Hurn high hit on Honeychurch

Remove this Banner Ad

Courtesy of RookiePick


tenor.gif


Honeychurch is the toddler, Hurn is the oven, just for those who didn't get it.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Players leading with their head or intentionally creating high contact is a result of legislative changes to protect the head. In the past, the threat of injury playing a contact sport was self regulated. Players were taught to protect themselves. It was the sensible thing to do. Turn side on like Hurn did. I have a duty of care not to get my head knocked off. You don't need to legislate this because it is common sense.

So now we have a duty of care to protect everyone's head but our own and players are running around trying to get hit in the head. This is madness.
We all have Selwood to thank - this never existed prior to 2007
 
This could be interesting...
If the MRO deems it to be incidental conduct then it is 0 weeks, regardless of the impact to Honeychurch. This is how I think it should go.

If the MRO deems it not incidental, i.e. Careless, then I don’t see how Hurn can get less than 2 weeks.

C3F8A3EE-60D7-49BA-922A-88DA2C943237.jpeg
The best he could hope for is Careless, High and High.
 
I'd rather hold the AFL responsible
Yep, ultimately they are responsible for the rules of the game and they have horribly neglected this festering turd of an issue for 12 years. Now the players need to be protected from themselves because Selwood cynically identified a loophole in the rules to ruthlessly exploit all those years ago.
 
Watching it live on tv first reaction was nothing in it. Then first 3 or 4 replays still nothing in it. Then they replay it more, slow it down and maybe it looks like there is something in it.

I think they should go with the first 5 times I saw it. If you slow anything down and watch it enough times it can look bad.

Nothing in it. My guess, Christian will sit on the fence and give him a fine.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 
Not sure why you used this in your reply?
Wasn’t this in reference to that dog Masten for biting Suban?
Yes but expect Honeychurch's broken eye socket to be used as evidence that Hurn should be banned for life when really he should come cut and back Hurn in as it was nothingnmore than a football incident and bad luck.
 
Yes but expect Honeychurch's broken eye socket to be used as evidence that Hurn should be banned for life when really he should come cut and back Hurn in as it was nothingnmore than a football incident and bad luck.
Doesn't have a broken eye socket.
 
There are too many Dogs players who lead with their head. Hunter, Macrae and Mclean did it multiple times throughout the game. Eventually and unfortunately an event similar to this was likely to happen. Get the kids coming through juniors now to look at what not to do going in a contest if any of you folks coach the 12-16 bracket.

Honeychurch didn't lead with his head, he was attempting to gain possession of the ball on the ground, couldn't, then stumbled into Hurn. That's not leading with the head.

Not that I want Hurn suspended, I didn't think the contact warranted that.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Hurn was stationary . The only bumping motion was from honeychurch . Not hurns fault honeychurch stumbled head first into him . Hurn had every right to protect himself

Further more honeychurch didnt fumble the ball he didnt even touch it
I don't know what you guys are watching, Hurn is in no way stationary.

I don't think it should be a suspension, but he is definitely moving forward.
 
So to recap Honeychurch should not have had his head down. He should have tried to pick up the ball standing up straight or slid in and collected hurn’s legs to give away a free
 
Last edited:
I know I may be biaised, but after looking at the video heaps of times, I don't know what else Hurn could have done. He merely braced for impact and turned slightly to protect himself. Honeychurch's head struck him on, or just above, his hip. Hurn
certainly wasn't charging him. He went from a fairly slow forward motion to stopped, just before impact.

No case to answer.

EDIT. As I was typing this, the decision came down stating almost exactly what I wrote.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top