Zac Merrett tackle

[LukeParkerno1]

Stranger things come brownlow night.

This wasn't a sling for me. He pulls him down. A sling is more what Green did in that the tackling player changes the direction the player falls

At the point merrett tackles, sparrow fends and leans into merrett. At that point both have the same momentum direction and fall together.

The free is because the tackle starts high, not because the ump saw a dangerous action.

And even if you cede it as a dangerous tackle, its low impact not medium.

Can’t agree based on tackles this season which got a medium grade too. That’s as medium as you get no way it’s low.

 

[HirdyLannister]

Players should start doing hip drop tackles to protect the ball carriers head...

 

[citizen-erased]

Can’t agree based on tackles this season which got a medium grade too. That’s as medium as you get no way it’s low.

Afl says these are low
Side by side with merrett

 

[XhazzafootyX]

Just quietly, Clayton oliver

13

Clayton Oliver

Age

26

Ht

189cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

27.8

5star

K

9.5

4star

HB

18.4

5star

M

3.2

3star

T

6.3

5star

CL

6.3

5star

D

25.1

5star

K

11.1

4star

HB

14.0

5star

M

3.6

4star

T

5.6

5star

CL

5.9

5star

D

19.2

5star

K

4.6

2star

HB

14.6

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

4.4

5star

CL

3.8

5star

should’ve been suspended for his tackle vs the swans a few weeks back

 

[Drummond]

Absolutely disgraceful that he’s been suspended for this. Unreal.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

They’ve lost the plot.

Players just getting suspended left right and centre for simple tackles where it still remains a complete lucky dip between similar or worse actions as to what is actually punished.

Whole system needs a complete overhaul with clear guidelines on what actually constitutes low/medium impact rather than the lucky dip merry go round.

Ridiculous you can elbow a player in the head but tackle them without issue and you miss a week.

 

[Beerfish]

Where were all these Essendon fans in the first 4 rounds?
Would have loved your input on what constitutes a dangerous tackle back then.

Sorry mate been busy winning games of footy.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Afl says these are low
Side by side with merrett

Just because 1-2 were wrong doesn’t mean this one wasn’t medium. It’s medium, head hit the ground direct that’s medium. Might have been low if it was t head impact.

 

[citizen-erased]

Just because 1-2 were wrong doesn’t mean this one wasn’t medium. It’s medium, head hit the ground direct that’s medium. Might have been low if it was t head impact.

Those are from last year but examples from the afl on what is low.

So they set a standard and deviated within weeks.

I get the green, rohan and day (should have been 1) tackles. Adams too given he rolls an already tackled player
That newcombe gets a fine and merrett gets the stiffer penalty along with the above....feels off

 

[kozi]

Just quietly, Clayton oliver should’ve been suspended for his tackle vs the swans a few weeks back

Someone just sent me the vision. Baffling how it didn't even get a mention

 

[Foxx]

Nah. The AFL are beyond ****ed.

They have to mate. These brain injury cases have them cornered.

 

[eth-dog]

They have to mate. These brain injury cases have them cornered.

No, they don't. They're jumping at shadows. That was a perfect tackle.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Those are from last year but examples from the afl on what is low.

So they set a standard and deviated within weeks.

I get the green, rohan and day (should have been 1) tackles. Adams too given he rolls an already tackled player
That newcombe gets a fine and merrett gets the stiffer penalty along with the above....feels off

If it means protecting the players more it’s hardly a bad thing. We as people need to take concussions seriously and if that means a few softer suspensions so be it. Players will get the message very quickly. Last year is last year, it’s clear things have changed since r1 this year. They are going harder on this action and that isn’t a bad thing

 

[citizen-erased]

If it means protecting the players more it’s hardly a bad thing. We as people need to take concussions seriously and if that means a few softer suspensions so be it. Players will get the message very quickly. Last year is last year, it’s clear things have changed since r1 this year. They are going harder on this action and that isn’t a bad thing

I can't square that with newcombe amd mckay getting fines and caminiti being suspended for only 3.

Messages id be getting from the last two weeks is come up with creative excuses to whack an opponent in the head.

 

[Foxx]

No, they don't. They're jumping at shadows. That was a perfect tackle.

Well those shadows have court cases against the AFL.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Well those shadows have court cases against the AFL.

so ban all contact then

concussion is concussion whether it's from a tackle or a knee in the back of the head from a marking contest. The court cases aren't going to dispute between avoidable and unavoidable concussion. It is all technically avoidable if you implement rules for it.

I am all for outlawing dangerous tackles to protect players, but the idea that Merrett's tackle is dangerous is 100% jumping at shadows. The tribunal are literally saying that Merrett should have done a risk assessment mid tackle and let the player go, IE let him get the disposal off. It's ludicrous.

 

[Foxx]

so ban all contact then

concussion is concussion whether it's from a tackle or a knee in the back of the head from a marking contest. The court cases aren't going to dispute between avoidable and unavoidable concussion. It is all technically avoidable if you implement rules for it.

