Zac Merrett tackle

[hirdylloydy1]

dude, you just described the Will Day incident and he got 2 weeks lol

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

 

[Oliver09]

Adams hasn't been reviewed yet

I think Adams will certainly be suspended. Two Collingwood players were already tackling and he comes 3rd tackler in from 7-8 metres away and slings him to the ground. He had no reason to be involved let alone sling the St Kilda player the way he did.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

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

Whilst true you can’t be slamming heads into the ground not when there’s concussion cases going on.

 

[Sixpence]

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

You are meant to pin the arms. You don't want them disposing the ball or it's a useless tackle. If the tacklers need to allow players to "defend themselves", you may as well ban contact.

Like Day, Merrett's ban is a joke. Nothing wrong with either tackle.

 

[danster168]

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

yeh but is the arms pinned thing even a thing? Merrett's was more slingy than Day's. Brad Close basically just crumbled into the turf like a deck of cards and contributed to the head contact imo. In this one, Merrett didn't have bad intentions but he didn't protect the head enough and rotated him to a point where the head hit the ground hard enough. I don't like the rule but I'd be surprised if Essendon challenged.

 

[My Tilly]

Rohan got a week for the same type of incident

 

[Vindicater]

Rohan got a week for the same type of incident

Apart from the fact Rohan listed and spun his player.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Rohan got a week for the same type of incident

the only similar thing it was a tackle.

apart from that basic fact the rest was completely different.

 

[hirdylloydy1]

yeh but is the arms pinned thing even a thing? Merrett's was more slingy than Day's. Brad Close basically just crumbled into the turf like a deck of cards and contributed to the head contact imo. In this one, Merrett didn't have bad intentions but he didn't protect the head enough and rotated him to a point where the head hit the ground hard enough. I don't like the rule but I'd be surprised if Essendon challenged.

there were two much slingier tackles by adams and elliot of collingwood yesterday, interesting to see if they are consistent and they get banned as well, with the arms free , you can protect yourself.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

You are meant to pin the arms. You don't want them disposing the ball or it's a useless tackle. If the tacklers need to allow players to "defend themselves", you may as well ban contact.

Like Day, Merrett's ban is a joke. Nothing wrong with either tackle.

Whilst days was a joke, merrets seems way less foreceful.

There is no way its medium impact, if it is i agree. Just ban tackling.

 

[Alberto_Magnifico]

It's a week because it looks bad, even though there wasn't a sling and he brought him down as he fell backwards and made contact with the ground First.
So dumb when you can knee someone in the back of head going for a mark and it's a "great spectacle"

 

[Sixpence]

It's a week because it looks bad, even though there wasn't a him and he brought him down as he fell backwards and made contact with the ground First.
So dumb when you can knee someone in the back of head going for a mark and it's a "great spectacle"

Yep, this is what shits me. Players are getting banned because it doesn't "look good", not because it's actually dangerous.

 

[HairyO]

AFL need to bring out a new video for players to watch.

Called "Pretty tackles - make it look Gooooooood"

Bumping high I understand because they dont want any bumps. But if we are now giving weeks for tackles which dont cause injury then the next step surely has to be banning tackles.

The player with the ball causes the tackles half the time because its a tactic. Duck, throw yourself forward, drop the knees, raise the arm, go limp, whatever it takes to get a free.

And we all know in the 2nd half of the season if a Brownlow favourite does a "dangerous" tackle with no injury it will be a fine not a week.

 

[Brian McGee]

The afl have painted themselves into a corner now with suspending these dangerous tackles that should be no more than a free kick. We have had multiple instances now of no head injury tackles being suspended. Players are between a rock and a hard place. Lovingly wrap your arms around them and they still get a disposal away. Tackle to the ground and you get suspended. Players being tackled are even leaning their heads towards the ground when tackled now to draw a free. Its shit.

 

[boncer34]

Bombers challenging

 

[Foxx]

I understand why it's a week. He grabbed him upright and drove his upper body into the ground. You can't do it now.

Problem is that was a perfect take down tackle. Not over the top forceful. So where does that leave us? We can't tackle players to the ground anymore?

 

[boncer34]

I understand why it's a week. He grabbed him upright and drove his upper body into the ground. You can't do it now.

Problem is that was a perfect take down tackle. Not over the top forceful. So where does that leave us? We can't tackle players to the ground anymore?

That's the issue though mate. If the force had been graded low instead of medium he'd be allowed to play.

 

[Foxx]

That's the issue though mate. If the force had been graded low instead of medium he'd be allowed to play.

Ok. Well that's medium imo. So suspension should stand.
I still don't like it how that is illegal. But concussion knowledge now means players somehow have to baby players to the ground, or tackle upright.

 

[boncer34]

Ok. Well that's medium imo.
I still don't like it how that is illegal. But concussion knowledge now means players somehow have to baby players to the ground.

The middle video is the AFL's own example of low impact. Looks identical to Zerrett's

 

[Foxx]

The middle video is the AFL's own example of low impact. Looks identical to Zerrett's

Hope he gets off on that technicality. Both medium impact imo.

 

[Matera92]

If the umps blow the whistle quicker then half these tackles stop.

The idiots stand there watching the play so the tackler has to try something to illicit a reaction from the ump.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

If the umps blow the whistle quicker then half these tackles stop.

The idiots stand there watching the play so the tackler has to try something to illicit a reaction from the ump.

THIS!!

Drives me insane how long they let it go on. Just ball it up it’s not hard

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Ok. Well that's medium imo. So suspension should stand.
I still don't like it how that is illegal. But concussion knowledge now means players somehow have to baby players to the ground, or tackle upright.

There needs to be a level of common sense here. You cannot fully eliminate head contact in this game. If you want too than just ban contact.

Zach didn't sling, he didn't drive, and he didn't complete a double action, it was literally the perfect tackle. it was literally just the players bodyweight that took them to the ground.

it was LOW impact all day.

 

[citizen-erased]

THIS!!

Drives me insane how long they let it go on. Just ball it up it’s not hard

Gotta let the call of baalllllll!!! Ring round the stadium :/

 

[boncer34]

If the umps blow the whistle quicker then half these tackles stop.

The idiots stand there watching the play so the tackler has to try something to illicit a reaction from the ump.

They're instructed by the AFL to hold the whistle in those scenarios.