Lynch cleared...

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

Double the Fist said:
On our gameday thread I thought he (lynch) was gone.
Surprised he got off. Seems I'm in the minority on the WC board.
Click to expand...

Yet we still love you for your short comings.

Hard_to_Beat said:
Intelligence, integrity and honesty would have that effect.
Click to expand...

I thought it was ludicrous that he was even reported. In the end I was justified.
 
Heard a discussion about this on SEN yesterday afternoon where someone said every ex-AFL player who commented thought he'd get off, and most non-player commentators thought he would and should get suspended.

I think anyone who watched football for any length of time would agree that "making him earn it" has always been part of the game - that's why marking backing back like Loose did is so brave. The issue is that the new rules, MRP and tribunal are all about each player's choices, duty of care and "reasonableness" of actions - at least in most cases - so most observers would have expected a player who wasn't going legitimately for the ball and hit another harder than necessary to be pulled up. Not that it's right or wrong, just that it was to be expected this season.

Anyway, nothing to do with us any more. Moving on.
 
Just on this i think it really comes down to a couple of key points.
1. Are lynch's eyes on the ball
2. Did he have time to change his actions once knowing mcmahon was there
3. Did the ball drop in flight due to the wind / earlier than expected.

1. if lynch's eyes are on the ball the whole time i can't see how he could possibly have been charged.
2. this one is questionable, does he know that he's there and if so when do you know an opponent is there whilst having eyes on the ball
3. i was at the game and i thought it did, footage to me looks like it did drop a bit sooner and the kick was into the wind.

Now to qualify this is how i always marked when jumping into a contest where i didnt know what was around me as it was the safest way to protect myself. If you jump without putting the knee out its very easy to have your legs taken from under you causing a lot of damage when it comes time to hit the ground. Having the knee up also protects your own chest, abdomen and most importantly the groin region.

I think the part which upsets north fans is that its hard to see lynch not seeing mcmahon at all. As a player i always tended to have a good idea of what was around me and whilst keeping your eye on the ball is important and stops you from seeing a player or the contest in the last 5-10 metres it didn't stop me seeing an opponent if the contest i was leading to was 20+ metres away. In saying that without going back and checking the footage over and over again what i've just said is determined greatly on the trajectory of the ball. If its a low pass you will see others much sooner, if its a sky ball you won't see them at all etc. etc.

Interestingly though and the part in which i think lynch got off was that the ball was intended for him, a long kick (bringing more doubt) and kicked by our own player. Now if lynch was spoiling and the ball was kicked by a north player who was backing back for the mark then it would have been a rough act.

Lastly best of luck to next season and thanks to the north supporters at the game for showing up and being a good crowd. I had north supporters sitting next to me as well as talking to a few others and the people next to me were happy to have a chat about the game being played, the season and the finals.

(i thought i might point out though that as a player i was a marking forward and a bit of an orrible s**t)
 
WCE_phil said:
I think the part which upsets north fans is that its hard to see lynch not seeing mcmahon at all.
Click to expand...

In part, yes. TBH we're more angered that Ziebell wasn't given such leniency when he too contested the ball in flight, actually connecting with it in the process. The rest is a flow on from that anger we've felt for weeks. Lynch is just clumsy. Bob Beamon couldn't have reached that ball Lynch went for in the air on Sunday.
 
Hearts to hearts said:
I think anyone who watched football for any length of time would agree that "making him earn it" has always been part of the game - that's why marking backing back like Loose did is so brave. The issue is that the new rules, MRP and tribunal are all about each player's choices, duty of care and "reasonableness" of actions - at least in most cases - so most observers would have expected a player who wasn't going legitimately for the ball and hit another harder than necessary to be pulled up. Not that it's right or wrong, just that it was to be expected this season.
Click to expand...

:thumbsu::thumbsu::thumbsu:
 
Hearts to hearts said:
Heard a discussion about this on SEN yesterday afternoon where someone said every ex-AFL player who commented thought he'd get off, and most non-player commentators thought he would and should get suspended.

I think anyone who watched football for any length of time would agree that "making him earn it" has always been part of the game - that's why marking backing back like Loose did is so brave. The issue is that the new rules, MRP and tribunal are all about each player's choices, duty of care and "reasonableness" of actions - at least in most cases - so most observers would have expected a player who wasn't going legitimately for the ball and hit another harder than necessary to be pulled up. Not that it's right or wrong, just that it was to be expected this season.

Anyway, nothing to do with us any more. Moving on.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. The reality is that if Scott McMahon turned around at the last second,slipped, or was simply hurt worse than he is he'd be looking at a 3-4 week holiday. Yet nothing about his decision or intent would have changed. He's lucky and the system is flawed.
 
