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

 

[Dons4days]

Looking forward to seeing Adams get off for a worse offence

 

[Lore]

Legal reps: Ben Ihle (Essendon) & Nick Pane (AFL).​

​

Jurors: Jeff Gleeson (Tribunal chair), Stewart Loewe and Stephen Jurica.​

 

[Lore]

If it's Ben Ihle the guy is a KC.

seems to be ^

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

If thats the case then there's going to be a fair few players suspended this year. I reckon I see half a dozen a week.

Effectively if you take someone down in a tackle you are in trouble. With players ducking, shrugging and trying to win in the back free kicks sometimes the instigator is not the tackler.

As long as there's consistency (lol) going forward, I'm ok with it, seeing Adams is gone also.

Will be interesting to see how they adjudicate it later in the year and finals. You just know this is going to pop up in a crucial finals match.

 

[Ambrosia]

This.

Ihle seemed more intent on arguing the tackle wasn't dangerous, rather than the fact Sparrow landed on Merrett and got straight up with Bill ill effects.

Like how do you lose the argument when the AFLs own example of the Caldwell sling as low impact looks if anything more forceful

 

[Lore]

If thats the case then there's going to be a fair few players suspended this year. I reckon I see half a dozen a week.

Effectively if you take someone down in a tackle you are in trouble. With players ducking, shrugging and trying to win in the back free kicks sometimes the instigator is not the tackler.

As long as there's consistency (lol) going forward, I'm ok with it, seeing Adams is gone also.

Will be interesting to see how they adjudicate it later in the year and finals. You just know this is going to pop up in a crucial finals match.

they also exaggerate contact (some have admitted to it), which in the context of a tackle means making it more dangerous

 

[Lore]

Tribunal reasoning:

Zach Merrett's explanation of the tackle he applied to Tom Sparrow

32

Tom Sparrow

Age

24

Ht

183cm

Wt

85kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

15.0

4star

K

6.0

2star

HB

9.0

5star

M

1.0

1star

T

2.0

4star

CL

3.0

4star

D

15.0

4star

K

6.0

2star

HB

9.0

4star

M

1.0

1star

T

2.0

3star

CL

3.0

4star

D

15.0

4star

K

6.0

3star

HB

9.0

5star

M

1.0

1star

T

2.0

4star

CL

3.0

5star

was honest and forthright. The difficulty for Merrett, however, is that by holding onto Sparrow's jumper - and in our view pulling him to the ground - combined with the force applied by Merrett around Sparrow's body with his left arm, there was a real risk of Sparrow's head colliding forcefully with the ground. A reasonable player in Merrett's position would have realised there was some vulnerability for Sparrow because his right arm was pinned, would've realised the tackle was both pulling and pushing in such a way that Sparrows head was driving towards the ground with force and that there was a real risk Sparrow wouldn't land entirely on Merrett.​

​

For those reasons, we find this was a dangerous tackle.​

​

As to impact, while there was no injury to Sparrow, the force with which Sparrow's head hit the ground was plain to see.​

​

The potential for injury arose and the appropriate classification of impact is medium.​

David Zita via Twitter

 

[Mercurial89]

We carry on.
Gutted for Zac missing his first Anzac day as captain but he will get future chances hopefully.

Hopefully the players adjust otherwise there are going to be multiple suspensions every week.

Or what happens as always is the mro.slowly gets more lenient and more and more go through to the keeper.

 

[Seattle Mariners]

You blokes should appeal it.
Take it as far as you can go.

 

[Ambrosia]

Tribunal reasoning:

Zach Merrett's explanation of the tackle he applied to Tom Sparrow was honest and forthright. The difficulty for Merrett, however, is that by holding onto Sparrow's jumper - and in our view pulling him to the ground - combined with the force applied by Merrett around Sparrow's body with his left arm, there was a real risk of Sparrow's head colliding forcefully with the ground. A reasonable player in Merrett's position would have realised there was some vulnerability for Sparrow because his right arm was pinned, would've realised the tackle was both pulling and pushing in such a way that Sparrows head was driving towards the ground with force and that there was a real risk Sparrow wouldn't land entirely on Merrett.​

​

For those reasons, we find this was a dangerous tackle.​

​

As to impact, while there was no injury to Sparrow, the force with which Sparrow's head hit the ground was plain to see.​

​

The potential for injury arose and the appropriate classification of impact is medium.​

David Zita via Twitter

The force at which his head was plain to see. What utter bullshit

 

[justlookingaround]

Bunch of malarkey.