I am all for outlawing dangerous tackles to protect players, but the idea that Merrett's tackle is dangerous is 100% jumping at shadows. The tribunal are literally saying that Merrett should have done a risk assessment mid tackle and let the player go, IE let him get the disposal off. It's ludicrous.

Merrett drove him down from an upright vertical position. He wasn't coming with speed into the contest. He could have chosen to keep him upright, or both fallen to the ground. But instead he used force to drive him to the ground. It was a dangerous tackle.
Those tackles are few and far between. So it hardly represent a legitimate tackle.


And the AFL have to be seen to be doing everything within its power to minimise head high concussion.
Dangerous tackles, striking etc.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Merrett drove him down from an upright vertical position. He wasn't coming with speed into the contest. He could have chosen to keep him upright, or both fallen to the ground. But instead he used force to drive him to the ground. It was a dangerous tackle.
Those tackles are few and far between. So it hardly represent a legitimate tackle.


And the AFL have to be seen to be doing everything within its power to minimise head high concussion.
Dangerous tackles, striking etc.

If Merrett keeps sparrow upright, sparrow can dispose of the ball. Umpires take forever to blow a whistle.

What is the point of tackling if it is not render the person unable to dispose the ball?

Merrett PULLS him down with his bodyweight. he did not Drive anything. Driving is a forward pushing motion. But regardless it is what is it, but if Merrett's tackle is the blueprint for what is to be considered a dangerous tackle, then i suspect we will see a record number of suspensions this year.

 

[hirdylloydy1]

Merrett drove him down from an upright vertical position. He wasn't coming with speed into the contest. He could have chosen to keep him upright, or both fallen to the ground. But instead he used force to drive him to the ground. It was a dangerous tackle.
Those tackles are few and far between. So it hardly represent a legitimate tackle.


And the AFL have to be seen to be doing everything within its power to minimise head high concussion.
Dangerous tackles, striking etc.

the melbourne player chose not to protect his fall by not letting go of the ball, if he drops the ball and puts his hand out his head goes no where near the ground. punishing merrett for the stupidity of the melbourne player seems off. merrett also took most of the blow of the tackle as he brought him down on to himself.

you may say the afl have to be seen to be doing everything, but how does this explain the numerous other dangerous tackles this round and prior which where not even cited?

 

[Foxx]

the melbourne player chose not to protect his fall by not letting go of the ball, if he drops the ball and puts his hand out his head goes no where near the ground. punishing merrett for the stupidity of the melbourne player seems off. merrett also took most of the blow of the tackle as he brought him down on to himself.

you may say the afl have to be seen to be doing everything, but how does this explain the numerous other dangerous tackles this round and prior which where not even cited?

Merrett might have tried to cushion the blow, but failed. Sparrows head hit the ground not Zachs shoulder. That's Zachs fault.

Yeah Sparrow could have protected himself, but it's not his fault.

The AFL missed a couple imo too. The Oliver one a couple of weeks ago was a shocker. The MRP must have been on holidays.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Worse than will day that got 2 (neither were worth even a week)

 

[Foxx]

If Merrett keeps sparrow upright, sparrow can dispose of the ball. Umpires take forever to blow a whistle.

What is the point of tackling if it is not render the person unable to dispose the ball?

Merrett PULLS him down with his bodyweight. he did not Drive anything. Driving is a forward pushing motion. But regardless it is what is it, but if Merrett's tackle is the blueprint for what is to be considered a dangerous tackle, then i suspect we will see a record number of suspensions this year.

Sparrow would have found it hard to dispose of it with one arm pinned. The point of tackling is shown by the other 99.5% of non dangerous tackles every week.

 

[00Stinger]

he slams his had into the ground

Thats a week in todays game, if they are serious is is the action that it is a suspendable, not the result

And tbf I don't know if I really agree with this

 

[eth-dog]

so ban all contact then

concussion is concussion whether it's from a tackle or a knee in the back of the head from a marking contest. The court cases aren't going to dispute between avoidable and unavoidable concussion. It is all technically avoidable if you implement rules for it.

I am all for outlawing dangerous tackles to protect players, but the idea that Merrett's tackle is dangerous is 100% jumping at shadows. The tribunal are literally saying that Merrett should have done a risk assessment mid tackle and let the player go, IE let him get the disposal off. It's ludicrous.

Nailed it

 

[Hungdaddy]

Surely the risk of concussion in Merrett's tackle and Day's tackle is far less that Himmelberg kneeing Sicily in the neck at pace taking a mark last weekend?

This whole affair is classic reactive AFL. The media buzz of concussion lawsuits becomes louder and so they pay lip service to mitigating future concussions by being seen to penalize some of the most unlikely incidents (I'm not a doctor) to cause concussion. You can just imagine their lawyers, "well you've shown a reasonable duty of care..."