]

correct decision..imho

[Rosco]

What would have happened if Hurley ended up in a wheelchair? Same result? Can't believe listening to so called experts who are somehow blamining him for fumbling. Are they serious?

He went head first into a contest that he must have seen coming. This is not what we want our kids to do.

[Rosco]

Double post

[Freebird]

Worse decision ever...if a player is over the ball you do not take a chance on collecting front on.
That attack on the ball/player by Hannebury could have ended Catastrophically. Hannebury's body went past the ball to take the Essendon player off the ball which is what a player would do normally but not when head on collecting someone with their head over the ball.

[perfectionist]

Thought it was a great decision. Both going for the ball and one just protected himself better. Hurley was open. He should have done the same as hannebury. Sometimes there are accidents and this was one. sometimes they arent and that was a few last week including the WB player.

Oh no, not you again, the AFL/MRP apologist!

BTW, I agree.

[8856brother]

What would have happened if Hurley ended up in a wheelchair? Same result? Can't believe listening to so called experts who are somehow blamining him for fumbling. Are they serious?

He went head first into a contest that he must have seen coming. This is not what we want our kids to do.

"He must have seen coming" I rest my case. See ball, hunt ball. The essence of the greatest game in the world. I suggest soccer for all kids if you are being serious. What is our great game based on. And people are actually beliving Hurley has done something wrong. I'm flabbergasted.

[busso mick]

Absolutely the correct decision, even in slow motion.

[8856brother]

Absolutely the correct decision, even in slow motion.

Maybe it is. But don't put 1% blame on the bloke hunting the ball. He did nothing wrong and should expect to be protected.

[busso mick]

Absolutely the correct decision, even in slow motion.

Maybe it is. But don't put 1% blame on the bloke hunting the ball. He did nothing wrong and should expect to be protected.

Fair enough. Do you have suggestions about what Hannebery should have done in the circumstance?

[8856brother]

Absolutely the correct decision, even in slow motion.

Maybe it is. But don't put 1% blame on the bloke hunting the ball. He did nothing wrong and should expect to be protected.

Fair enough. Do you have suggestions about what Hannebery should have done in the circumstance?

No I don't. I do believe he knew he was going to hurt Hurley. I find it insulting to Hurley that people are suggesting he did something wrong. I personally think Hannebury licked his lips.

[Freebird]

Absolutely the correct decision, even in slow motion.

Maybe it is. But don't put 1% blame on the bloke hunting the ball. He did nothing wrong and should expect to be protected.

Fair enough. Do you have suggestions about what Hannebery should have done in the circumstance?

Maybe run a bit faster and hit him harder and still the question would be "what else could he do?"
fact is a player has his head over the ball means he should be protected and no player should be allowed to touch his head front on.

I cannot believe anyone would agree that he had no choice at the expense of possible bad ramifications.

[busso mick]

Absolutely the correct decision, even in slow motion.

Maybe it is. But don't put 1% blame on the bloke hunting the ball. He did nothing wrong and should expect to be protected.

Fair enough. Do you have suggestions about what Hannebery should have done in the circumstance?

Maybe run a bit faster and hit him harder and still the question would be "what else could he do?"
fact is a player has his head over the ball means he should be protected and no player should be allowed to touch his head front on.

I cannot believe anyone would agree that he had no choice at the expense of possible bad ramifications.

It was unfortunate that Hurley copped one high, but I feel there was no way it was intentional high contact. With all of the publicity surrounding this issue if there was an iota of intent then he would have been charged.

[dragit]

Still a bit confusing around going in hard for the ball (recklessly) and "electing to bump".

You can still break someone's neck if you hammer into a contest where a player is bending over for the ball...

[6621104]

What else could he do????????? Well met him front on, having stopped and let his head hit his midriff, ie soft part of the body. Hurley was stopped in his tracks by the contact and propelled backwards by Hannebury's momentum. This is the minimum the rule should be preventing- front on head high stuff that could lead to paralysis, not the side on bump where both players are side to side. So Fyfe's bump was more potentially damaging than Hannebury's- I think not.

[plugger66]

What else could he do????????? Well met him front on, having stopped and let his head hit his midriff, ie soft part of the body. Hurley was stopped in his tracks by the contact and propelled backwards by Hannebury's momentum. This is the minimum the rule should be preventing- front on head high stuff that could lead to paralysis, not the side on bump where both players are side to side. So Fyfe's bump was more potentially damaging than Hannebury's- I think not.

No it wasnt but he had another option. I dont agree that Hannebury had any other option. Accidents can happen. Doesnt mean that it is anyones fault.

[Scollop]

The saturation of media interest and the tribunal appeals boards decision to overturn the Jack Viney penalty was the final trigger for change. I think the change in attitude had been slowly building and it was only a matter of time and a change at the top (Marke Evans appointment) that may have helped bring back the bump.

