Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
6621104 wrote: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.
Well its seems much more than 50% of people are in la la land. It certainly seemed a very good decision to me as both were going for the ball. Unfortunately Hurley fumbling and also went in head first. Dont see what other option hannebury had apart from not going for the ball. Sometimes there are accidents in sport that result in head clashes. They will never stop. I can name 2 at least that our club were involved in. Once when Goose and a richmond player knocked each other out going for the ball and another when Ray knocked out selwood in a complete accident.
The MRP's decisions over the last few years were a direct result of the AFL's new rules. The doubt around whether a bump is legal or not and whether Hannebury should have copped weeks means we will obviously get similar type incidents. On the weekend it was Cooney's hit on Ablett that was also deemed as fair and legal.
On AFL 360 tonight they displayed the laws of the game and it seemed pretty clear that these 2 incidents wind back the clock and make a mockery of the AFL's rules since 2007.
You can't have one penalty for someone with strong neck muscles and a different penalty for a player who gets hit and gets injured. There could have been a serious injury if a young player isn't expecting that sort of impact front on. What if the fella copping the bump from Dan Hannebury was a skinny kid in his first year?
I understand that they don't want players leaving themselves exposed, but what else is a player supposed to do if he doesn't put his head over the pill and just pick it up? You might just get the spectacle that turns out to be ugly and unattractive footy when no ones wants to pick it up and they tap it along until there is a scrimmage and the inevitable ball up after ball up.
Agree. Both the Ablett and Hurley hits should be the type the league is trying to rule and penalise out of the game. The concussion stuff is flavour of the month and the hysteria will settle. Paralysis is always a risk in our game, even more now than in earlier eras as the attack on the ball is so much more ferocious. How a bump directly to the head, front on, is seen as acceptable I cannot fathom. And no, I am not talking about accidental head clashes.
There are clearly options such as kicking in danger that if chosen by a player when going for the ball should be penalised. It is seen as dangerous. Should one such kick land on a head I suspect weeks on the sidelines would follow. To fail to penalise an even more dangerous method of going for the ball is worrying.
The laugh is the tap to the midriff gets you a week.
the invisible and the non existent look very much alike
6621104 wrote:Agree. Both the Ablett and Hurley hits should be the type the league is trying to rule and penalise out of the game. The concussion stuff is flavour of the month and the hysteria will settle. Paralysis is always a risk in our game, even more now than in earlier eras as the attack on the ball is so much more ferocious. How a bump directly to the head, front on, is seen as acceptable I cannot fathom. And no, I am not talking about accidental head clashes.
There are clearly options such as kicking in danger that if chosen by a player when going for the ball should be penalised. It is seen as dangerous. Should one such kick land on a head I suspect weeks on the sidelines would follow. To fail to penalise an even more dangerous method of going for the ball is worrying.
The laugh is the tap to the midriff gets you a week.
Ablett was a disgrace on Sunday. Put his head out to be hit so he would get a free. Very obvious. He could have really got hurt. he is good enough to know how to protect himself. Excellent decision not to suspend Cooney. Should have a word to the champ about how dangerous that was.
6621104 wrote:Agree. Both the Ablett and Hurley hits should be the type the league is trying to rule and penalise out of the game. The concussion stuff is flavour of the month and the hysteria will settle. Paralysis is always a risk in our game, even more now than in earlier eras as the attack on the ball is so much more ferocious. How a bump directly to the head, front on, is seen as acceptable I cannot fathom. And no, I am not talking about accidental head clashes.
There are clearly options such as kicking in danger that if chosen by a player when going for the ball should be penalised. It is seen as dangerous. Should one such kick land on a head I suspect weeks on the sidelines would follow. To fail to penalise an even more dangerous method of going for the ball is worrying.
The laugh is the tap to the midriff gets you a week.
Ablett was a disgrace on Sunday. Put his head out to be hit so he would get a free. Very obvious. He could have really got hurt. he is good enough to know how to protect himself. Excellent decision not to suspend Cooney. Should have a word to the champ about how dangerous that was.
I agree with you there Plugger. He lifts his head a little and sees Cooney coming before putting it back in harms way. Silly and dangerous.
Wouldn't call him a disgrace though.
Give me one flag & I'll go to my grave a happy man.
6621104 wrote:Agree. Both the Ablett and Hurley hits should be the type the league is trying to rule and penalise out of the game. The concussion stuff is flavour of the month and the hysteria will settle. Paralysis is always a risk in our game, even more now than in earlier eras as the attack on the ball is so much more ferocious. How a bump directly to the head, front on, is seen as acceptable I cannot fathom. And no, I am not talking about accidental head clashes.
There are clearly options such as kicking in danger that if chosen by a player when going for the ball should be penalised. It is seen as dangerous. Should one such kick land on a head I suspect weeks on the sidelines would follow. To fail to penalise an even more dangerous method of going for the ball is worrying.
The laugh is the tap to the midriff gets you a week.
Ablett was a disgrace on Sunday. Put his head out to be hit so he would get a free. Very obvious. He could have really got hurt. he is good enough to know how to protect himself. Excellent decision not to suspend Cooney. Should have a word to the champ about how dangerous that was.
I agree with you there Plugger. He lifts his head a little and sees Cooney coming before putting it back in harms way. Silly and dangerous.
Wouldn't call him a disgrace though.
Yep you are right. What he did was very bad though. Imagine if Cooney had broken Ablett neck. it would wreck both their lives. Ablett is clearly the best player in the comp and could be the best ever. he knows the right way to attck the footy and doesnt need to play for frees. it was silly and dangerous.