Not the point. It was this action that basically put him out of the game and then began all of his injury concerns since then.Yeah I've seen it. Show me the point of impact below the knee.
You know also, even if that free kick was paid, the Swans would still have lost
Scandal The 2016 finals series was rigged
- Thread starter Cotchins Hair Piece
- Start date
- Tagged users None
SSwans2011
Hall of Famer
Never said otherwise. Merely disputed the fact that no contact was made with the lower knee which is categorically untrue. No need to get all defensive.You know also, even if that free kick was paid, the Swans would still have lost
Rule 17.7.2 (b): making forceful contact below the knees of an opposition Player or executing a forceful action towards the lower leg of an opposition Player, causing the opposition Player to take evasive action.
Swans fans talk as though it was a black and white incorrect decision, it clearly wasn't.
It is the point though. Injuries occur from legal activities, not always from indiscretions or AFL conspiracies.
SSwans2011
Hall of Famer
No, we talk about it as a confirmed incorrect decision. Which it is.
Just like how the AFL confirmed the umpiring "cost the Swans four goals" as that ridiculous article in The Australian stated?
SSwans2011
Hall of Famer
Sorry, did I say they did?
You didn't, no.
I just don't understand how anyone can state that it was absolutely a free kick given the contact was made TO the knee, let alone bang on about the decision 5 years later. It's grey.
SSwans2011
Hall of Famer
It seems that you're arguing against what you want me to be saying rather than what I'm actually saying. I didn't even bring it up. I responded to a post made by a Bulldogs fan about it.
I'm saying it's absolutely a free kick, because it was confirmed by the AFL that it should have been. The AFL virtually only ever concede free kick errors when it's almost indisputable that the wrong decision has been made.
I'm arguing against you stating it was clearly a free kick because I don't believe it was, I think it was grey based on the video and the rule itself. Maybe it's a point of rule interpretation that contact to the knee qualifies.
I have never seen a report from the AFL stating that it was an incorrect decision, only a single article without quotes from FoxSports (which is why I referenced the completely bogus article from The Australian which came out at the same time).
SSwans2011
Hall of Famer
It was one of 3-4 free kicks included in the report that they confirmed were incorrect decisions. The rest are probably more contentious, but that one was so blatant and consequential it was deemed the most notable.
I don't think suggesting that one was an incorrect decision is even really contentious at this point.
The article which called it "most notable" no doubt called it that because it was the one everyone spoke about in the days following, I highly doubt the AFL review (which no one has actually seen) called it that.
Anyway, I've made my point. In my mind the decision was absolutely grey, regardless of any review made by the AFL, based on the footage and the wording of the rule itself. It was not a blatantly incorrect decision.
SSwans2011
Hall of Famer
You're entitled to think that, but I'd suggest having a crack at Swans fans for being miffed by that one when it's a confirmed incorrect decision by the AFL is a bit silly.
Lol. Please. Read the entire thread.
SSwans2011
Hall of Famer
You replied to me. That was my second post in this thread.
I'm not sure how exactly I "had a crack" at you other than saying the decision wouldn't have won you the game anyway?
SSwans2011
Hall of Famer
Okay, maybe have a crack wasn't right. But inventing arguments (as below) I never made to substantiate your point was a little weird.
You know also, even if that free kick was paid, the Swans would still have lost
It's not really that weird when you look at the title and premise of the thread.
SSwans2011
Hall of Famer
I didn't make the thread. Nor have I said we would have won the game.
I think it would be pushing it to do so given there was similar contentious calls in the GWS game, and they seemed to have our number at that point.
Mofra
Moderator
- Dec 6, 2005
- 67,099
- 198,388
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Footscray, Coney Island Warriors
- Moderator
- #194
If Hannebury went as low and as hard as Wood it would have been a shoulder to shoulder contest, and play on.
Exactly like the Clay Smith / Ryan Griffen contest just before 3/4 time in the prelim. Both players went low and hard and just clashed shoulders.
Mofra
Moderator
- Dec 6, 2005
- 67,099
- 198,388
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Footscray, Coney Island Warriors
- Moderator
- #196
Buddy's ankle injury was a huge factor in the outcome. Second only to Libba completely sacrificing his game in the second half to tag Kennedy, who was easily BOG in the first half.
SSwans2011
Hall of Famer
It stipulates any forceful contact below the knee is a free kick. Although I will concede and agree that the majority of the contact is made above the knee, I think that quite clearly contact was also made below the knee. I also suspect the AFL would have had alternative angles in their review of the incident, and they ultimate called it an incorrect decision. I don't trust AFL competence when it comes to rules, but contact below the knees, with the benefit of review, is a pretty easy one to not balls-up.
Draft Pick
Cancelled
- Jun 17, 2004
- 2,551
- 3,591
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Western Bulldogs
Why do people bang on about the Wood/Hannebery incident.
Yes unfortunately Dan Hannebery got injured, but that is what happens in a contact sport. (Please don’t tell me that Swans supporters think that there was malicious intent from Wood.
)
But it did not lead to any score !!!!
If people watch the replay JJ picked the ball up from the spill and turned it over. The Swans got their precious free kick about 30 seconds later from a doubtful holding the ball decision that went against Dale Morris.
That free kick had no impact on the game either.
Yes unfortunately Dan Hannebery got injured, but that is what happens in a contact sport. (Please don’t tell me that Swans supporters think that there was malicious intent from Wood.
)But it did not lead to any score !!!!
If people watch the replay JJ picked the ball up from the spill and turned it over. The Swans got their precious free kick about 30 seconds later from a doubtful holding the ball decision that went against Dale Morris.
That free kick had no impact on the game either.
GetDimmaBack
BigFooty Librarian
Veteran
Western Bulldogs - Mitch Honeychurch Player Sponsor 2017
Western Bulldogs - Josh Prudden Player Sponsor 2017
Western Bulldogs - Mitch Honeychurch Player Sponsor 2016
Western Bulldogs - Josh Prudden Player Sponsor 2016
Western Bulldogs - Cordy, Honeychurch, Prudden, Dale Player Sponsor 2015
Western Bulldogs - Honeychurch/Austin/Prudden Player Sponsor 2014
Western Bulldogs - Christian Howard/Mark Austin Player Sponsor 2013
- Mar 30, 2008
- 9,374
- 11,501
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Sunderland, Phillip Island Dogs
I was fortunate enough to speak to one of our backmen a few months after the GF, and he said the same. He acknowledged that a fit Buddy might have been
"hard to hold".
Fair understatement, that.
The problem is that it wasn't an incorrect decision.
If you go and look at it again the contact from Wood was actually above the knee of Hannebery.
