tigernsw
Premiership Player
- Jun 29, 2017
- 4,436
- 15,626
- AFL Club
- Richmond
You think Richmond are one? Oh dear you couldn't be more wrong
The Tom Lynch 2 goals in 30 seconds freekick - AFL need to fix this
- Thread starter YippeeYiYeo
- Start date
- Tagged users None
You think Richmond are one? Oh dear you couldn't be more wrong
Chism
Franks & Beans
- Sep 7, 2008
- 38,326
- 38,094
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Cowboys/Pacers HotSpurs/Dodgers
Can you find where i said that before putting words into my mouth?
The Falcon Strike
Hall of Famer
How about not push a Bloke in the back after he kicks it
The rule should be changed though so it’s a kick in the centre - not in front
Should only be a double shot at goal of free kick occurs after the all clear and goal umpire has waved flags
The rule should be changed though so it’s a kick in the centre - not in front
Should only be a double shot at goal of free kick occurs after the all clear and goal umpire has waved flags
WCfan22
WCE tragic
- Apr 1, 2019
- 1,988
- 971
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- WWE
The free was correct. Lynch had already kicked the goal. He then got pushed after the goal scored it is just the same as if a player in the goal square is holding when there is a center bounce the free is given where the infringement occurs. Pretty simple dont push someone after they kick a goal.
Have to agree. While I was happy to take the extra goal yesterday and the umpire was correct in awarding the free as that’s what the rule says. It really should be a free kick in the centre of the ground. Silly rule.
CholEstrol
Club Legend
- Apr 1, 2016
- 1,401
- 4,640
- AFL Club
- Richmond
agree. free was 100% there by the rules but the penalty too harsh.
but even in the second scenario should be from the centre imo.
- Jun 7, 2015
- 7,084
- 13,851
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
More importantly, did Lynch wait the full 30 seconds before taking the next kick as happens when there is a bounce after a goal?
If not, the goal should be disallowed. In fact, how about we declare the whole game void.
If not, the goal should be disallowed. In fact, how about we declare the whole game void.
No
Also no, infringement was in the goalsquare and that's where the free kick is taken just like it is all over the ground unless the infringement has happened behind the ball, ala Dusty last week, then the free kick will be taken from where the ball is.
Do you believe Cameron should've got a free in the square or should it have been taken all the way back to where Dusty infringed.
I believe the free should always be from where the ball is no matter what the situation. Infringements from defenders are judged more harshly than from forwards the way the rule is applied.
CholEstrol
Club Legend
- Apr 1, 2016
- 1,401
- 4,640
- AFL Club
- Richmond
got me thinking. technically it's foul after disposal which is down the ground, or in the case of Lynch through the goals. So you may have a point.
technically it makes sense. but in the spirit of the game an extra goal penalty still seems harsh. Maybe a free from the fifty is the middle ground?
technically it makes sense. but in the spirit of the game an extra goal penalty still seems harsh. Maybe a free from the fifty is the middle ground?
But that is penalizing the team getting the free, why should it get transferred backwards.
Dusty infringes at half forward for Richmond who are getting ready to kick out from a behind, in the spirit of the game do you think we should've met halfway and the kick gets taken there.........no damn way, Free kick to GWS in the goalsquare everyday of the week. It's the same with Lynch.
CholEstrol
Club Legend
- Apr 1, 2016
- 1,401
- 4,640
- AFL Club
- Richmond
theres a difference. one is way off the ball and the other is in the act of trying to stop the goal, albeit late.
Still an infringement, everyone knows the rule. Free kicks don't get taken backwards from where they happened and they never will.
Push a player in the back or knock him over or whatever after they have kicked a goal then be prepared to be punished.
What's your thoughts on brad Ebert getting coat hangered after he marked the ball? Worth less of a penalty than the push?
When did this happen, not being sarcastic i just can't remember when that was .
- Jun 23, 2008
- 33,485
- 27,225
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Norwood, Everton, Detroit Red Wings
A harsh penalty is meant to dissuade offenders from doing it again.
Perhaps if they know the price, that'll learn 'em, eh?
On the wing, he marked the ball, and got coat hangered, umpire gave him high contact free, even though he marked it, where it was clearly late and an obvious 50 would have brought him into goal range. Then later lynch plays on, and recieves a 50. Clearly costly umpiring decisions, but a push in the back is worth a second shot on goal? No wonder port are furious at the umpiring.
Oh that one, hey even i thought that was 50 but hey after the reaming we have copped over the last 2 years i'm not going to complain when a couple of things go our way.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,521
- 40,718
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Would have made the Hawks vs Dogs game a lot closer.
The Power were taking every opportunity to ruffle Tom Lynch. I have no doubt it was a deliberate ploy and team wide tactic. Maybe if the umpire had blown his whistle earlier at one of the earlier instances the Port players may have reigned it in a bit. But they were allowed to carry on... and it continued... and then Lynch finally got a free kick that came back to bite the antagonists on the a**e.
How about the 50 when lynch played on. You can't say lynch was hard done by. Gifted 2 goals and then the last one when port rolled the dice and he was left on his own. His match winning 6 goals flatter him, and I do hope umpires don't make that the norm and actually make it not about the whistle blower. Lynch owes the umps a couple beers.
Finally got a free kick? We're we watching different game. He was gifted 2 by umpire.
I agree, should not have been a fifty metre penalty. Incorrect decision by the umpire.
I was specifically referring to the game long harassment of Lynch by Port players. You can’t deny it happened.
BTW, Lynch only got two frees all night. One was the push in the back, which was always there.
I’ve stated previously I think a free kick from the centre is my preferred outcome in those situations, but it’s always been a free in the goal square when it does happen. It was stupid by the Port player and the outcome should’ve been known by him.
If the umps had pulled up the Power players earlier it might have been a free to Lynch 50 metres from goal. But then Power fans would be calling it a soft free.
I hear your point and I ask you for perspective. Is that worse than the coat hanger as one gifted a goal and the other there was no penalty.
