Player Watch #19 Tom Lynch

[_RT_]

I don't think it has ever happened in my lifetime. Well, apart from Neville Crowe of course. Guess who he happened to play for?

Alistair Lynch copped 3 games back in 2004 for an attempted strike and was rubbed out for a total of 10 weeks on multiple charges from the same incident.

Also the potential to cause injury aspect has actually been applied in many recent cases. Ust 2 quick examples i found were Owies last year missed an elimination final and Kosi Pickett got suspended for a bump on Soligo due to the clause being applied. Do it's not just a Richmond thing as some have suggested.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Hey, this is odd but you and I have the same take (I think). The potential to cause injury seems to be the AFL's get out of jail cause for a 'Legal' action that they want to suspend. I will always bring it back to that Adelaide bloke McAdam and Pickett in round 1 a few years a go. Mcadam cannoned into a bloke trying to execute a fair bump and got the book thrown at him because the AFL used "Potential to cause injury". Pickett who lept off the ground to collect Smith didnt get the "potential to cause injury".

In this instance of Lynch's hit, you would have to say the potential to cause injury was there.

Surely for potential to cause injury to be fairly invoked, the blow would need to have been different from what it was. It would need to have struck a different part of the head, or the head only and not cushioned by the body, or with greater force than was applied, or at a different angle, or with a classic punching technique.....but that was not the blow that was delivered. So they are essentially saying to Lynch had you done something different to what you actually did, that would have had the potential to cause serious injury. The Tribunal invented a level of impact that did not exist, or if it did there was no convincing evidence submitted to support the finding.

The Tribunal just essentially said that because some fast swinging arms contacting the head can cause serious injuries, then all we need to see is a fast swinging arm and any contact to the head to be satisfied that the blow has the potential to cause serious injury. This totally ignores the difference between say a Neil Balme or Barry Hall at one end of the scale and maybe a Zac Bailey on Marlion Pickett on the other end of the scale....





This one was incredibly not free kicked, and not cited. But Pickett was suspended for applying a very similar manoeuvre on Starcevich in the immediate aftermath. Neither Pickett nor Starcevich were injured, but it shows exactly how selectively this potential to cause injury clause is used. Bailey not reported, Marlion Pickett reported and suspended for one match, with from memory the Tribunal finding the blow had the potential to cause serious injury . The actual blows in the 3 cases, Bailey, Pickett and Lynch had a lot of similar characteristics. All 3 mainly connected upper body. All three made some contact to the head. All three were delivered with a fast moving round arm action. All 3 caused no injury. The blows were all roughly the same level of force, it is just that in the Lynch case the ball wasn't involved so he couldn't pretend he didn't mean it. But one was not graded at all, so presumably assessed as insufficient force to warrant a report. One was graded medium impact with potential to cause serious injury. And the other one was graded severe impact with potential to case serious injury. Yet they all had more or less the same impact on the player who was struck, and all had a roughly similar chance of causing a serious injury(realistically concussion only in Lynch's case as nowhere near breakable bones like the jaw.)

I like the clause. Hate the ludicrous way it is applied.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Deserves 5 weeks imo but…

how the **** can they lie straight out and say it was severe impact when Butts got up completely unfazed and played out the game?

Pick 1 come on down

Didn't deserve 5
2 at the most for stupidity

 

[ROYCY HART A TRUE CHF]

Personally think the whole thing has been a bloody joke but unfortunately have come to expect it.

In a perverse sort of way the AFL have done us a favour with their overtly anti Richmond agenda. The punishment handed out to Lynch almost guarantees us the No. 1 draft pick.
Wonder if they will regret that decision when that player is pivotal in our next premiership ?
On another note. Would Lynch now consider playing on next year for a fraction of his true worth considering how badly he has let the club down over recent seasons ?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Alistair Lynch copped 3 games back in 2004 for an attempted strike and was rubbed out for a total of 10 weeks on multiple charges from the same incident.

Also the potential to cause injury aspect has actually been applied in many recent cases. Ust 2 quick examples i found were Owies last year missed an elimination final and Kosi Pickett got suspended for a bump on Soligo due to the clause being applied. Do it's not just a Richmond thing as some have suggested.

Owies was reported for a tackle and Pickett were reported for a bump. There are not targetted blows, but less discriminate actions where the player being charged has less control over the outcome. Where it is a single blow the player has administered, there are a lot less moving parts. The Tribunal should just be asking did this specific blow as administered have the potential to cause serious injury. I don't believe that is the question they have considered. From reading what was reported of their decision they have simply said some fast swinging arm blows that make contact with the head have a high potential to cause serious injury therefore we find this particular blow also did. With no consideration whatsoever of how hard the blow actually was to the head, or angle, or what part of the head is being struck, or whether the force of the blow is partially absorbed by the body.

We may differ on this, but from my experience, I would say that if Lynch administered that precise blow to 100 fit footballers, not too many serious injuries would be suffered, if any. Who knows if you did it to a Paddy McCartin or other player who is highly susceptible to concussions from relatively minor impact to the head. But in all normal circumstances, I don't believe that precise blow had an especially high chance of causing serious injury. It was more like a very hard slap and also not a clean blow to the head.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Personally think the whole thing has been a bloody joke but unfortunately have come to expect it.

In a perverse sort of way the AFL have done us a favour with their overtly anti Richmond agenda. The punishment handed out to Lynch almost guarantees us the No. 1 draft pick.
Wonder if they will regret that decision when that player is pivotal in our next premiership ?
On another note. Would Lynch now consider playing on next year for a fraction of his true worth considering how badly he has let the club down over recent seasons ?

There should be absolutely no need for Lynch or anyone to do that given the state of the club's salary cap.

I don't think the club would consider players who are trying to do all they can to get the best out of themselves as having let the club down. Even players like Balta and Lynch who have made a single poor decision in the heat of the moment.

 

[Achilles Heel]

Has anyone else been suspended for the "potential to cause injury". We've been done at least 3 times with it but I can't recall if it's ever really been applied to other teams.

I mentioned earlier in this thread that it should be a 2 week ban but I was confident the tribunal would give him 4. Wasn't too far off. The tribunal isn't an independent body, they absolutely work hand in hand with the AFL to get their desired outcome. Honestly there's not much point in us turning up to a tribunal hearing as whatever we say falls on deaf ears.

Dustin Martin, that was the first time Gerard Whankley trotted out the potential to cause injury against GWS around 2016 iirc , and that’s what the CFL used in the proceedings

 

[_RT_]

If it connected properly it would not have knocked him out. You are blatantly lying there. it was half arsed with an open hand

And no, I don't believe this thing should be ignored, but it was a weak swing that did nothing and should be a week off as per their own chart that says intentional high contact low impact is 1 week off

Take the Richmond coloured glasses off. It wasn't a weak half assed open handed slap. It was forceful enough to knock Butts to the ground and if it connected properly it would have done more damage than it did. That is why Lynch copped what he did to serve as a reminder to others that this sort of act isn't on regardless of the reasoning

 

[Antzzz]

I knew we were hated but I'm shocked the hate still exists 5 years later especially when we have only won 5 games in 2 years.

I get the hate from Whateley, we embarrassed his precious cats numerous times, Jordan Lewis can lay the boots in now that his mate Jack no longer plays for us.

Jon Ralph hates us more than Lord of the Wings as a "Richmond" supporter. The grandstanding this guy does ever since our COVID year is just putrid.

It's no coincidence that everytime there's an incident involving one of our players we seem to cop the worst of it. Mansell earlier this year, Lynch now, that's just this season.

This punishment will never happen again, a player who doesn't injure an opponent will not get suspended for longer than actually hurting someone. In fact I would love it to happen next week and see all the haters back flip like we all know they would.

Don't get me started on our Lawyers either, what are we actually paying these clowns for? Better off representing yourself without these leeches bumbling their way in a tribunal hearing.

You left out that fooking imbecile Damien Barret ....him and whately are fooking campaigners of the highest order and that prick Jay Clarke is not far behind ....AFL has ****ed this game and the Media are a bunch of parasites

 

[rfctigerarmy]

Take the Richmond coloured glasses off. It wasn't a weak half assed open handed slap. It was forceful enough to knock Butts to the ground and if it connected properly it would have done more damage than it did. That is why Lynch copped what he did to serve as a reminder to others that this sort of act isn't on regardless of the reasoning

How many weeks should you get for threatening someone (i.e. Willie Rioli) or is psychological injuries not the same and thats ok?

You know, to serve a reminder to others and all that

 

[ShereKhan]

Take the Richmond coloured glasses off. It wasn't a weak half assed open handed slap. It was forceful enough to knock Butts to the ground and if it connected properly it would have done more damage than it did. That is why Lynch copped what he did to serve as a reminder to others that this sort of act isn't on regardless of the reasoning

Not a single Richmond fan things he should've got off. And noboby is supportive of the action. But if Lynch did exactly the same thing but with an action which wasn't as 'agricultural', then the decision comes back 'intentional / high contact / medium impact' = 2-weeks.

I'm not against additional penalty for the action and risk of more severe injury. And other players have copped an extra week here or there for the same reason. But let's be clear.... based on no similar precedent ever in the history of our game, Lynch has been handed an additional THREE weeks based on the clause of 'risk of more serious injury'. Not a 1-week little bump. Not a 2-week little bump. But a 3-week bump in penalty.

That's what's infuriating. Keeping in mind Mansell copped 3-weeks NOT for the action, as everyone agreed it wasn't malicious or intended to hurt and was a football action, but he copped 3-weeks - maximum chips - FOR THE OUTCOME.

So for Tiger players it seems it's:

1. Mansell's action OK. Outcome not good. Maximum penalty available is handed down of 3 x weeks.

2. Action poor. Outcome no problem. 3-weeks over and above what the table of offences says would normally be handed down in that situation = 5x weeks.

So can anyone find an example in the last let's say 3-4 x years where a player has received an EXTRA 3 x weeks based on the potential to cause more serious injury? Many examples where a player gets an extra week, I accept that.

But Lynch just got 5 x weeks for a round arm haymaker where a player was not hit flush in the head and was un-injured. Nash got 4 x weeks where he flushed Miers with his forearm and knocked him unconscious.

Just take a moment to think about that....5 x weeks for an indirect blow to shoulder / back of the head that didn't injure the player.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Take the Richmond coloured glasses off. It wasn't a weak half assed open handed slap. It was forceful enough to knock Butts to the ground and if it connected properly it would have done more damage than it did. That is why Lynch copped what he did to serve as a reminder to others that this sort of act isn't on regardless of the reasoning

The blow did not knock Butts to the ground at all. He elected to go to ground. Fair enough if you just copped a forceful blow, but he was not knocked off his feet.

When you say if it connected properly, what do you mean? How do you think this particular blow could have connected "better?" It sounds to me like you are saying if the blow took nothing but head it would have done more damage than it did. This is the whole thing, the blow wasn't designed to do that, and it didn't do that. It possibly couldn't have done that. Lynch strikes downwards targetting the upper body to break Butts' hold on him. You can clearly see this higher to lower motion in the sequence of shots below. This to me is not a motion with which you are likely to cause serious injury to the head with. A classic knockout roundhouse punch punch starts with a distinct down to up motion. A classic knockout overhand punch is normally delivered with the puncher's body weight lowered somewhat as the punch is being delivered, which we can see Lynch does not do. This was much more a swiping, slapping or chopping type motion. If you went to a boxing gym and purported to throw a "punch" at someone the way like Lynch does here they would laugh at you, because they know it is not dangerous.

 

[Drunken Wookie]

Personally think the whole thing has been a bloody joke but unfortunately have come to expect it.

In a perverse sort of way the AFL have done us a favour with their overtly anti Richmond agenda. The punishment handed out to Lynch almost guarantees us the No. 1 draft pick.
Wonder if they will regret that decision when that player is pivotal in our next premiership ?
On another note. Would Lynch now consider playing on next year for a fraction of his true worth considering how badly he has let the club down over recent seasons ?

WC still needs to win 2 games. Even if they beat us I cant see them going out of their way to win another one. We will genuinely be their grand final, can go all-in to beat us and still get pick 1.

 

[Cdog71]

It’s done now and there’s no merit in an appeal.
Alotve people might disagree with me but I 100% believe the coaching group should’ve seen that building and done something about it.
Him remonstrating with the umpire, getting more physical and charging the oppo under the ball the incident where he nearly stomped the Adel player on the ground.
He needed a circuit breaker and I reckon Hardwick would’ve taken him off or sent the runner to him or done something but there wasn’t any action from our coaches and in the end he popped.
I don’t think the player was knocked to the ground, I don’t think he struck him in the head, I don’t think it was sever impact but it was reckless violence and he didn’t look in control of himself.
You can’t have reckless violence.

Like I said a lot my disagree with me but I’ve lost confidence in Yze as a coach and a coach who knows his players.

 

[smasha]

The commentators reaction was completely ott I thought.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

So can anyone find an example in the last let's say 3-4 x years where a player has received an EXTRA 3 x weeks based on the potential to cause more serious injury? Many examples where a player gets an extra week, I accept that.

Nobody will find any example of anything remotely like that because it has never occurred since Neville Crowe was suspended for a Grand Final for ZERO contact with John Nicholls. That one will never be beaten.

Think about the Tom Stewart on Prestia incident v this one. Both just after the ball had passed. Stewart elects to bump catches nothing but chin knocks Prestia absolutely senseless. No ball in sight. It was a deliberate action, ie deliberately elected to bump. 4 weeks.

Lynch has a swipe at Butts. Collects shoulder with along with head. It was a deliberate action. Not one hair on Butts' head was damaged. No disruption, no injury. 5 weeks.

 

[Cherki]

Free Tommy Two Flags!

 

[Meteoric Rise]

It’s done now and there’s no merit in an appeal.
Alotve people might disagree with me but I 100% believe the coaching group should’ve seen that building and done something about it.
Him remonstrating with the umpire, getting more physical and charging the oppo under the ball the incident where he nearly stomped the Adel player on the ground.
He needed a circuit breaker and I reckon Hardwick would’ve taken him off or sent the runner to him or done something but there wasn’t any action from our coaches and in the end he popped.
I don’t think the player was knocked to the ground, I don’t think he struck him in the head, I don’t think it was sever impact but it was reckless violence and he didn’t look in control of himself.
You can’t have reckless violence.

Like I said a lot my disagree with me but I’ve lost confidence in Yze as a coach and a coach who knows his players.

I agree with a lot of what you say here. The appeal I don't know. Nothing to lose, but is it worth the effort? It comes down to how much Richmond wants to have a chance of Lynch playing earlier than 6 matches from now.

The Yze bit I see that differently. I agree the coaching staff could have sent the runner out and said come cool your jets, and in hindsight they will think they should have done so. But in terms of not knowing the players or making an error, I don't think in isolation this is something over which to lose confidence in Yze. He(and the other coaches) would have to not learn from the experience and repeat similar errors of judgement to warrant a loss of confidence imo. The coaches and players will largely still be getting to know each other. Yze has actually coached Lynch for all of about 17 or 18 matches. Nothing like this has happened before with Lynch.

I agree with you about reckless violence. You don't want to see it. And there should be a penalty. But that penalty needs to be in line with the circumstances and in proportion to other penalties. This one doesn't seem to be.

 

[Blue Red and Gold]

2017 mate remember the last Saturday in September 2017 great day hay ??.N.F.O Y F.I

Gee, didnt see that coming, you got me.

 

[Blue Red and Gold]

Ignored of course, which cleatly shows how stuffed the system is

or it didnt warrant anything other than a free kick?

 

[Punt rd end]

Apparently Razor said there were 4 missed free kicks to Lynch, umpiring is

 

[Coach_Required]

You left out that fooking imbecile Damien Barret ....him and whately are fooking campaigners of the highest order and that prick Jay Clarke is not far behind ....AFL has ****ed this game and the Media are a bunch of parasites

100% Jay Clarke is a ****ing useless campaigner, how he got the top job at the sun is mind boggling and show you just how low journalism has gone.

 

[Punt rd end]

or it didnt warrant anything other than a free kick?

He didn't get a free kick, and the punch had the potential to cause injury, Tex shouldn't be playing this week

 

[Tiger V]

AFL icon Mick Malthouse believes the five-week ban for Tigers star Tom Lynch was a "public relations exercise" and an "overreaction".
That's it in a nutshell

 

[Wooden Robot]

Might be Robinson Crusoe but I dgaf, we got a smorgasbord of young talls that we can’t give ops to , gray at VFL makes me sick , blighty is in now and youngy is owning it at VFL deserves a shot too and sims would warrant a game again some time ,,, so lynch absence that let’s face it was doing fa is a blessing , as they say in the classics once butthole keeps you to donuts in a half you know it’s time to retire

Couldn't agree more.
It's hard to accept, given all he's done for us since his arrival, but he's become an almost weekly distraction this year and his best is long gone.
The future's where it's at.