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

WCfan22

WCE tragic
Apr 1, 2019
1,988
971
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
WWE
The free was correct. Lynch had already kicked the goal. He then got pushed after the goal scored it is just the same as if a player in the goal square is holding when there is a center bounce the free is given where the infringement occurs. Pretty simple dont push someone after they kick a goal.
 

dean33

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 10, 2007
12,349
18,398
melb
AFL Club
Richmond
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.
Have to agree. While I was happy to take the extra goal yesterday and the umpire was correct in awarding the free as that’s what the rule says. It really should be a free kick in the centre of the ground. Silly rule.
 

CholEstrol

Club Legend
Apr 1, 2016
1,401
4,640
AFL Club
Richmond
The rule should be changed though so it’s a kick in the centre - not in front

Should only be a double shot at goal of free kick occurs after the all clear and goal umpire has waved flags
agree. free was 100% there by the rules but the penalty too harsh.
but even in the second scenario should be from the centre imo.
 
Jun 7, 2015
6,971
13,676
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
More importantly, did Lynch wait the full 30 seconds before taking the next kick as happens when there is a bounce after a goal?

If not, the goal should be disallowed. In fact, how about we declare the whole game void.
 
May 22, 2014
16,554
56,035
Punt Rd to Goodison Park
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Everton
Have to agree. While I was happy to take the extra goal yesterday and the umpire was correct in awarding the free as that’s what the rule says. It really should be a free kick in the centre of the ground. Silly rule.
No

agree. free was 100% there by the rules but the penalty too harsh.
but even in the second scenario should be from the centre imo.
Also no, infringement was in the goalsquare and that's where the free kick is taken just like it is all over the ground unless the infringement has happened behind the ball, ala Dusty last week, then the free kick will be taken from where the ball is.

Do you believe Cameron should've got a free in the square or should it have been taken all the way back to where Dusty infringed.
 

CholEstrol

Club Legend
Apr 1, 2016
1,401
4,640
AFL Club
Richmond
got me thinking. technically it's foul after disposal which is down the ground, or in the case of Lynch through the goals. So you may have a point.
technically it makes sense. but in the spirit of the game an extra goal penalty still seems harsh. Maybe a free from the fifty is the middle ground?
 
May 22, 2014
16,554
56,035
Punt Rd to Goodison Park
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Everton
got me thinking. technically it's foul after disposal which is down the ground, or in the case of Lynch through the goals. So you may have a point.
technically it makes sense. but in the spirit of the game an extra goal penalty still seems harsh. Maybe a free from the fifty is the middle ground?
But that is penalizing the team getting the free, why should it get transferred backwards.

Dusty infringes at half forward for Richmond who are getting ready to kick out from a behind, in the spirit of the game do you think we should've met halfway and the kick gets taken there.........no damn way, Free kick to GWS in the goalsquare everyday of the week. It's the same with Lynch.
 

CholEstrol

Club Legend
Apr 1, 2016
1,401
4,640
AFL Club
Richmond
But that is penalizing the team getting the free, why should it get transferred backwards.

Dusty infringes at half forward for Richmond who are getting ready to kick out from a behind, in the spirit of the game do you think we should've met halfway and the kick gets taken there.........no damn way, Free kick to GWS in the goalsquare everyday of the week. It's the same with Lynch.
theres a difference. one is way off the ball and the other is in the act of trying to stop the goal, albeit late.
 
May 22, 2014
16,554
56,035
Punt Rd to Goodison Park
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Everton
theres a difference. one is way off the ball and the other is in the act of trying to stop the goal, albeit late.
Still an infringement, everyone knows the rule. Free kicks don't get taken backwards from where they happened and they never will.

Push a player in the back or knock him over or whatever after they have kicked a goal then be prepared to be punished.
 

ozaddy

Club Legend
Sep 1, 2012
1,522
895
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Still an infringement, everyone knows the rule. Free kicks don't get taken backwards from where they happened and they never will.

Push a player in the back or knock him over or whatever after they have kicked a goal then be prepared to be punished.
What's your thoughts on brad Ebert getting coat hangered after he marked the ball? Worth less of a penalty than the push?
 
Jun 23, 2008
33,485
27,225
Headed for Kirribilli House
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Norwood, Everton, Detroit Red Wings
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.

