Zac Merrett tackle

[citizen-erased]

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

Day had both of close's arms pinned though. Cant say its worse when thats the action they want to ban

Rohan's was worse than day's though, given the sling action.

So if anything;
Rohan - 2
Day - 1
Merrett - fine

 

[citizen-erased]

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.

I fail to see how merrett's risk assessment of a standard footballing action constitutes an upheld charge, yet caminiti's malarky about pushing off, not looking at Murphy, being in the contest and not knowing he'd caught him high (stepped over him for the next contest) was ok to lessen the charges.
Id cop the merrett week if they were truly serious about protecting the head and handed 6 to caminiti and brought bans in for knees to heads in marking contests

 

[AlwaysHawks15]

day had his arms pinned, no way to protect himself, merret didnt

Rubbish. It was all 1 action, tackle brings the player to ground. Close had his legs caught under Day which caused the way he fell. Both he and Merrett should not have been suspended is what I'm saying.

 

[AlwaysHawks15]

Day had both of close's arms pinned though. Cant say its worse when thats the action they want to ban

Rohan's was worse than day's though, given the sling action.

So if anything;
Rohan - 2
Day - 1
Merrett - fine

Day lunged at Close to begin with. Couldn't really control how he had hold of Close it was all 1 action. Should we discourage lunging to tackle somebody in case they get hurt?. Merrett had more control of his tackle.

 

[chungi]

The inconsistency from round to round is beyond a joke. It's a lotto. How Elliot and Oliver avoided any sanction and Merrett & Day miss games is staggering. They can't be serious.

Also, potential to cause injury - where do you draw the line? And on what actions is this applied to?

It's easy after the fact to apply hypothetical circumstances which could have resulted in Sparrow sustaining an injury. But those circumstances did not exist, and Sparrow was not injured. Sure, if Sparrow had hit the ground at a different angle or with harder force, he could have sustained an injury - but that just did not happen.

In this case, how can the potential for injury be there if there was no injury? Would it not have to have been a different tackle with different circumstances for that injury to actually occur?

Granted some of the different circumstances could be quite small, but again, where do they draw the line? Every regulation high contact free kick throughout a game has some sort of potential to cause a concussion with slightly different circumstances applied. How do you measure or grade potential?

I dunno. Just very disillusioned & frustrated with footy at the moment.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

In this case, how can the potential for injury be there if there was no injury? Would it not have to have been a different tackle with different circumstances for that injury to actually occur?

That is just pure and simply luck. Merrett is lucky he wasn't injured. Honestly I know players are a little dumb but this "oh but he wasn't injured" does not fly one single bit. It's not 1980 anymore it's a changing world. I'd say the same if Sydney players did it and I said it when Franklin was done, I'd have zero issues if they whacked these incidents.

 

[chungi]

That is just pure and simply luck. Merrett is lucky he wasn't injured. Honestly I know players are a little dumb but this "oh but he wasn't injured" does not fly one single bit. It's not 1980 anymore it's a changing world. I'd say the same if Sydney players did it and I said it when Franklin was done, I'd have zero issues if they whacked these incidents.

Is it luck? Or did Merrett show a higher duty of care then he may have 5 years ago by not bringing him to ground harder or twisting him in the tackle? He certainly could have. And the umpire right on the spot had no issue with the tackle, nor did Sparrow or any other Melbourne player as no one remonstrated with Merrett.

How can the tribunal measure luck or potential, maybes and maybe nots. It's a very difficult parameter to be suspending players on and is going to lead to a lot of inconsistencies.

Anyway, the 'Tackling the tackling issue' thread will certainly be an interesting read.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Is it luck? Or did Merrett show a higher duty of care then he may have 5 years ago by not bringing him to ground harder or twisting him in the tackle? He certainly could have. And the umpire right on the spot had no issue with the tackle, nor did Sparrow or any other Melbourne player as no one remonstrated with Merrett.

How can the tribunal measure luck or potential, maybes and maybe nots. It's a very difficult parameter to be suspending players on and is going to lead to a lot of inconsistencies.

Anyway, the 'Tackling the tackling issue' thread will certainly be an interesting read.

