Well that and the vibe, and Mabo, and the constitution, yeah that'll be the defence for sure.
Lynch (Richmond) V the Tribunal
- Thread starter iBeng
- Start date
- Tagged users None
The tribunals refusal to consider precedence says it all about the hick court it is.
That isn't a reportable offence for mine but the AFL listens to the mood of the media/public and will somehow construct a decision that appeases them. In which case he will get a week
The interesting thing will be if Richmond appeals
RichLeMonde
Club Legend
It was actually what the pro wrestlers used to call a ‘for arm jolt’. hakfway between a shove and a strike really. My view is if you did that to a head or throat it should be a week, but to three chest? Harmless. Especially when in response to someone punching your hand.
I seriously don’t know what I’m missing. I’ve watched it multiple times and he simply shoves Hurley in the chest. How is he reported for that?
Afl reacts to social media thats why
The Falcon Strike
Hall of Famer
You are conflating precedence with record.
Precedence would be using similar cases to assess whether Lynch is guilty or not.
Increasing punishment based on record is consistent with what the AFL does - which is why Grimes got more of a punishment for a second staging offence than Vlaustin did for staging the first time
Jon Ralph and Tom Morris head up the weekend tribunal who send their report to Michael Christian, the MRO, on a Sunday who then is too scared to make a decision so he hands it to the mid week tribunal who then come up with a stupid decision to suspend him, then Richmond appeal it and it goes to the appeal tribunal and then he gets off. From there it goes back to the court of public opinion where he sentenced to be called a flog and booed for the rest of his days, then back to John Ralph and Tom Morris to call for treatment of Lynch by fans as unacceptable all this because he pushed a player in the chest who was pushing him 50m off the ball.
It’s a good system we have.
Nick Daffy 10
Senior List
- Apr 28, 2015
- 167
- 321
- AFL Club
- Richmond
More likely we would lose any appeal to the tribunial and he would get an extra week.
Then just for fun, the AFL will come over the top and declare that one-two weeks is "manifestly inadequate" and he will be given 4 weeks.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,552
- 40,751
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Plus the Tribunal has been ignoring the MRO and not giving weeks and fines instead sometimes.
So maybe this is the chance for consistency.
Strike the head or throat and get a week.
- Dec 5, 2017
- 2,108
- 4,981
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Des Headland used it successfully when charged with striking Adam Selwood in 2007 so it can happen but I agree, very unlikely.
Edit: that was provocation, not self defence
Last edited:
Yamumluvsbigcox
Cancelled
- Oct 22, 2012
- 8,714
- 14,107
- AFL Club
- West Coast
But it's not just for this . He has had 2 warnings in the form of fines to cut this behavior out .
But the mush head flog didn't even wait a week to belt someone else off the ball !
What is worse is Hardwick endorsed his behavior.
Seriously not a brain cell between the two if they didn't think this would be the result
Jimmybob
Spec Moderator
- May 26, 2012
- 4,730
- 8,076
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Heat, Tasmania
- Moderator
- #87
Far from belting someone off the ball. Your hatred toward Lynch is laughable. Ignoring his previous indiscretions from the past month, how do you think the MRO should've dealt with this incident?
Also I'm curious, what are your thoughts on Hurley consistently hitting Lynch's injured hand?
- Banned
- #88
But what happened to grimes is that the first time he got a discount to the fine for a first offence which he didn't get for the second, not that his penalty was increased the second time for repeat offences.
What we are talking about with Lynch is taking an action that has been a fine for at least the last few years, and increasing what is barely a reportable offence to a suspension. That's what's unfair about using precedence in this manner. The AFL argue that precedence can't be used as a defence because each action has to be considered in isolation, and so each report needs to also be considered in isolation, and in isolation this is barely reportable and a fine at most.
Listening and watching nearly everything in the last few days, it's interesting that everyone agrees with the above, all except AFL mouthpiece Mitch Cleary. We all.know how 'independent' the AFL run media is so there's clearly an agenda there.
Yamumluvsbigcox
Cancelled
- Oct 22, 2012
- 8,714
- 14,107
- AFL Club
- West Coast
The lynch strike to Hurley was worth a fine . We have seen softer than that get fines this year and we have seen worse than that get fines .
It is very similar to the to the 1 week suspension of Yeo that we successfully won at the tribunal only difference is yeo had an open hand and lynch had a closed fist .
I don't believe that the lynch hit in isolation was a week and Christian didn't give him a week he just said you have not got the msg with the 3 fines in the last month so I'll send you to the tribunal to sort it out .
If Hurley did hit lynch injured hand then it should be the same as the Carlisle/rampe incident where Carlisle got a fine for it .
Difference is rampe didn't then belt Carlisle
Lynch needs to be held accountable for his s**t behavior and giving him a fine doesn't seem to work .
Also why should we ignore his behavior from they last month ?
- Jan 3, 2012
- 43,786
- 89,047
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Chelsea FC, Victory, All Blecks,
Free to play what a shame, maybe Hurley needs to be looked at for staging
- Jan 3, 2012
- 43,786
- 89,047
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Chelsea FC, Victory, All Blecks,
Was the MRO one of the sackings today?, should have been just wasted a truckload of money the OFFAL don’t have
Good point. Tribunal agreed it was a forearm to the chest.
That is inconsistent with Hurley holding his neck and throwing his head back. If the AFL are serious, Hurley should be fined for staging.
Vlastuin clearly received contact above the shoulder, but put some mayo on it and threw his head back = fine.
Hurley, no contact above the chest, yet throws head back and grabs his neck = play on.
Essendon kissed on the pecker as usual.
- Oct 29, 2017
- 18,943
- 36,558
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Great decision. Correct decision.
Hopefully no more death threats and we can all move on.
Hopefully no more death threats and we can all move on.
- Sep 16, 2006
- 35,878
- 35,484
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Can we get rid of Michael Christian he's a useless sack of s**t.
- Oct 29, 2017
- 18,943
- 36,558
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Clearly!
smasha
It's Time!
He did not strike ,that’s why he got off,stupendously dumbfounding he had to be put in front of a tribunal tonight,something smells like a brothel at the AFL.
muzhogg
Club Legend
- Sep 9, 2017
- 2,092
- 10,012
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Yeah, we all expect somebody to front the tribunal when they push somebody in the chest.
What was Lynch thinking? Risking suspension by engaging in conduct that's within the rules of the game?
Richmond argued it was a shove to the chest........ with a closed fist, to the throat 
captain blood 17
El Jefe
- Dec 9, 2006
- 50,328
- 111,992
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Aston Villa Traralgon Football Club
Common sense prevails. And not a good look for the AFL to be pissing needless money away on a day when they just shed a ton of jobs to cut costs.
Similar threads