 

[Zach Package]

Tribunal reasoning:

Zach Merrett's explanation of the tackle he applied to Tom Sparrow was honest and forthright. The difficulty for Merrett, however, is that by holding onto Sparrow's jumper - and in our view pulling him to the ground - combined with the force applied by Merrett around Sparrow's body with his left arm, there was a real risk of Sparrow's head colliding forcefully with the ground. A reasonable player in Merrett's position would have realised there was some vulnerability for Sparrow because his right arm was pinned, would've realised the tackle was both pulling and pushing in such a way that Sparrows head was driving towards the ground with force and that there was a real risk Sparrow wouldn't land entirely on Merrett.​

​

For those reasons, we find this was a dangerous tackle.​

​

As to impact, while there was no injury to Sparrow, the force with which Sparrow's head hit the ground was plain to see.​

​

The potential for injury arose and the appropriate classification of impact is medium.​

David Zita via Twitter

We are in for some spooky times if this is the precedent.

I don’t think it will be Zac but someone will lose a Brownlow because of this.

 

[Lore]

Get the fancy mouthguards with the accelerometers in them. Hook it up to a snicko type thing and determine impact that way.

 

[scythe]

As to impact, while there was no injury to Sparrow, the force with which Sparrow's head hit the ground was plain to see.

No, it really ****ing wasn't. They've left the door wide open to appeal there.

 

[mike14]

Tribunal reasoning:

Zach Merrett's explanation of the tackle he applied to Tom Sparrow was honest and forthright. The difficulty for Merrett, however, is that by holding onto Sparrow's jumper - and in our view pulling him to the ground - combined with the force applied by Merrett around Sparrow's body with his left arm, there was a real risk of Sparrow's head colliding forcefully with the ground. A reasonable player in Merrett's position would have realised there was some vulnerability for Sparrow because his right arm was pinned, would've realised the tackle was both pulling and pushing in such a way that Sparrows head was driving towards the ground with force and that there was a real risk Sparrow wouldn't land entirely on Merrett.​

​

For those reasons, we find this was a dangerous tackle.​

​

As to impact, while there was no injury to Sparrow, the force with which Sparrow's head hit the ground was plain to see.​

​

The potential for injury arose and the appropriate classification of impact is medium.​

David Zita via Twitter

Yikes.
Should make for an interesting rest of the season.
I can't imagine those words will be referenced for a bunch of similiar tackles with different outcomes as we go along...

 

[DERO]

He'll be devo.

 

[ghostdog]

Tribunal reasoning:

Zach Merrett's explanation of the tackle he applied to Tom Sparrow was honest and forthright. The difficulty for Merrett, however, is that by holding onto Sparrow's jumper - and in our view pulling him to the ground - combined with the force applied by Merrett around Sparrow's body with his left arm, there was a real risk of Sparrow's head colliding forcefully with the ground. A reasonable player in Merrett's position would have realised there was some vulnerability for Sparrow because his right arm was pinned, would've realised the tackle was both pulling and pushing in such a way that Sparrows head was driving towards the ground with force and that there was a real risk Sparrow wouldn't land entirely on Merrett.​

​

For those reasons, we find this was a dangerous tackle.​

​

As to impact, while there was no injury to Sparrow, the force with which Sparrow's head hit the ground was plain to see.​

​

The potential for injury arose and the appropriate classification of impact is medium.​

David Zita via Twitter

Thanks for the transcript Lore.

I reckon they're making an example of Zach to coincide with ANZAC Day.
removes tin foil hat

 

[fishardansin]

Maybe they should just ban pulling someone towards the ground when you tackle. There was no sling action, but if the head makes contact they look at it. So, it just means don't pull down as you tackle. Both guys remain standing and if you don't release it onto your foot, holding the ball.

