AFL Player # 7: Indefatigable Zach Merrett (c) - Your ANZAC Day Medallist - 25/4

[Beerfish]

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

 

[Highly Evolved]

I’m both scared and highly curious.

Wouldn't let me save from Messenger so I had to screenshot

 

[DERO]

Wouldn't let me save from Messenger so I had to screenshot

I still clicked.

 

[Yoda_]

Fox footy just referred to it as a sling tackle.

Thats fine as Gary Rohan's was, what about Zac's?

 

[Beerfish]

The AFL are probably incompetent but they aren't corrupt.

 

[Eleven 38]

They gotta **** this potential part of the rule off tackles. I don't mind it on bumps.

Is it really that bad to have a rule where if the player doesn't get injured you get less of a punishment. If they don't get injured just make it low impact and move on. It's just to much of a change to the game.

 

[ghostdog]

Heads are like mattresses now?

Only when Captain Snooze is on his game.

 

[ghostdog]

They gotta * this potential part of the rule off tackles. I don't mind it on bumps.

Is it really that bad to have a rule where if the player doesn't get injured you get less of a punishment. If they don't get injured just make it low impact and move on. It's just to much of a change to the game.

It seems counter-intuitive. The lesser charge if the player gets up to play on seems reactive rather than proactive if they're fair dinkum about preventing concussions.

On the other hand, I'd probably rather players signed a contract waiving responsibility or something. I don't like the idea of the game not being a full contact sport. It's gladiatorial by nature. The playets know that. I hope it stays that way.

 

[Call Me Cake]

If Merrett is out for a week then Adams AND Elliott need to be rubbed out too.

Ideally I'd prefer all of them on the ground but fair is fair.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Gawd Damo is an idiot. He said Merrett should be suspended as the Demons player only got up because of the type of head he has. Damo is totally looney tunes.

Damo is doing phrenology now!

 

[Eleven 38]

It seems counter-intuitive. The lesser charge if the player gets up to play on seems reactive rather than proactive if they're fair dinkum about preventing concussions.

On the other hand, I'd probably rather players signed a contract waiving responsibility or something. I don't like the idea of the game not being a full contact sport. It's gladiatorial by nature. The playets know that. I hope it stays that way.

My personal opinion is they've been proactive enough on the tackle to prevent concussion. They should be more proactive in fixing the holding the ball rule, it's one of the main reasons I only watch bombers games now.

If they paid more holding the ball instead of giving the player with it half an hour to get rid of it then Merrett feels less like he has to slam the Melbourne player into the ground to stop him.

 

[DonsRule]

My personal opinion is they've been proactive enough on the tackle to prevent concussion. They should be more proactive in fixing the holding the ball rule, it's one of the main reasons I only watch bombers games now.

If they paid more holding the ball instead of giving the player with it half an hour to get rid of it then Merrett feels less like he has to slam the Melbourne player into the ground to stop him.

Or even it not HTB, ball up put a stop the play when its obvious the player isn't getting out of the tackle making it linger.

 

[Call Me Cake]

It's hilarious how if I go indoor rock-climbing I have to sign a waiver in case of death yet they want footy to look like netball.

 

[faible]

they want footy to look like netball.

Sigh.

 

[Old Campaigner]

It's hilarious how if I go indoor rock-climbing I have to sign a waiver in case of death yet they want footy to look like netball.

If making football look like netball prevents the sort of brain damage that leads to posts like this then I think everyone wins

 

[ghostdog]

If making football look like netball prevents the sort of brain damage that leads to posts like this then I think everyone wins

It's hyperbolic but the premise stands; the rules are being tinkered with so much to grow the game at a grass roots level in non-traditional markets, as much as they are now to protect players from concussions.

There needs to be a balance somewhere between maintaining the integrity of the game as a contact sport and providing that protection. It's a reasonable reaction that some people fear the game's integrity as a contact sport is being whittled away, or is in danger of being whittled away.

Law is law. I'd be happy with a safety conscious set of rules at the grass roots level and contractual waivers of some description at the professional level. Not sure how practical that is though.

 

[Call Me Cake]

If making football look like netball prevents the sort of brain damage that leads to posts like this then I think everyone wins

You're acting as if literally every player that retires ends up having brain damage. That simply isn't the case. You don't have to go to extremes just because of a minority. Something like adjudicating acts in momentum is an ideal fantasy but not possible to be consistent practically in a physical sport.

The entire premise of the sport, it's very essence, is to stop the opposition, and the execution of that is physical prevention, ie; tackles.

Trying to adjudicate actions that take place during moments of momentum and high impact by taking in "potential" is like trying to bring in thought-crime. It's like putting me in jail just because I thought of you being slapped upside the head with a trout.

Just as those that aspire to be firefighters go into the job knowing there's potential to be at risk of a fire, or those in law enforcement knowing there's potential to be shot, the players aren't going to stop wanting to be footballers just because of a risk of being hurt in a tackle. There will always be people willing to fill their spot because people are adults and are capable of deciding what profession they want to be in. No one is forcing these men to be football players. Just like no one forced me to try indoor rock-climbing despite a contractually worded risk of death.

No one is arguing the bump stuff, and some of the tackle stuff. But the "potential" stuff is getting out of hand.

At the end of the day, I think we need to focus on the root of the problem.

