- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
On Sunday night’s AFL wrap, TV host Dermott Brereton was insistent that Dan Hannebery had to face suspension for a dangerous bump.
The Sydney midfielder had collected Essendon’s Michael Hurley in alarming fashion in their Friday night game. Arriving at the ball from different directions, Hurley had bent down to pick it up, and was hit on the top of his head, contact running in the direction of his spine.
As Hurley fell to the ground clutching his head, the direction of the contact reminded one of Michael Long’s ugly hit on young Melbourne ruckman Troy Simmonds in the 2000 grand final, that resulted in a brawl and Simmonds enduring a stretchered exit in a neck brace.
“I am adamant,” said Brereton to a protesting Eddie McGuire, joining several commentators that weekend who had vowed that the Swans midfielder would feel the weight of AFL law.
He argued that Hurley had been at risk of severe spinal damage, and Hannebery was at fault.
Yet when Monday rolled around there was not even a date made with the Tribunal. The preliminary Match Review Panel threw out Hannebery’s case in the time it took to soak a teabag.
They were dead right, while Brereton and company were not.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for eliminating the kind of cranial pinball that once marked the game. When retired players start reporting that they can’t remember their own careers, the reality of brain injury becomes horribly apparent. Spinal injury is no joke either.
The AFL have cracked down, saying that any kind of hip-and-shoulder that results in head contact will be deemed the attacking player’s fault, because they should choose alternatives like tackling and smothering.
Fair enough. Just the round before last I wrote elsewhere that five players – Jarryd Roughead, Mark Le Cras, Paul Chapman, Liam Jones and Paul Duffield – should all be suspended for their attempted bumps. Every one of them charged an opponent, chose not to tackle, and made high contact.
Hannebery’s, though, was a different case.
It looked bad in real time: Hurley bent double on the wing, chasing to gather, Hannebery arriving in the frame, turning his hip toward Hurley, the Bomber falling back clutching his head.
But when you analyse the footage there is nothing to equate Hannebery’s movements with the recklessness of Le Cras or Jones.
Initially, the ball is loose on the wing with Hurley gathering it. Hannebery is not yet in the frame and would be shaping for a tackle. Hurley fumbles it at around knee height, knocking it forward three metres and showing Hannebery a chance to win the ball at ground level.
He and Hurley both approach the ball while bending down and lowering their heads, aiming to pick it up. The ball bounces fractionally into Hannebery’s ambit, and as it does, he does what he’s been doing his whole career: anticipates contact from an oncoming player, gets his foot outside the line of the ball, and without looking to see how he might get hit, turns his body to absorb that impact.
Hurley does not anticipate contact, instead acting as though it won’t occur, perhaps so consumed by trying to win the ball that he doesn’t consider the presence of an opponent.
It’s worth noting here that Hannebery is tough as Borneo teak. I’ve seen no player more willing to take a hit. Time and again we’ve seen him wait under high balls, vanish under packs, put himself square in the path of oncoming danger. He gets crunched, battles upright, limps it off, then pushes on with the game.
Check out Hannebery getting absolutely mowed down by Hurley – fairly and accidentally – on another occasion back in 2011.
This is not about extolling the virtues of Brave Dan Han. It’s about the mindset with which he approaches football: namely, accepting that every player has to take his turn to make a contest, which means putting his body on the line.
As Hannebery comes down to try to pick up that ball, he is anticipating getting hit. He doesn’t know what Hurley might do because he’s not really looking at Hurley.
The Bomber could lay a mighty hip-and-shoulder to stove in Hannebery’s ribs. He could raise up a bit and dive into a tackle, going across Hannebery’s back and slinging him to the ground. He could do any number of things.
Hannebery’s response is to turn side-on to best wear the impact, while protecting the line of the ball from Hurley so he’s most likely to be able to retain it or get a disposal away.
Hurley’s response to the contest should also have been to turn more side-on before impact, which would have resulted in a shoulder-to-shoulder contest for the ball at ground level. The player with more strength or momentum would have moved the other off the ball.
That would have kept the contest alive and kept him safe. Going in headfirst was only putting himself in danger. Hannebery, meanwhile, wasn’t looking to dish out a hit. He was looking to protect himself from one, while still fully expecting to wear it, as he’s done so many times before.
Yes, players have a responsibility to be aware of the safety of those around them, and to avoid whacking any opponents around the scone in any scenario that gives them adequate time and space.
But Hannebery’s attention was on the ball, not Hurley, and he had no way of knowing the Bomber would put himself in the firing line in that way.
It’s just as much a player’s responsibility to protect himself from head injury going into a contest. If he’s not able to, you can hardly expect his opponent to take up all the slack.