 

[Duckworth]

Tribunal reasoning:

Zach Merrett's explanation of the tackle he applied to Tom Sparrow was honest and forthright. The difficulty for Merrett, however, is that by holding onto Sparrow's jumper - and in our view pulling him to the ground - combined with the force applied by Merrett around Sparrow's body with his left arm, there was a real risk of Sparrow's head colliding forcefully with the ground. A reasonable player in Merrett's position would have realised there was some vulnerability for Sparrow because his right arm was pinned, would've realised the tackle was both pulling and pushing in such a way that Sparrows head was driving towards the ground with force and that there was a real risk Sparrow wouldn't land entirely on Merrett.​

​

For those reasons, we find this was a dangerous tackle.​

​

As to impact, while there was no injury to Sparrow, the force with which Sparrow's head hit the ground was plain to see.​

​

The potential for injury arose and the appropriate classification of impact is medium.​

David Zita via Twitter

the risk that we can see is that Merrett tried to prevent injury to Sparrow by bringing him to ground on top of himself. This puts Merrett himself at risk, but he is only a small guy, so when Sparrow pushed forward with his head to hit a bit of turf next to Merrett we have no choice but to uphold the ban. Merrett has not done a good enough job of being a human cushion.

 

[Blind Turn]

We are in for some spooky times if this is the precedent.

I don’t think it will be Zac but someone will lose a Brownlow because of this.

The Brownlow is one of the least prestigious awards to win… in my view… someone lost a Brownlow because they had the integrity to be honest about taking a benign supplement and being cleared by an AFL tribunal of any wrong-doing.

Plus Cripps has a Brownlow and Chris Grant doesn’t, yet Grant was by far the fairer player during the season he should’ve won.

Plus the umpires can’t see past the midfield.

 

[sameolds33]

Tribunal reasoning:

Zach Merrett's explanation of the tackle he applied to Tom Sparrow was honest and forthright. The difficulty for Merrett, however, is that by holding onto Sparrow's jumper - and in our view pulling him to the ground - combined with the force applied by Merrett around Sparrow's body with his left arm, there was a real risk of Sparrow's head colliding forcefully with the ground. A reasonable player in Merrett's position would have realised there was some vulnerability for Sparrow because his right arm was pinned, would've realised the tackle was both pulling and pushing in such a way that Sparrows head was driving towards the ground with force and that there was a real risk Sparrow wouldn't land entirely on Merrett.​

​

For those reasons, we find this was a dangerous tackle.​

​

As to impact, while there was no injury to Sparrow, the force with which Sparrow's head hit the ground was plain to see.​

​

The potential for injury arose and the appropriate classification of impact is medium.​

David Zita via Twitter

"A reasonable player in Merrett's position would have realised..."

The reasonable man test was correctly applied? And the "reasonable player" would not have tackled Sparrow as Zach did? I think we need to find this reasonable player and recruit him now.

Negligence, the Reasonable Person, and Injury Claims​

The so-called reasonable person in the law of negligence focuses on how a typical person, with ordinary prudence, would act in certain circumstances. The test as to whether an individual has acted as a reasonable person is an objective one, and so it doesn't take into account the specific abilities of a defendant. Thus, even a person who has low intelligence or is chronically careless is held to the same standard as a more careful person or a person of higher intelligence.


A jury generally decides whether a defendant has acted as a reasonable person would have acted, in addition to meeting the other elements of a negligence case. In making this decision, the jury generally considers the defendant's conduct in light of what the defendant actually knows or should have reasonably known, experienced, or perceived.

Negligence and the 'Reasonable Person' - FindLaw

Negligence claims are typically decided in the context of what a "reasonable" person would (or wouldn't) do in a given situation. This sounds vague, but it has a specific meaning in the law. Learn about this and more at FindLaw's Accident and Injury Law section.

www.findlaw.com

 

[DERO]

What absolute bullshit.

 

[citizen-erased]

We clearly forgot to ask Carlton for a lawyer

 

[DallasCrane316]

Sucks that Merrett misses. Dents my confidence about the game greatly.

But if Adams nan is overturned, we will need to further appeal.

 

[DERO]

Appeal the **** out of it.