AFL Player # 7: Indefatigable Zach Merrett (c) - 5 time Crichton Medallist! 🏅🏅🏅🏅🏅

[Beerfish]

Contract Status: Unrestricted Free Agent 2027
My Boy Draft 2024: Pick 10, I Remember Bluey

 

[Bjchan13]

Tribunal and if upheld challenge that too

 

[boncer34]

Tribunal and if upheld challenge that too

Can you still take it to court? I'd do that too.

 

[Mercurial89]

Tribunal and if upheld challenge that too

If that fails he could always just play?
Who's going to stop him.

 

[frodos gardener]

If that fails he could always just play?
Who's going to stop him.

Needs the Dyle Longfark treatment.

 

[sameolds33]

Just on the whole media reporting thing,

Before we jump to conclusions etc can we realise that the captain of the essendon football club doing a reportable action before Anzac day (biggest home and away game of the year) is going to be a torch for reporters to make comment early.
It's not a conspiracy it's media doing their jobs and putting their name up as first reported by.

Good old essendon fans, go on and on about being a big club, but when it comes with media scrutiny that being a big fish leads to it's all conspiracies and hard done by comments.

The blokes on the Foxtel show First Crack last night talked about the incident as if it was already determined that Merrett would be suspended for it. One of them was David King, who's been championing getting tough on dangerous tackles and protecting the player in possession. Its not just the media doing their job in reporting the incident. It's the way the media report on the incident.

They (King, Montagna and Johnson) all said that the resolution to the problem was an easy fix. This was that umpires need to make the holding call before the second illegal action is made. A sensible proposal which addresses the actual problem - why players tackle the ball carrier to the ground - in a sensible way.

Big club or no, supporters can question the way the the media reported the incident and the subjective power of the MRO.

My own view is that it looked bad and needed to be cited. I hope it can be downgraded because the tackled player was not injured. I think it's fair that supporters question Christian's impartiality in the grading of this decision the light of Collingwood's injuries, the marquee game and his past inconsistent application of the rule.

Supporters don't have to be impartial - the MRO and the AFL rule process do. The media should be.

 

[FlyingV]

We take this guy for granted. Feeling sick at the thought of us running out for Anzac Day without the guy who best exemplifies Anzac spirit for us. What a champion he has been for us

 

[boncer34]

Just on the whole media reporting thing,

Before we jump to conclusions etc can we realise that the captain of the essendon football club doing a reportable action before Anzac day (biggest home and away game of the year) is going to be a torch for reporters to make comment early.
It's not a conspiracy it's media doing their jobs and putting their name up as first reported by.

Good old essendon fans, go on and on about being a big club, but when it comes with media scrutiny that being a big fish leads to it's all conspiracies and hard done by comments.

Watch Adams not get cited and the tin foil hats melt from the outrage.

Ignoring that MRO has been a chook lotto for awhile ie. Rohan getting 1 and Day getting 2.

 

[sameolds33]

On the topic of captains being cited, First Crack also reviewed the footage of the Dangerfield leg out in marking contest and thought that a fine was in order for that action. It seems some captains (Danger, Cripps) get greater leeway than others (Merrett, Greene) both by the MRO and the media.

 

[Foxx]

I can't see how he tackles him to the ground any other way given the positional angles both players were in. And the weight transfer from the movement.
From Zach reaching out with his arms to grab Sparrow, his legs slide in which means he and Sparrow were top heavy, and both going down high.

 

[sameolds33]

Watch Adams not get cited and the tin foil hats melt from the outrage.

Ignoring that MRO has been a chook lotto for awhile ie. Rohan getting 1 and Day getting 2.

My hat is already melting at the thought of it.

Why should we ignore that the MRO has been a chook lotto because it's subjective? It's our role to be outraged when the system doesn't work in our favour, even when it's fair.

