Brisbane Discussion

[Ringo]

Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Essendon Football Club, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), high impact (three points) and high contact (two points)

Did not think there was any high contact at all so may be grounds to appeal.  But if appeal fails will go out to 4 weeks.

[BB67th]

I get the negligent conduct for slinging and high impact for him being concussed, but is tackling someone and having their head hit the turf considered high contact? I don't think it should.

[nrich102]

Very harsh on Merrett. He didnt deserve that long.

[kilbluff1985]

Slinging someone and having there head hit the ground is still high contact and he did it with force to

[BB67th]

He does have 93 carry over points as well so I guess that puts it up to 3 weeks instead of 2.

[LF]

Yeah Merrett getting 3 weeks is a joke.
If tackling someone and their head hits the ground is considered as high contact how the hell did Monfries not get suspended for his tackle on Priddis a few weeks ago?

Also how did the Kommer taking Clarke out incident not even get looked at Kommer should have gone for that.

I also think Clarke is extremely lucky and should take his week no questions asked because he should have got more.

[kilbluff1985]

Was the Monfries tackle a sling tackle?

That's why Merrett is getting suspended because its a sling tackle don't you remember the big fuss about them?

[Ziplock]

anyone got footage for the merrett incident?

[LF]

Was the Monfries tackle a sling tackle?

That's why Merrett is getting suspended because its a sling tackle don't you remember the big fuss about them?

Didn't say anything about it being a sling tackle I said if they are calling it high contact for his head hitting the ground causing concussion then what is the difference between the 2 incidents?
Both players heads hit the ground causing them to be concussed.

[kilbluff1985]

But the sling tackle action caused his head to hit the turf which is why it was outlawed

[LF]

But the sling tackle action caused his head to hit the turf which is why it was outlawed

I'm not saying he shouldn't get done for the sling tackle that's fair enough but calling it high contact does not make one bit of sense because technically it's not high contact.Do you see what I mean?
I'm not being a smart arse I just don't think it should be classed as high contact.

[kilbluff1985]

Still don't agree Merrett had control of Hurley when his head hits the ground and the force he did it in

[Ringo]

But the sling tackle action caused his head to hit the turf which is why it was outlawed

I'm not saying he shouldn't get done for the sling tackle that's fair enough but calling it high contact does not make one bit of sense because technically it's not high contact.Do you see what I mean?
I'm not being a smart arse I just don't think it should be classed as high contact.

That was my point highlighting the high contact charge.

Zip here is vision of the tackle -

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2013-05-18/merrett-slams-hurley

Show me where the high contact is and I will accept the fiull 3 weeks.  I agree get done for the negligent coduct and the high impact head into the ground for the sling tackle but there is no high contact at all.   If the MRP are now going to deem slamming head to ground is also high contact they will have to be consistent for the rest of the year and act accordingly.

Agree Clarke is very lucky with 2 weeks although clean record reduces it to a week.

[Ziplock]

I think they're going with the logic for the sling tackle being illegal, because of it increasing significantly the number of head, neck injuries and oncussions

unfortunately, for merrett, a precedent has been set


'The incident was similar to a then-contentious incident two years ago when Melbourne's Jack Trengove received a three-match suspension for a tackle on Adelaide's Patrick Dangerfield. The Crows midfielder, like Hurley at the weekend, had to be substituted.
Both incidents were graded identically: negligent conduct, high impact, high contact. Merrett fared worse than Trengove because he was also saddled with 93.75 carry-over points, which means he risks a four-match ban if he challenges the decision at the tribunal on Tuesday night.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/jolly-cleared-merrett-offered-threeweek-ban-20130520-2jwni.html#ixzz2Tp5KYkbT '

[Ringo]

So why are not all head slams that have gone to the tribunal since include a high contact if the precedent has been set.  Again inconsistency from the MRP as there have been a few since the Dangerfield incident.  They bring up things when it suits. 

Agree with Merrets suspension but just can not accept the High contact component even though they draw out the Dangerfield incident with a number of head slams not invoking tyhe high contact.