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

 

[scythe]

Adams ban upheld. Probably lessens the chance of a fair outcome at the appeals board.

 

[BLA60]

For the 5k cost what really have we got to lose by appealing this tribunal decision?

I mean the media releases from the club indicate accepting the decision.

Yes with Adams being upheld it makes it harder. But stuff it. Why not

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[eth-dog]

For the 5k cost what really have we got to lose by appealing this tribunal decision?

I mean the media releases from the club indicate accepting the decision.

Yes with Adams being upheld it makes it harder. But stuff it. Why not

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

I think it's taken out of the soft cap.

 

[Barry Roundhouse]

Three weeks ago.. didn't even get cited

 

[donlav99]

Three weeks ago.. didn't even get cited

but according to the AFL mouthpiece Barrett "the triBuNal HaS BeEn cOnSistENt".

 

[Lore]

Three weeks ago.. didn't even get cited

Arms are free, lands on his shoulder without head hitting the turf, and then gets up straight away. It looks aggressive, has the sling action, and loads of potential for injury, but I guess in his case the lack of head bouncing on the turf means it was perfect technique to protect the head.

 

[Barry Roundhouse]

Arms are free, lands on his shoulder without head hitting the turf, and then gets up straight away. It looks aggressive, has the sling action, and loads of potential for injury, but I guess in his case the lack of head bouncing on the turf means it was perfect technique to protect the head.

Whose side are you on ?!?!!

But really, if they are penalizing the action, having your head hit or not hit the ground due to slight variations in the physics of the tackle make no sense, it's either a dandegous tackle where a reasonable person could expect injury or not, and if Zac's was, that sure is.

The MRO or tribunal can't look at that and say the techique of the tackle was what made it safe and not a reportable offence

 

[Gabe251]

Can somebody please explain to me why it wasn't taken into account that the players arm was free?

Isn't it insane that a tackler is getting banned for something that could have been stopped by the other player? He chose to hold onto the ball instead of putting out an arm to stop the impact.

Both arms pinned, sure, but the duty of care surely goes onto the player being tackled?

 

[boncer34]

Can somebody please explain to me why it wasn't taken into account that the players arm was free?

Isn't it insane that a tackler is getting banned for something that could have been stopped by the other player? He chose to hold onto the ball instead of putting out an arm to stop the impact.

Both arms pinned, sure, but the duty of care surely goes onto the player being tackled?

Not when they have the ball. The AFL logic is protect the ball carrier.

 

[Mr Sasquatch]

With all the concussion stuff going around, logic and consistency go out the window with the AFL.
Zach is just the sacrificial lamb to appease the people worried about the dollar value of past concussions.

 

[Lore]

Can somebody please explain to me why it wasn't taken into account that the players arm was free?

Isn't it insane that a tackler is getting banned for something that could have been stopped by the other player? He chose to hold onto the ball instead of putting out an arm to stop the impact.

Both arms pinned, sure, but the duty of care surely goes onto the player being tackled?

They never sanction anyone for hurting themselves, nor do they sanction teammates for friendly fire. Only the opposition hurting other team seems to count.

 

[Beerfish]

I'm sure it's already been said but pinning the arms whilst keeping your feet is the only way to be 100% safe it would seem.

 

[faible]

I'm sure it's already been said but pinning the arms whilst keeping your feet is the only way to be 100% safe it would seem.

A gentle hug one might call it.

 

[Beerfish]

A gentle hug one might call it.

Well at least you don't have to leave an arm spare so they can play on/throw it.

 

[I Remember Bluey]

That's "My Boy"

 

[Stopher]

Bucks' take on the matter is well worth a listen on SEN. About 6 minutes into Whateley's Tuesday show and runs for 20 minutes or so.

 

[rumply]

Three weeks ago.. didn't even get cited

This is the thing, all the usual mouthpieces where today spruiking how wonderfully consistent the system had become with these recent rulings yet we all know it will be just a matter of weeks, if not days, before we are all standing around going "WTF??".

Zac's timing sucked, we've all been there in one way or another.

 

[Lore]

 

[The Devils Advocate]

To be honest, I have learned a lot about what the AFL are trying to stamp out this week.
The timing has sucked, but I finally have clarity on the type of tackle that is a guaranteed week off, if not more.

 

[Call Me Cake]

To be honest, I have learned a lot about what the AFL are trying to stamp out this week.
The timing has sucked, but I finally have clarity on the type of tackle that is a guaranteed week off, if not more.

Even though I, like the majority, do not agree with this "potential" stuff and the hypothetical BS/paranoia it will generate (real thought-crime stuff), it's clear the AFL are gonna do what they wanna do.

Having said that, they at least could have went about it better in implementing a grace period for tackles they deem "potential" (not ones that result in a concussion/injury), about a couple months. They could "report" players in a figurative way, give them a mock estimation on what their penalties would have looked like in a real case scenario, then bring in actual fines/rubbings out after the grace period ends.

This is how the introduction of mobile phone/seatbelt cameras have been rolled out in Victoria a week ago. You get caught, get a warning, then fines start being issued 3 months down the line.

This would have done more to add clarity on "potential" by educating the players and the public in line with a full introduction later 1 month or 2 months down the line in the same way the road cameras are.

 

[fairbump_playon]

Even though I, like the majority, do not agree with this "potential" stuff and the hypothetical BS/paranoia it will generate (real thought-crime stuff), it's clear the AFL are gonna do what they wanna do.

Having said that, they at least could have went about it better in implementing a grace period for tackles they deem "potential" (not ones that result in a concussion/injury), about a couple months. They could "report" players in a figurative way, give them a mock estimation on what their penalties would have looked like in a real case scenario, then bring in actual fines/rubbings out after the grace period ends.

This is how the introduction of mobile phone/seatbelt cameras have been rolled out in Victoria a week ago. You get caught, get a warning, then fines start being issued 3 months down the line.

This would have done more to add clarity on "potential" by educating the players and the public in line with a full introduction later 1 month or 2 months down the line in the same way the road cameras are.

Zach, you are only “potentially” ineligible for the Brownlow

 

[Blind Turn]

Could’ve done with our skipper out there today. Probably would’ve been the difference out there.

 

[Dudoro]

Our best and most consistent player of last 15 years

 

[Lore]

Icon backs calls for radical Brownlow move after 'disgrace'

'It's actually costing you'

wwos.nine.com.au

like clockwork in a way, but the football vs non-football acts is an interesting distinction to make

 

[I Remember Bluey]

Did "my boy" play a different role today, he didn't seem to be at as many centre bounces as usual, which I find a bit strange also it nullifies the Parish/Merrett chemistry out of the centre eg: they seem to know exactly where each other is without looking and react accordingly with a sting of hand passes.

Also why does Zach always seem to stand behind our rucks, as I rarely see Flip or Drapes flick it back over their heads at centre bounces.