 

[Mercurial89]

On the topic of captains being cited, First Crack also reviewed the footage of the Dangerfield leg out in marking contest and thought that a fine was in order for that action. It seems some captains (Danger, Cripps) get greater leeway than others (Merrett, Greene) both by the MRO and the media.

This one was one that did get my blood boiling. Toby brings a lot on himself but this is the type of stuff that should be called out a little stronger by those in the media, I don't really watch footy shows anymore so I'm not sure if it has or will be.

I can't see how he tackles him to the ground any other way given the positional angles both players were in. And the weight transfer from the movement.
From Zach reaching out with his arms to grab Sparrow, his legs slide in which means he and Sparrow were top heavy, and both going down high.

sameolds33 mentioned it but blowing the whistle a little earlier would assist with some dumping tackles, but Zac also didn't need to drop the guy to the ground, as I'm pretty sure the whistle has gone.

I'm interested to see if we get either of the following reactions to the spotlight being on the tackling technique.
1. Greater incidence of lower leg injuries from players using their own legs to turn and collapse a player instead of the sling motion.
2. Players resisting then not resisting momentum to allow themselves to be dumped to draw dangerous tackles (see how drawing high frees came to be).

 

[boncer34]

My hat is already melting at the thought of it.

Why should we ignore that the MRO has been a chook lotto because it's subjective? It's our role to be outraged when the system doesn't work in our favour, even when it's fair.

You really need to read my posts rather than replying to what you imagine I'm saying.

I never once said ignore that the MRO is a chook lotto or that you can't be outraged at the absurd inconsistencies.

You should be outraged it's inconsistent as hell.

What I said was people will ignore it in favour of tin foil hat conspiracies. They'll bemoan its the AFL or MRO out to get Essendon, when it's not. It's simply a dumb, poorly implemented system.

My point, all the way back to my post about the Twitter brigade which you said I couldn't post because they have the right to post whatever they want has remained the same. Don't manufacture outrage, don't make up scenarios to be outraged about. There's enough tangible things to be annoyed about (ie the system being cooked) without having to come up with ridiculous theories.

 

[ant555]

The challenge will be to downgrade to low impact I would think

 

[citizen-erased]

The challenge will be to downgrade to low impact I would think

Yeah.
Cant see zach missing this week.

 

[boncer34]

The challenge will be to downgrade to low impact I would think

100%. The example the AFL provides demonstrating low impact could be overlayed on Zerretts tackle with little discernible difference.

 

[Lore]

Just send all the high contact ones to the tribunal and forget the MRO/MRP

At least then you’ll have full reasoning for where the line is from the people actually making the call.

 

[Blind Turn]

It needs to be considered, did Merrett have an alternative once Sparrow elected not to dispose of the footy? If Merrett had his arms pinned then bringing him to the ground is excessive seeing as Sparrow would have no chance of releasing the ball. The arms weren’t pinned, therefore Merrett was obliged to continue with the tackle which had a momentum trajectory by this point.

 

[Lore]

and the whistle didn’t go until they were already off balance and falling.

 

[sameolds33]

You really need to read my posts rather than replying to what you imagine I'm saying.

I never once said ignore that the MRO is a chook lotto or that you can't be outraged at the absurd inconsistencies.

You should be outraged it's inconsistent as hell.

What I said was people will ignore it in favour of tin foil hat conspiracies. They'll bemoan its the AFL or MRO out to get Essendon, when it's not. It's simply a dumb, poorly implemented system.

My point, all the way back to my post about the Twitter brigade which you said I couldn't post because they have the right to post whatever they want has remained the same. Don't manufacture outrage, don't make up scenarios to be outraged about. There's enough tangible things to be annoyed about (ie the system being cooked) without having to come up with ridiculous theories.

It's an online forum - the number of "likes" a posted opinion gets doesn't make it any more right or more valid.

Your subjective opinion is no more valid than mine or the posters who you said you were laughing at because they were complaining about bias in the media and the MRO. To give it a football metaphor, you were playing the man and not the ball. You're the one who characterised their opinions as tinfoilery and "ridiculous theories".