There was a groundswell in 2012/2103 from ex players and purists that 'the game had become soft'. Too many players were being rubbed out for weeks by the MRP to the point that coaches had come to the conclusion that you cannot bump. Any head high hit whether accidental or intentional was given weeks.

I don't think it's a co-incidence that the number of incidents of bumps to the head has increased lately since the Viney decision. All bumps were being overly scrutinised and the perception was that the AFL had a campaign to change the game. It's strange that they brought out new rules and highlighted the dangers of head high hits and bumps to the head and now they've backtracked.

What seemed to be very harsh penalties in the last few years is now all of a sudden debatable as to whether you get suspended and the penalties are more lenient. I think we are seeing the bump and a few head high forearm hits to the head come back into vogue. Everyone knows you do what it takes to get the win and if it takes a 1 to 2 week suspension for a head high hit then so be it. I have a theory...It's the dirty rotten money hungry AFL at it again...

I think the punters are voting with their wallets and the AFL knows that crowd numbers are down and they are desperate to try and win back the traditional fans. The media and the journos are driving this along with the AFL and I reckon there will be some players and some coaches testing the waters and taking advantage of the softening stance on the bump.

[plugger66]

The saturation of media interest and the tribunal appeals boards decision to overturn the Jack Viney penalty was the final trigger for change. I think the change in attitude had been slowly building and it was only a matter of time and a change at the top (Marke Evans appointment) that may have helped bring back the bump.

There was a groundswell in 2012/2103 from ex players and purists that 'the game had become soft'. Too many players were being rubbed out for weeks by the MRP to the point that coaches had come to the conclusion that you cannot bump. Any head high hit whether accidental or intentional was given weeks.

I don't think it's a co-incidence that the number of incidents of bumps to the head has increased lately since the Viney decision. All bumps were being overly scrutinised and the perception was that the AFL had a campaign to change the game. It's strange that they brought out new rules and highlighted the dangers of head high hits and bumps to the head and now they've backtracked.

What seemed to be very harsh penalties in the last few years is now all of a sudden debatable as to whether you get suspended and the penalties are more lenient. I think we are seeing the bump and a few head high forearm hits to the head come back into vogue. Everyone knows you do what it takes to get the win and if it takes a 1 to 2 week suspension for a head high hit then so be it. I have a theory...It's the dirty rotten money hungry AFL at it again...

I think the punters are voting with their wallets and the AFL knows that crowd numbers are down and they are desperate to try and win back the traditional fans. The media and the journos are driving this along with the AFL and I reckon there will be some players and some coaches testing the waters and taking advantage of the softening stance on the bump.

Do you honestly think there is a person not going to the footy because of the bump or a person will now go to the footy because of the bump?

[gringo]

To me the whole reason that the AFL has brought in head high stuff being outlawed is to change the long term culture of head high hits. It won't be stamped out over night but they need to from a legal stand point. Viney got off now they are gun shy. They probably really need to just keep penalising until players prefer to pull out of a contest than hit some one in the head.

The publicity of the bump is actually making it worse at junior level. I'm umpiring some of my kids games and he is a bit prone to playing a head first Lenny hayes type game and he has had two massive bumps in two weeks since the Viney thing. One I was umpiring one I was watching. The umpire from the other team didn't even pay a free and when the other ump from our team asked him why he there was no call he said he thought it was legal. If my kid gets a broken collar bone or something he will be playing soccer if his mum has her way.

I have seen about 4 attempts besides the ones on my kid. I had never seen them trying to bump before that. These kids do it crude and clumsily and there is a lot of danger in that.

[6621104]

I suspect we have all seen the clips of the unfortunatre NRL player who is now an incomplete quad. The mechanism- extreme neck flexion contributed to by the players positioning, body weight and the tackler. This sort of injury is rare in proper football. Any situation that could replicate this mechanism must be penalised. As lifting tackles do not really occur in our game the most likely scenario is the front on bump to the head when the played is attempting to pick up the ball. Now players fumbling you can argue is forseeable, thus having to keep in the head down position should this occur. A player going for the ball is not targetting the opponent and the duty of the opponent is to avoid the head. If this is unavoidable, it is to do the least potential harm. Hannebury did not attempt to avoid harm to his opponent, and if his claim is he was turning and bracing for contact then he could forseeably be said to have taken on a more dangerous and thus culpable position. In comparison, a bump is part of the game when the bump is body to body. Accidental head contact is not forseeable by definition. That it happens does not make it forseeable and if the AFL holds this position that a fair bump becomes an infringement only when a head clash occurs in effect IT IS saying the bump is no longer legal. Thus my first post. Only in the La La land of the MRP can such an illogical outcome divert attention away from the real risk of bumps to the head.