The Tom Lynch 2 goals in 30 seconds freekick - AFL need to fix this

[kozi]

Bottom line is that’s the only time players think they can get away with it as most umpires don’t have the balls to call it in that situation. Best way to stamp it out of the game is to pay them. Doubt we’ll see another player do it again any time soon.

 

[ZingerB]

The problem is that the Umps choose to pay it whenever they see fit with bias.

The exact same act will not be paid every time, especially to the lower teams and no name players. Do it to a star of the game the Umps cannot blow the whistle quick enough!

Consistency is all most want.

Winner winner. Burton was dumb but it was sufficiently contemporaneous as to be part of the same play. If someone nuts someone in the head 5 seconds later in a completely different play then let them burn. But I have never seen it paid in the circumstances of today. Wingard got pushed 2-3 seconds after he ran into an open goal about 2 yrs ago, and it has happened to us at least 1 more time in the past 5 years, there the ones that should be paid and we never get them. Dixon got pinged for the 30 second rule when he lost 10 seconds on the ground with an opponent on top of him. It happened in the 2017 EF with port players jumping up and down pointing at the screen and we got nothing. Adding the 50m to Lynch in the same game is just a disgrace. I will cop bad decisions when umpires are blind sided, they miss a throw, whatever. But when you are several seconds slow on blowing play on, then instead of admitting your mistake and bring it back or, you know, blow play on, you double down and pay 50m, that is a disgrace and should get the ump a few weeks off.

 

[Back One Out]

sufficiently contemporaneous

 

[Frank Gallagher]

I don't have a problem with it, don't do it.

 

[Frank Gallagher]

How can people be happy with this rule? A push in the back anywhere else on the ground doesnt results in a guaranteed goal. Its a joke. The ball has gone though the goals. The play now restarts back in the middle. Thats where the freekick should be given.

Push someone in the back in the goal square and you give up a goal, why should it matter if one was just kicked? Don't push people in the back and you won't have a problem.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Always been a thing. The last one I recall Richmond getting was to Phil Egan about 1990.

 

[Fadge]

Tiges need a leg up to help them win games this year, we get it...

 

[Tex9798]

If Tom Lynch pushed Burton in the back after the goal it would be a free kick at the centre bounce.

Don't see why it should be different if it's the other way around.

Dumb rule for me. Free kick in the centre is what it should be.

 

[sprockets]

Tom Lynch just ran into an open goal and less than a second after he kicked the ball through the goals he was pushed in the back and awarded another set shot at goal. That rule is a joke. No way does a push in the back warrant an extra 6 points. If anything Richmond should get a freekick from the next centre bounce. Thats it. People think the 50m rule is harsh at times. Under no circumstances should anyone get a free goal for a push in the back immediately after kicking a goal.

Get this crap right AFL.

Would Lynch have got a free kick from the centre square if he hadn't kicked a goal? Also, let's say he was pushed in the back after kicking from the wing for example - would the Tigers have got a downfield free kick, probably in front of goal? Just because he kicked a goal doesn't mean it's not a free kick from that spot (or downfield).

 

[sprockets]

If Tom Lynch pushed Burton in the back after the goal it would be a free kick at the centre bounce.

Don't see why it should be different if it's the other way around.

Dumb rule for me. Free kick in the centre is what it should be.

See my post above - it's a disadvantage to Burton and his team if he had to take his free from the backline and it'd become automatic for a team that kicks a goal to give away a free at fullback. Silly argument.

 

[BG32]

Just a fap fest result for the AFL an easy 6 points to boost scoring, even though its way down.

 

[Xtreme]

Tom Lynch just ran into an open goal and less than a second after he kicked the ball through the goals he was pushed in the back and awarded another set shot at goal. That rule is a joke. No way does a push in the back warrant an extra 6 points. If anything Richmond should get a freekick from the next centre bounce. Thats it. People think the 50m rule is harsh at times. Under no circumstances should anyone get a free goal for a push in the back immediately after kicking a goal.

Get this crap right AFL.

Maybe the opposition shouldn't shove players out of frustration, thus they would stop giving away dodgy free kicks!!!

 

[Tex9798]

See my post above - it's a disadvantage to Burton and his team if he had to take his free from the backline and it'd become automatic for a team that kicks a goal to give away a free at fullback. Silly argument.

Just because you think it makes sense doesn't mean it's not a dumb rule.

Clock is stopped, play is stopped, why should it be at the point of the free kick? I think a free centre clearance is still a massive advantage, it's not as big an advantage as a free goal but it's still huge.

This game has plenty of rules that don't make sense, this is one and I've always thought this.