I never said that you couldn't post. I said that people were entitled to their opinions, tinfoilery or not. I objected to you belittling posters who complained of bias. I like reading what people have to say, whether I agree or not. The posts that you laughed at weren't "manufacturing outrage." That's your subjective opinion.

My subjective opinion was that they were asking why the MRO is "simply a dumb, poorly implemented system." Is it because of the people involved? is it because the media has an agenda? Is it because the AFL is a big fish in a small pond and we can't ignore the stated views of the media and the MRO - who are almost all all ex-players? I said that was a more interesting issue to discuss than asking for proof on whether there were a dozen or a half a dozen tweets.

 

[boncer34]

It's an online forum - the number of "likes" a posted opinion gets doesn't make it any more right or more valid.

Your subjective opinion is no more valid than mine or the posters who you said you were laughing at because they were complaining about bias in the media and the MRO. To give it a football metaphor, you were playing the man and not the ball. You're the one who characterised their opinions as tinfoilery and "ridiculous theories".

I never said that you couldn't post. I said that people were entitled to their opinions, tinfoilery or not. I objected to you belittling posters who complained of bias. I like reading what people have to say, whether I agree or not. The posts that you laughed at weren't "manufacturing outrage." That's your subjective opinion.

My subjective opinion was that they were asking why the MRO is "simply a dumb, poorly implemented system." Is it because of the people involved? is it because the media has an agenda? Is it because the AFL is a big fish in a small pond and we can't ignore the stated views of the media and the MRO - who are almost all all ex-players? I said that was a more interesting issue to discuss than asking for proof on whether there were a dozen or a half a dozen tweets.

I've never once said my opinion means more or that my opinion is the only right or valid one or the amount of likes matters. Hell I even agreed its their right to post whatever they want when you raised this last night.

why? isn't that the purpose of an online forum if that's what the posters want to do?

Absolutely. And I want to laugh at them.

As you said, I'm allowed to if I want to.

Again. Read and reply to my actual posts rather than what you imagine I'm saying.

 

[sameolds33]

I've never once said my opinion means more or that my opinion is the only right or valid one or the amount of likes matters. Hell I even agreed its their right to post whatever they want when you raised this last night.

Again. Read and reply to my actual posts rather than what you imagine I'm saying.

Again. Read and reply to my actual posts rather than what you imagine I'm saying.

 

[faible]

End of the day, the umpires have gotta be quicker on the whistle. Blowing the whistle before the player gets dumped or taken to ground would prevent a lot of these dangerous tackles.

I think this is the cause of a lot of them; tackler has clearly stopped the player with the ball who isn't going to get the ball out, but there's an overly long delay so the tackler makes an extra motion to bring their opponent to ground. Pay the holding the ball faster and no second motion happens in those occasions.

 

[boncer34]

Again. Read and reply to my actual posts rather than what you imagine I'm saying.

I did, that's the problem.

They can post what they want, I can criticise them and you can criticise me for criticising them.

Simple.

 

[boncer34]

They just showed the replay on Fox and yeah...it looks rough. Wouldn't blame the MRO at all if they gave him a week.

End of the day, the umpires have gotta be quicker on the whistle. Blowing the whistle before the player gets dumped or taken to ground would prevent a lot of these dangerous tackles.

On SM-G920I using BigFooty.com mobile app

I missed this. You're 100% right.

The problem is umpires are instructed to "hold the whistle" as long as possible in those scenarios to give the player with the ball "every opportunity."

 

[citizen-erased]

I think this is the cause of a lot of them; tackler has clearly stopped the player with the ball who isn't going to get the ball out, but there's an overly long delay so the tackler makes an extra motion to bring their opponent to ground. Pay the holding the ball faster and no second motion happens in those occasions.

Need to allow the crowd to call ball, then the ump gets their caesar moment. Does he bay to the crowds call for blood or show mercy.

Spectacle above all