The umpires are not blowing the whistle quick enough. They're holding off, and they're allowing play to go on for far too long, which creates doubt in both the player that wants to stop the ball from coming out and looking like they're trying, and the player who wants to prevent the ball from being taken and struggles for longer - all of which creates more of a chance for things to go wrong when it doesn't need to. This was all done to open up play but it's counterproductive.

The umpires need to blow the whistle quicker, award free kicks quicker (which opens play) or hurry the stoppage. If this is done, you will see a lot more players with less doubt in their minds and more confidence that their attempts are being noticed. Invest in more umpire training/numbers/technology and less in tribunals, because it will never end until we see an array of suspensions/appeals ad nauseum and paranoid players all over the field.

 

[Vander18]

hyperbolic but the premise stands; the rules are being tinkered with so much to grow the game at a grass roots level in non-traditional markets, as much as they are now to protect players from concussions.

Ironically, at least in the SMJFL where Little Vander plays, sling tackles are policed with about 1% of the vigour they are at AFL level.

Every week we see multiple sling tackles ignored….drives me bonkers. I would add that it’s particularly dangerous at u14/15 where you find grown men playing against little boys depending on whether puberty has struck or not.

 

[Lore]

You're acting as if literally every player that retires ends up having brain damage. That simply isn't the case. You don't have to go to extremes just because of a minority. Something like adjudicating acts in momentum is an ideal fantasy but not possible to be consistent practically in a physical sport.

The entire premise of the sport, it's very essence, is to stop the opposition, and the execution of that is physical prevention, ie; tackles.

Trying to adjudicate actions that take place during moments of momentum and high impact by taking in "potential" is like trying to bring in thought-crime. It's like putting me in jail just because I thought of you being slapped upside the head with a trout.

Just as those that aspire to be firefighters go into the job knowing there's potential to be at risk of a fire, or those in law enforcement knowing there's potential to be shot, the players aren't going to stop wanting to be footballers just because of a risk of being hurt in a tackle. There will always be people willing to fill their spot because people are adults and are capable of deciding what profession they want to be in. No one is forcing these men to be football players. Just like no one forced me to try indoor rock-climbing despite a contractually worded risk of death.

No one is arguing the bump stuff, and some of the tackle stuff. But the "potential" stuff is getting out of hand.

At the end of the day, I think we need to focus on the root of the problem.

The umpires are not blowing the whistle quick enough. They're holding off, and they're allowing play to go on for far too long, which creates doubt in both the player that wants to stop the ball from coming out and looking like they're trying, and the player who wants to prevent the ball from being taken and struggles for longer - all of which creates more of a chance for things to go wrong when it doesn't need to. This was all done to open up play but it's counterproductive.

The umpires need to blow the whistle quicker, award free kicks quicker (which opens play) or hurry the stoppage. If this is done, you will see a lot more players with less doubt in their minds and more confidence that their attempts are being noticed. Invest in more umpire training/numbers/technology and less in tribunals, because it will never end until we see an array of suspensions/appeals ad nauseum and paranoid players all over the field.

I think this might be the best post you’ve ever written

 

[Lore]

Some familiar names in the comments there

 

[boncer34]

Some familiar names in the comments there

Such as? I don't have instagram so can't see.

 

[Lore]

Such as? I don't have instagram so can't see.

Bellchambers, Ryder and Scotty James commented but was like “Wow”, “surely not” sort of stuff.

 

[fairbump_playon]

I think this might be the best post you’ve ever written

It’s well written but blowing the whistle sooner will only fix 10% of this issue.
Most slings or dumps take less than a second. Too fast for the umpire to intervene.

Also, asking umps to blow the whistle quicker to save one or two sling tackles will have a whole stack of unintended consequences, not least of which will be another 20 ball ups per game.

It’s tackling technique that needs to change. Hate to say it but it feels like inconsistency or not, the AFL is largely doing the right things, in the right order.

It has taken 20+ years to change bumping behaviour and there is further to go. Back at the start there was outrage but when you look back at some off the ball 80s and 90s shirtfronts, they are almost criminal. It’s weird in hindsight that it was ever legal to bump like that given we have always had a high contact rule.

We are deep in the change process with tackles. So many people saying “what else could he have done”.. but they won’t be saying that in ten years because a sling or dump will be as rare as a proper, grubby, behind the play bump.

My reaction when I saw the Merrett tackle was.. damn Zach, why did you need to do that? I get that it wasn’t a brutal one but he had Sparrow (Spargo?) firmly in the tackle, they were going to ground and he added that fatal extra surge. You can’t do that anymore. You have to protect the player you’re tackling. Yep it goes against everything we have ever learned.

He might still get off. I hope for our sake he does but in general I think they should just punish all of these types of tackles consistently regardless of head injury.

These might mean going harder than precedent. Which seems unfair and inconsistent.. but it’s worth remembering the CTE study results came out mid year. As a consequence, they will want to get rid of sling tackles quicker than they did bumps, and that means policing them more harshly, and changing the norms more quickly and decisively.

Bottom line, with a few mins left in a game where we are well up, it’s annoying that Zach even put himself and the team in a situation where he might get done.

 

[eth-dog]

Bellchambers, Ryder and Scotty James commented but was like “Wow”, “surely not” sort of stuff.

Scotty James as in the snowboarder?

 

[boncer34]

Scotty James as in the snowboarder?

Makes sense, he's an Essendon fan.

 

[eth-dog]

Makes sense, he's an Essendon fan.

Didn't know that