Zac Merrett tackle

Remove this Banner Ad

It’s not about what you see, it’s what the media/ commentators see…
There were probably 15-20 of those tackles over the weekend. If the producer doesn't want to highlight them then some will get away with it
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The AFL can't have Essendon up and about. Guarantee if he wore black and white he'd have nothing to answer for.
 
this is mind boggling.

Zach is expected, mid tackle, to undertake a detailed risk assessment in a millisecond and pull out. By the tribunals own words Zach should be aware where Sparrow's limbs are. Jesus...

Zach, next time. Just let him go and let him get the disposal off.
 
Hope so Patrick Cripps did and had his ban over turned on his second appeal
Cripps had his appeal overturned on a judicial error, a legal technicality basically. This loophole was closed in the off-season.
 
this is mind boggling.

Zach is expected, mid tackle, to undertake a detailed risk assessment in a millisecond and pull out. By the tribunals own words Zach should be aware where Sparrow's limbs are. Jesus...

Zach, next time. Just let him go and let him get the disposal off.
Well one of those limbs chose to hold onto the ball rather than protect himself, so Merret is accountable for what "might" happen in a tackle and in the same amount of time Sparrow can't assess that he should let go of the ball?
Plus I want to know how the tackle was both pushing and pulling!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Make players wear helmets
Helmets are useless.

Rough decision for Merrett, he clearly wasn't acting maliciously. Sometimes these things will happen on a footy field, they're gonna go the same way as "electing to bump" with "electing to tackle" and at that point we may as well wrap it all up.

This is predicated on the assumption Sparrow suffered no concussion which it seems he hasn't.
 
For years now, most tackles where a player has the arms pinned and is slung, dumped or otherwise brought to ground and hits their head have been getting at least a week when the player gets concussed or has to come off for treatment.

If the player got up and played on then the tackler had nothing to worry about. Didn't matter how forceful the tackle was. Take your victim as you find them. Some blokes were unlucky where a lower force tackle resulted in a concussion. Others had no case to answer (or a fine at worst) even though they absolutely smashed someone into the turf because that someone just happened to be harder than a cat's head, jumped up and played on.

I can understand why this doesn't suit the AFL, particularly from a liability viewpoint. It's not a blanket discouragement from these types of tackles. Plenty of players would roll the dice, lay a hard tackle and hope the bloke they are tackling gets up. Most do get up. But some don't.

So it is clear which way they are going with this and if they keep it up (big if, it's the AFL after all, who are known to flip flop), then players will need to adapt their tackling techniques. They'll manage to do that I'm sure.

As for comparisons to marking contests...concussions/injuries are a lot rarer in those aren't they? Maybe that's the next one on the AFL's list once they've sorted out tackles.
 
Well * me then

Was always screwed when charged there was nothing they could appeal on. I get why you did (important game and essential player), but it was always high Contact and medium impact. Low has to be a LOT lower force and you have to be very unlucky to be charged with low
 
Make players wear helmets
That might work, but it might not. At least its an extra layer of protection. I had some pretty serious dreadlocks when I played footy and they definitely helped in terms of getting belted in the head repeatedly at the bottom of packs.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top