Not sure it is a good look allowing players to go knee first late into a contest. Ziebell got 4 weeks for something which had a lot less force.

But, someone might do the exact same thing next week and cop 3 or 4 weeks because someone got badly hurt, it seems the Medical Report Panel is all about the injury and less about the intent.
 
WCE_phil said:
Just on this i think it really comes down to a couple of key points.
1. Are lynch's eyes on the ball
2. Did he have time to change his actions once knowing mcmahon was there
3. Did the ball drop in flight due to the wind / earlier than expected.

1. if lynch's eyes are on the ball the whole time i can't see how he could possibly have been charged.
2. this one is questionable, does he know that he's there and if so when do you know an opponent is there whilst having eyes on the ball
3. i was at the game and i thought it did, footage to me looks like it did drop a bit sooner and the kick was into the wind.

Now to qualify this is how i always marked when jumping into a contest where i didnt know what was around me as it was the safest way to protect myself. If you jump without putting the knee out its very easy to have your legs taken from under you causing a lot of damage when it comes time to hit the ground. Having the knee up also protects your own chest, abdomen and most importantly the groin region.

I think the part which upsets north fans is that its hard to see lynch not seeing mcmahon at all. As a player i always tended to have a good idea of what was around me and whilst keeping your eye on the ball is important and stops you from seeing a player or the contest in the last 5-10 metres it didn't stop me seeing an opponent if the contest i was leading to was 20+ metres away. In saying that without going back and checking the footage over and over again what i've just said is determined greatly on the trajectory of the ball. If its a low pass you will see others much sooner, if its a sky ball you won't see them at all etc. etc.

Interestingly though and the part in which i think lynch got off was that the ball was intended for him, a long kick (bringing more doubt) and kicked by our own player. Now if lynch was spoiling and the ball was kicked by a north player who was backing back for the mark then it would have been a rough act.

Lastly best of luck to next season and thanks to the north supporters at the game for showing up and being a good crowd. I had north supporters sitting next to me as well as talking to a few others and the people next to me were happy to have a chat about the game being played, the season and the finals.

(i thought i might point out though that as a player i was a marking forward and a bit of an orrible s**t)
Click to expand...
That's a reasoned comment.....don't agree with it all, but at least it's a reasoned opinion.

I think why most North fans are especially upset is that Lynch did the same thing to Jesse Smith a few years ago. Can't recall if he got suspended that time. But anyone who saw that incident would find it hard to buy the line that in this case 'he was just going for the ball'.

In both cases, Lynch AND the North players were lucky that he didn't do some serious damage.
 
jacko57 said:
That's a reasoned comment.....don't agree with it all, but at least it's a reasoned opinion.

I think why most North fans are especially upset is that Lynch did the same thing to Jesse Smith a few years ago. Can't recall if he got suspended that time. But anyone who saw that incident would find it hard to buy the line that in this case 'he was just going for the ball'.

In both cases, Lynch AND the North players were lucky that he didn't do some serious damage.
Click to expand...

In my humble opinion...
A lot of the anger, amongst all clubs, about the MRP and Tribunal, is that so much of it seems to operate based on *results* not *intentions*. This is by and large pretty bass ackward to the Western (as in cultural) way of thinking. Continues to make for decisions that are deliberately divorced from consistency.
 
Oneiros said:
In my humble opinion...
A lot of the anger, amongst all clubs, about the MRP and Tribunal, is that so much of it seems to operate based on *results* not *intentions*. This is by and large pretty bass ackward to the Western (as in cultural) way of thinking. Continues to make for decisions that are deliberately divorced from consistency.
Click to expand...

In the Lynch case, the Tribunal seems to have decided 'well, he could have done some serious damage, but he didn't, so we'll let him off'. Verdict based on result rather than intention. Is that what you mean?

(and yes, I know Lynch claimed his intention wasn't to run through McMahon,a nd the tribunal bought that).
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

This thread's done and dusted too. We'll bump it next time Lynch is reported for a similar act.

Thread closed!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Flawed Genius
VFL The North VFL Thread [Rd8 - NMFC lt EFC - WiPhi 24d/6 clearances/0.2; Disco18d/3 tackles; Hardeman 15d; Free 11d/1g; Sellers 10d/0.1; Drury 11d/1g]
61 62 63 64 65
Replies
2K
Views
71K
muttley45
muttley45
Flawed Genius
Autopsy Autopsy vs Geelong - Geelong think so little of us that at one stage their starting midfield was Stanley/Bruhn/Dempsey/Atkins & they won the clearance
9 10 11 12 13
Replies
324
Views
12K
Woolly Mammoth
Woolly Mammoth

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top