Hannebery's "Bump"

[Reggi]

No alternative way to contest the ball. Was also declared not to be a free kick

[ScottH]

Cleared

Good!!

[Reggi]

Cleared

[ScottH]

All the talk in the media I've heard since the game was he should have no case to answer.
They all cite the Hodge case, and say it is similar.

I guess we can only wait and see which way the MRP swing this week.

[ugg]

This is probably correct, but you often see the ball bounce and roll quite a long way. So theoretically, a player can follow the ball with his head down for 30 odd metres and no one can touch him. The opposition could only let the player through, then follow the player until he took possession and then try to tackle.

In this case Hurley fumbled the ball. But suppose he tapped the ball forward and followed it with head down. A skillful player can control the ball and move it forward without taking possession, keep the head over the ball, and form a vortex of invincibility in front of him.

It's a bit of a crazy situation. You have to allow a player to reasonably contest the ball without the certainty of being suspended.

I wasn't talking about the possibility of a suspension, it was just in reference to whether a free kick should be paid.

[ugg]

Logical, but whe you watch it, he is half up and ducks into Hanners

I've just looked at it again and I can't agree. I even think that he doesn't even notice Hanners at all, otherwise he would have performed some instinctive protective manoeuvre.

[Ludwig]

Hurley had his head down because he had fumbled the ball and was looking to re-gather, probably with a smidgin of panic in his actions. I believe the rule is if you have the ball and then duck your head and draw contact you don't get a free, but if you've put your head down while attempting to gather the ball and then get taken high, you're entitled to a free and I believe that was what Hurley's situation was.

This is probably correct, but you often see the ball bounce and roll quite a long way. So theoretically, a player can follow the ball with his head down for 30 odd metres and no one can touch him. The opposition could only let the player through, then follow the player until he took possession and then try to tackle.

In this case Hurley fumbled the ball. But suppose he tapped the ball forward and followed it with head down. A skillful player can control the ball and move it forward without taking possession, keep the head over the ball, and form a vortex of invincibility in front of him.

It's a bit of a crazy situation. You have to allow a player to reasonably contest the ball without the certainty of being suspended.

[Reggi]

Hurley had his head down because he had fumbled the ball and was looking to re-gather, probably with a smidgin of panic in his actions. I believe the rule is if you have the ball and then duck your head and draw contact you don't get a free, but if you've put your head down while attempting to gather the ball and then get taken high, you're entitled to a free and I believe that was what Hurley's situation was.

Logical, but whe you watch it, he is half up and ducks into Hanners

[longmile]

I think you are spot on there Ugg

[ugg]

Hurley had his head down because he had fumbled the ball and was looking to re-gather, probably with a smidgin of panic in his actions. I believe the rule is if you have the ball and then duck your head and draw contact you don't get a free, but if you've put your head down while attempting to gather the ball and then get taken high, you're entitled to a free and I believe that was what Hurley's situation was.

[Reggi]

I do. Hanners would not have hit him high at all if he hadn't ducked into him to draw the free. If they paynthosevfrees more guys will do it

[stellation]

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

He certainly seemed to be looking for contact, but he'd had his head down for a while before it was made. I would have had no issue with him being paid a free there.

[Swansongster]

It's going to be a big call either way. You can be guaranteed that there will be polar reactions from pundits and fans whichever way it goes.

Pretty sure it will be appealed by Swans if one week or more is found to be the penalty and there will be cries of favourtism if a reprimand or less is handed down.

When can we expect the MRP to deliberate and communicate their findings?

[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

[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.