You are thinking like it would be in 1980 or at least a decade ago gone are the days where the ball carrier is the one in the wrong. Tackler needs to ensure no head contact is involved in a tackling motion

 

[BomberManU]

You are thinking like it would be in 1980 or at least a decade ago gone are the days where the ball carrier is the one in the wrong. Tackler needs to ensure no head contact is involved in a tackling motion

Why wasn't McKay suspended then?

 

[citizen-erased]

Why wasn't McKay suspended then?

lawyers

theirs are better

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Why wasn't McKay suspended then?

He should have been so should have Oliver but one wrong decision doesn’t mean you make another one

 

[BomberManU]

He should have been so should have Oliver but one wrong decision doesn’t mean you make another one

No, in Oliver's case the player's head didn't hit the ground - free kick only, not reportable.

 

[ferball]

That is just pure and simply luck. Merrett is lucky he wasn't injured. Honestly I know players are a little dumb but this "oh but he wasn't injured" does not fly one single bit. It's not 1980 anymore it's a changing world. I'd say the same if Sydney players did it and I said it when Franklin was done, I'd have zero issues if they whacked these incidents.

Every tackle is just luck then. If you stand up in a tackle and try to break it the tackler has to add more force to the tackle and as a result will lose control of the you in terms of keeping them on their feet and "safe". Is the tackler sposed to let the player go then?

Tackling and pinning the arms is fundamental to an effective tackle that stops the player getting rid of the ball legally. (Altho incorrect disposal seems to be a thing of the past anyway.)

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Every tackle is just luck then. If you stand up in a tackle and try to break it the tackler has to add more force to the tackle and as a result will lose control of the you in terms of keeping them on their feet and "safe". Is the tackler sposed to let the player go then?

Tackling and pinning the arms is fundamental to an effective tackle that stops the player getting rid of the ball legally. (Altho incorrect disposal seems to be a thing of the past anyway.)

You can add force but don’t do it in a way that has head contact. There’s tackling hard which is 100% part of the game. We cannot in todays age have tackles that have head contact. I blame the umpires more though- call a ball up that way we don’t have 1000 tackles going on and on

 

[LukeParkerno1]

No, in Oliver's case the player's head didn't hit the ground - free kick only, not reportable.

Could have easily gone on potential to cause injury

 

[BomberManU]

Could have easily gone on potential to cause injury

If the head doesn't hit the ground, there's no potential to cause injury.

 

[ferball]

You can add force but don’t do it in a way that has head contact. There’s tackling hard which is 100% part of the game. We cannot in todays age have tackles that have head contact. I blame the umpires more though- call a ball up that way we don’t have 1000 tackles going on and on

The tackler is struggling to control the player with the ball, who is struggling to break the tackle. This situation is set up to have one or both players lose their balance and that is what seems to draw the suspensions these days.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

If the head doesn't hit the ground, there's no potential to cause injury.

You have potential to cause injury by mearly breathing

It's a stupid wording that allows the mro/tribunal to throw their weight around

 

[LukeParkerno1]

The tackler is struggling to control the player with the ball, who is struggling to break the tackle. This situation is set up to have one or both players lose their balance and that is what seems to draw the suspensions these days.

Not an excuse. Players need to change with the times. If that means you softer the tackle then so be it.

 

[BomberManU]

You have potential to cause injury by mearly breathing

It's a stupid wording that allows the mro/tribunal to throw their weight around

They're going down the path of 'if you choose to bump' etc. Problem is, there's no alternative, unlike bumping, where players were encouraged to tackle instead. And here we are.

 

[Stamos]

Cripps had his appeal overturned on a judicial error, a legal technicality basically. This loophole was closed in the off-season.

This is incorrect.
Cripps was only suspended due the judicial error. The tribunal was unable to reasonably find him guilty.
There was no loophole.

 

[hawkman]

The crazy part of all this is that both Stanley and Rotham got off for similar tackles this weekend. Rotham's was probably the worst and got nothing

 

[ferball]

Not an excuse. Players need to change with the times. If that means you softer the tackle then so be it.

That's unacceptable. Why even have tackling if players can't do it properly?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

That's unacceptable. Why even have tackling if players can't do it properly?

You can do it properly without getting players concussed players need to stop with the excuses.

 

[HairyO]

You have potential to cause injury by mearly breathing

It's a stupid wording that allows the mro/tribunal to throw their weight around

And to protect Brownlow favourites by making it a fine and telling the media to use the word "lucky".