Remove this Banner Ad

Zac Merrett tackle

  • Thread starter Thread starter boncer34
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

There needs to be a level of common sense here. You cannot fully eliminate head contact in this game. If you want too than just ban contact.

Zach didn't sling, he didn't drive, and he didn't complete a double action, it was literally the perfect tackle. it was literally just the players bodyweight that took them to the ground.

it was LOW impact all day.
Merrett slips initially, then used his bodyweight to drive him down to the ground.
It was medium impact let's be honest.
I don't know what else Merrett was supposed to do though. He slips so his weight is falling. So he cant control the take down tackle. He can't just let him go. It's tough.
 
Merrett slips initially, then used his bodyweight to drive him down to the ground.
It was medium impact let's be honest.
What's low in your eyes?
 
I've played and watched enough to know 3 levels. That was medium impact for mine.
And high impacts are calculated differently now too.
So what's low?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Merrett slips initially, then used his bodyweight to drive him down to the ground.
It was medium impact let's be honest.
I don't know what else Merrett was supposed to do though. He slips so his weight is falling. So he cant control the take down tackle. He can't just let him go. It's tough.

i dont see how its medium.

What's Merrett supposed to do? place him on the ground?
 
I'm just wondering what you consider low to be. He needs to place the player on the ground?
It's not high collision type impact, and it's not a fall over type low impact. It's medium like most tackles. Only this one is different for obvious concussion reasons.
 
Last edited:
They're instructed by the AFL to hold the whistle in those scenarios.

Then they are both idiots, one for issuing such a moronic directive and the Umps for not pushing back on it.

Blind Freddy can see how it creates these situations more often than not.
 
Then they are both idiots, one for issuing such a moronic directive and the Umps for not pushing back on it.

Blind Freddy can see how it creates these situations more often than not.
Yes the umpires should bite the hand that feeds them. That's not idiotic at all.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

There's a difference in player quality, so Will Day assess this one the same level of Merrett?
champagne GIF
 
Surely there should be more onus on the ball carrier to protect themselves in these circumstances. You're trained to tackle the arms to induce the incorrect disposal but in most of these situations, the ball carrier holds onto the ball for dear life instead of dropping the ball and protecting themselves - they don't want to give away a free I understand but it's getting to the point where it seems the tackler has no option but to just hug them around the waist and let them get a disposal away
I'm not saying that it's their responsibility 100%, and there's definitely tackles out there that deserve the rightful punishment and criticisim, but I think most of us can agree that Merrett's tackle was pretty by the book, it's a shame players are now getting suspended for actions like this when there's no injury and play moves on. Merrett even rolls the bloke so he lands ontop of him.

I along with most people agree that there should be protection to all players for head injuries, but it seems players are getting trained now to just take this contact and exacerbate the tackler's action in the hope of winning the free kick - putting themselves further at risk
 
Worse than Day's with the sling action, so deserves a bigger penalty.

IMO, 0 weeks and a stern talking to (they got Day's really wrong - Close landed knee first and Day was still in-front/under him at that point).
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Worse than Day's with the sling action, so deserves a bigger penalty.

IMO, 0 weeks and a stern talking to (they got Day's really wrong - Close landed knee first and Day was still in-front/under him at that point).
Both of Close's arms were pinned
Sparrow had an arm free....didnt use it but it was free. Other was between them, so pinned by both

Momentum contributed to a higher impact

And there isn't a sling. They both fall back.
Appeal will drop it to low (where it starts minus the Christian tax) and Merrett plays next week with a fine.
 
Impossible for it to be medium impact given:

1. He didn't need an assessment, period.
2. The tackle wasn't forceful.
3. He immediately went on and played the game.
4. There are no reports of a delayed concussion.

For it to be medium impact it has to have at LEAST 3 of the above to change.
 
still waiting for the MRO on yesterdays game. Given merrets suspension, adams and elliot have to go as well. wouldnt surprise to hear nothing on these
 
Impossible for it to be medium impact given:

1. He didn't need an assessment, period.
2. The tackle wasn't forceful.
3. He immediately went on and played the game.
4. There are no reports of a delayed concussion.

For it to be medium impact it has to have at LEAST 3 of the above to change.
Day last week was high impact with none of those. Even Pickett's bump the only argument would be that it was forceful
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom