Lynch cleared...

[DarkPhoenix]

Just FYI, he was cleared because he did not charge but made a legitimate attempt to mark the ball, and only arrived 0.06 seconds after the ball, which dropped shorter than expected.

He didnt even have his hands up reaching for the ball, how is that a legitimate marking attempt?

Re: the final insult. No the final insult will be Lynch gets off AND Harvey gets more.

 

[scottywiper]

Cmon Mancey, you are better than that.

 

[Mancey]

Cmon Mancey, you are better than that.

I reckon I was 20m max from it.

Looked a good solid contest.

Wonder how many people Carey crunched like that. You can't complain about the crap zeibell decision then go the other way on this one

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Who invited the peanut gallery?

They crave our acceptance.

Why else would they be here?

 

[Pat_Footy]

Hopefully Hansen and Tarrant have a look at that and see what is required to bust packs open. Personally, I'm ok with Lynch getting off. McMahon deserved 50 though - did he get that? The Ziebell suspension was farcical, yes.

Should have been a 50. Ziebell's suspension was ridiculous... Lynch was contesting the mark - that's footy.

 

[Tander]

Well I think North need to scout the tribunal representatives from West Coast to North...

Q Stick = Off

Zeibell = 4 Weeks

 

[scottywiper]

I reckon I was 20m max from it.

Looked a good solid contest.

Wonder how many people Carey crunched like that. You can't complain about the crap zeibell decision then go the other way on this one

Can't agree re good, solid contest. Can agree re Carey (plus Lockett Dunstall, etc) but footy was different in those days, if you stood in front of a forward they hurt you, thankfully the game has moved on from that.
I only bring the Ziebell decision into it because it highlights a complete lack of consistency in the system to me.
To me, one was an attack on the ball that cost four weeks, one was at best clumsy and cost nothing.
Bear in mind, you can say whatever you want on your board about the decision and I certainly won't go on there and challenge it - that's your right.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Two words - Piss off (back to your own board).

Who would read their opinions there?

This is the sole reason they are here.

 

[WA ROO]

Pay back for Bon speaking out.The MRP and the tribunal have long memmories.

 

[Tander]

Well I think North need to scout the tribunal representatives from West Coast to North...

Q Stick = Off

Zeibell = 4 Weeks

 

[Spuddage]

Confusing how you can complain about the ziebell suspension and call for lynchs head in the same post. Both eyes only for the ball, impacted a contest and a bloke got hurt, its part of footy.
Yes Jack deserved to get off, we all agree on that, why do you now want people suspended for it?

 

[scottywiper]

Confusing how you can complain about the ziebell suspension and call for lynchs head in the same post. Both eyes only for the ball, impacted a contest and a bloke got hurt, its part of footy.
Yes Jack deserved to get off, we all agree on that, why do you now want people suspended for it?

I don't think both were an attack of the ball, it's only my opinion, but that's what I think.

 

[astrovic]

Can't see why our attitudes here have anything to do with the outcome of the game.

Personally I'm calling it as I see it. Lynch was late and could have pulled out but went for it and charged. 1 week is fair. I'd say the same if it was a North player. That he got off? No big deal, good luck to him. I disagree, but no matter.

The added spice is the comparison with Ziebell, who apparently should have pulled out somehow but copped 4. That he got done - for 4 - and Lynch got off really rankles. That's not a knock on Lynch, more a knock on the inconsistency of the tribunal.

 

[HoneyBadger35]

Ziebell decision was utter crap, everyone at the time accepted how awful it was. I thought Lynch should have been cleared, but saying this makes the Ziebell decision look worse is just going to get more frustrating in the long run. The Ziebell decision was filth and has been from day 1, whether Lynch got weeks or not.

 

[utility]

Not surprised by this at all... probably deserved at least a week because it was such a non-attempt at a mark. Barely raised his arms at all.

 

[Ry009]

Not a black and white issue, Coasters fans - if you're gonna post here - tone it down lads.

On topic everyone.

 

[Mr Reliable]

I reckon I was 20m max from it.

Looked a good solid contest.

Wonder how many people Carey crunched like that. You can't complain about the crap zeibell decision then go the other way on this one

He usually marked the ball. When he clocked Sartori in the back of the head late out at the Western Oval he got two weeks.

Unlike Scotty McMahon who bravely soldiered on Sartori went down like a bag of shit and stayed down.

I don't care if Q got off. I'll be interested in seeing how brave he is when the Footy Gods catch up to him.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Like I said, he would get off.

A poster on our board did a full breakdown, the NM player (Scott McMahon) moved further backwards, than Lynch moved forwards from the time Lynch left the ground.

He also had only 0.06 seconds to respond.

Taking both of these factors into account and that Lynch had eyes only for the ball and was making a legitimate attempt (had McMahon not been moving backwards Lynch would have marked the ball), then the most reasonable decision for the tribunal to reach was to clear Lynch of the charge.

 

[Mancey]

Can't agree re good, solid contest. Can agree re Carey (plus Lockett Dunstall, etc) but footy was different in those days, if you stood in front of a forward they hurt you, thankfully the game has moved on from that.
I only bring the Ziebell decision into it because it highlights a complete lack of consistency in the system to me.
To me, one was an attack on the ball that cost four weeks, one was at best clumsy and cost nothing.
Bear in mind, you can say whatever you want on your board about the decision and I certainly won't go on there and challenge it - that's your right.

Maybe I'm less thankful the game has moved on from that. No one wants to see blokes getting king hit Lethal style...but big blokes crunching packs...I'd like to see more of it

Troy Wilson would have got rubbed out week one of his albeit short career if crap like this became the norm

 

[HoneyBadger35]

Not that this is admissible evidence (at least not to my knowledge), but somebody posted this over on our board which shows they both jumped at the same time - helps the case that Lynch's jumping in was not unreasonable.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Damning stuff.

Dogs act.

 

[Principally]

How come no one really seems to mind the Lynch mark later on in the game when he put the knee in to the back of a North players head? Surely that was more dangerous? Or is it because he marked the ball that time that it doesn't matter.

 

[Oh Darling]

Damning stuff.

Dogs act.

What is damning about that? That actually proves Lynchs argument... that the ball arrived as he arrived at the contest.

 

[astrovic]

How come no one really seems to mind the Lynch mark later on in the game when he put the knee in to the back of a North players head? Surely that was more dangerous? Or is it because he marked the ball that time that it doesn't matter.

Crossed my mind - damn glad the MRP made no issue of it, the game would be utterly ruined if blokes couldn't jump as high as they can to try and take a mark, even if their knee collects skull. But...Ziebell...had an alternative way to attack the ball etc etc

 

[jacko57]

How come no one really seems to mind the Lynch mark later on in the game when he put the knee in to the back of a North players head? Surely that was more dangerous? Or is it because he marked the ball that time that it doesn't matter.

That was a genuine attempt (and a successful one) to mark the ball.

The fact that this one got a green light from the Tribunal doesn't alter my opinion that he had one intention only, which was to hurt McMahon.