 

[telsor]

Tiges need a leg up to help them win games this year, we get it...

So, like Collingwood every year?

 

[rmcq]

OMG people.

Yeah let’s change another rule that’s been in the game for 100 years just because some nuffy Port player is an idiot. If he doesn’t know the rule that a push in the back after disposal leads to a down-the-field free kick (in this case the goal line) then he shouldn’t be playing football.

Yeah let’s change another rule. Seriously get a life!

Ona side note, I really hate players pushing others in the back after a mark for example, I’d like to see more 50s paid for that too.

 

[Ron The Bear]

It was a soft, soft free. But occasionally umpires apply these obscure rules to the letter of the law.

At Geelong in 2009, Luke McGuane punched the ball after it had crossed the goal line. The ball went back over his head into the crowd and Geelong was given a second shot at goal (which they converted) for "time wasting". The only time I ever saw the rule used.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/time-wasting-rule-silly-20090406-ge7s4j.html

 

[rmcq]

It was a soft, soft free. But occasionally umpires apply these obscure rules to the letter of the law.

At Geelong in 2009, Luke McGuane punched the ball after it had crossed the goal line. The ball went back over his head into the crowd and Geelong was given a second shot at goal (which they converted) for "time wasting". The only time I ever saw the rule used.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/time-wasting-rule-silly-20090406-ge7s4j.html

It’s hardly obscure. But most defenders aren’t so stupid as to give away an after-the-play free kick in the goal square. I knew it’s be paid before the umpire blew the whistle because it was so obvious.

The Port player was dumb and may have cost his team the game. The umpire did the right thing.

Why go after the umpire? The Port player should be dropped.

 

[telsor]

It was soft, but we've all seen worse paid, and for unnecessary events like that, I don't really mind the umps paying them (let's face it, it's 'off the ball' so if the contact was harder and/or the player got hurt, it'd be reportable, so discouraging it is not unreasonable).

As for where the free is given...If Lynch had taken the kick from the center square and been pushed, it would have been paid downfield where the ball landed. Does it really make sense that you go backwards if that kick scored? How would that rule work exactly? What about if it was only a point? Or if the opposition punched it through? (deliberately?)

Seems simpler to just have the same rule apply where ever on the ground it happens. (and the way the game is right now, simpler would be a good thing).

 

[Andrew Mc]

It was a soft, soft free. But occasionally umpires apply these obscure rules to the letter of the law.

At Geelong in 2009, Luke McGuane punched the ball after it had crossed the goal line. The ball went back over his head into the crowd and Geelong was given a second shot at goal (which they converted) for "time wasting". The only time I ever saw the rule used.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/time-wasting-rule-silly-20090406-ge7s4j.html

Buddy had one paid against him last year - think it was for throwing the ball away from the boundary ump. Or at least not directly to him.

 

[Zoom]

Tiges need a leg up to help them win games this year, we get it...

Hahaha hang in there bud xo

 

[Poor Form]

Good call really, umpires should have taken action earlier Port players were haggling Lynch the whole first half culminating in that diabolical 50 against Lynch at the end of the first half. Amazing how quickly they stopped being dickheads when their bravado cost them a goal, if they had given a regular free earlier Port player might have realised they can't get away with cheap shots on opponents and not gone an pushed him after the kick.

Umpire was correct and more of these should be paid to stop stupidity.

 

[HTT]

Should probably be taken from the centre since technically that’s where the play is after a goal. But it’s a totally unnecessary free kick to give away. Because of that the heavy penalty isn’t as much of an issue as the contact below the knees rules where players are punished for playing the footy.

 

[rank and file]

Time for the AFL integrity unit to investigate how much $ the umpires stand to win when Lynch wins the Coleman.

 

[sprockets]

Just because you think it makes sense doesn't mean it's not a dumb rule.

Clock is stopped, play is stopped, why should it be at the point of the free kick? I think a free centre clearance is still a massive advantage, it's not as big an advantage as a free goal but it's still huge.

This game has plenty of rules that don't make sense, this is one and I've always thought this.

But it totally makes sense. A free kick in front of goal should be treated the same as a free kick paid anywhere on the ground, or should we have two sets of rules, depending on where the free kick happens? Plus, anyone that plays anywhere near the back line knows that a mistake could cost his team a goal. It was just plain dumb to give away a free kick in the goal square.

BTW, Play hasn't stopped, it only stops when the siren goes. A free kick can be paid during time off and it's quite common for it to happen.

 

[maskmcgee]

Something similar happened to Geelong in the 09 Grand Final and I hated it. But ultimately it was Milburns fault not the umpires.

No, Milburn got done for umpire abuse not for any act against a player.