AFL great Malcolm Blight says the Match Review Officer was right to suspend Nic Naitanui over his tackle on Karl Amon.

The Eagles star received a one-game suspension from Match Review Officer Michael Christian for rough conduct for a tackle that slammed Amon into the turf.

The decision to suspend Naitanui has received a mixed response, but Blight said the risk of Amon sustaining a serious neck injury made it dangerous.

“Absolutely (it’s a week). I hate it,” Blight said on Sportsday SA radio.

Finals Week 1

“I hate it, I hate it with a passion and I think there's a term that you younger players have used and it’s duty of care. It is respect for the workplace and I absolutely agree with it.

Get the ultimate AFL experience on your phone with the new FOX FOOTY App. Download it NOW for FREE on iOS and Android!

“A helpless tackle like that, next time that happens and someone drives their head in and we have to go and see them with neck injuries in the hospital.

“How would you like it if you were on the end of it? That’s what I always ask when someone says to me — ‘what would you say if that was you at the end of it? You would be filthy.’

Blight said he would have given Naitanui a harsher suspension.

“I would have given him three (weeks) — don’t do it again.”

Ex-players Danny Frawley and Kane Cornes were also among those applauding the decision to suspend Naitanui.

Frawley said on Twitter he had seen tackles like Naitanui’s happening multiple times during games of community footy.

I congratulate the AFL on Suspending Nic Nat Nui !! These instances are happening at least 5 times a game at community level in women's footy #hopefullynogirlsgetseriouslyhurt — Danny Frawley (@SpudSays) May 7, 2018

Michael Christian gave a week to Nic Natunui for exactly the same things that he saw 4 weeks at women's community footy #welldonechrisso — Danny Frawley (@SpudSays) May 7, 2018

Cornes said he supported the suspension, as the head and neck needed to be protected — and cited an incident from 2007, when he was slammed to the ground in a tackle by Byron Pickett.

“I know I’m in the minority but I agree with the Nic Nat suspension, partly because this happened to me back in 2007,” he tweeted.

“We have to protect the head and more importantly the neck.”

Meanwhile, Geelong coach Chris Scott says he is ‘surprised’ by the notion Naitanui should have attempted to turn Amon in the tackle that has seen him suspended.

But Scott said if Naitanui had attempted to turn Amon, he could just as easily have hurt himself.

“The part that surprised me was the suggestion that he should have turned him in that moment,” Scott said on Fox Footy’s AFL 360.

“The momentum and the velocity there — if Nic turns him — we are clear that the tackler has a duty of care to the player he’s tackling but that doesn’t extend to putting yourself into harm’s way.

“If at that sort of velocity, Nic had have turned him and driven his own shoulder into the ground first — I’m not sure we’re asking players to do that — I think it is a tough one.

“I think there’s clearly a pattern that that’s his technique, and I must admit, if was coaching I’d be saying ‘impose yourself, go hard in the tackle.’”

Scott said he believed the fact Amon had been concussed had contributed to the decision to cite Naitanui.

“This is almost one of the hardest things in the game to adjudicate at the moment because a split second or a little bit of bad luck with the impact to the head,” he said.

“I suspect — and I think the MRO, Michael (Christian), bristles at this and has bristled in the past — but I suspect if there wasn’t a concussion there would be nothing more to see.”

Scott’s St Kilda counterpart Alan Richardson said he was “on the fence” regarding the suspension.

Richardson said he believed Naitanui wanted to physically impose himself with the tough tackle.

“My initial response was no (it shouldn’t be a suspension). That’s not dissimilar from what I’ve seen Nic do,” he said.

“He had a really strong aggressive tackle — I reckon it was against Parfitt against the Cats only a few weeks ago.

“I’ve often said on this show that I would put intent into most things. He’s definitely tried to make sure that player earns that ball and he can physically impose himself in that tackle.

“I’m sitting on the fence on this one to be honest, I don’t know where it sits.”

Karl Amon. (AAP Image/Tony McDonough) Source: AAP

Richardson said he understood the rationale behind assessing the tackle, given the potential for harm, but queried whether Naitanui was being punished for his size, compared to Amon.

“I actually understand why they’ve looked at it, there’s a real potential to hurt someone there … but should he be penalised for being such a big bloke?” he said.

“It almost looked like a really big kid playing in the under-18s against a really small kid.

“That’s what it looked like when you go and watch Warrandyte and you see a really big kid and you think ‘geez, I hope he doesn’t go near my boy, he’s going to hurt him’ — that’s almost what it looked like. Should there be rules for that, I’m not sure.”