A harsh penalty is meant to dissuade offenders from doing it again.

Perhaps if they know the price, that'll learn 'em, eh?
 

ozaddy

Club Legend
Sep 1, 2012
1,522
895
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
When did this happen, not being sarcastic i just can't remember when that was .
On the wing, he marked the ball, and got coat hangered, umpire gave him high contact free, even though he marked it, where it was clearly late and an obvious 50 would have brought him into goal range. Then later lynch plays on, and recieves a 50. Clearly costly umpiring decisions, but a push in the back is worth a second shot on goal? No wonder port are furious at the umpiring.
 
May 22, 2014
16,554
56,035
Punt Rd to Goodison Park
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Everton
On the wing, he marked the ball, and got coat hangered, umpire gave him high contact free, even though he marked it, where it was clearly late and an obvious 50 would have brought him into goal range. Then later lynch plays on, and recieves a 50. Clearly costly umpiring decisions, but a push in the back is worth a second shot on goal? No wonder port are furious at the umpiring.
Oh that one, hey even i thought that was 50 but hey after the reaming we have copped over the last 2 years i'm not going to complain when a couple of things go our way.
 

BF Tiger

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 5, 2007
9,782
22,303
9th
AFL Club
Richmond
The Power were taking every opportunity to ruffle Tom Lynch. I have no doubt it was a deliberate ploy and team wide tactic. Maybe if the umpire had blown his whistle earlier at one of the earlier instances the Port players may have reigned it in a bit. But they were allowed to carry on... and it continued... and then Lynch finally got a free kick that came back to bite the antagonists on the a**e.
 

ozaddy

Club Legend
Sep 1, 2012
1,522
895
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
The Power were taking every opportunity to ruffle Tom Lynch. I have no doubt it was a deliberate ploy and team wide tactic. Maybe if the umpire had blown his whistle earlier at one of the earlier instances the Port players may have reigned it in a bit. But they were allowed to carry on... and it continued... and then Lynch finally got a free kick that came back to bite the antagonists on the a**e.
How about the 50 when lynch played on. You can't say lynch was hard done by. Gifted 2 goals and then the last one when port rolled the dice and he was left on his own. His match winning 6 goals flatter him, and I do hope umpires don't make that the norm and actually make it not about the whistle blower. Lynch owes the umps a couple beers.
 

ozaddy

Club Legend
Sep 1, 2012
1,522
895
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
The Power were taking every opportunity to ruffle Tom Lynch. I have no doubt it was a deliberate ploy and team wide tactic. Maybe if the umpire had blown his whistle earlier at one of the earlier instances the Port players may have reigned it in a bit. But they were allowed to carry on... and it continued... and then Lynch finally got a free kick that came back to bite the antagonists on the a**e.
Finally got a free kick? We're we watching different game. He was gifted 2 by umpire.
 

BF Tiger

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 5, 2007
9,782
22,303
9th
AFL Club
Richmond
How about the 50 when lynch played on. You can't say lynch was hard done by. Gifted 2 goals and then the last one when port rolled the dice and he was left on his own. His match winning 6 goals flatter him, and I do hope umpires don't make that the norm and actually make it not about the whistle blower. Lynch owes the umps a couple beers.
I agree, should not have been a fifty metre penalty. Incorrect decision by the umpire.
 

BF Tiger

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 5, 2007
9,782
22,303
9th
AFL Club
Richmond
Finally got a free kick? We're we watching different game. He was gifted 2 by umpire.

I was specifically referring to the game long harassment of Lynch by Port players. You can’t deny it happened.

BTW, Lynch only got two frees all night. One was the push in the back, which was always there.

I’ve stated previously I think a free kick from the centre is my preferred outcome in those situations, but it’s always been a free in the goal square when it does happen. It was stupid by the Port player and the outcome should’ve been known by him.

If the umps had pulled up the Power players earlier it might have been a free to Lynch 50 metres from goal. But then Power fans would be calling it a soft free.
 

ozaddy

Club Legend
Sep 1, 2012
1,522
895
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I was specifically referring to the game long harassment of Lynch by Port players. You can’t deny it happened.

BTW, Lynch only got two frees all night. One was the push in the back, which was always there.

I’ve stated previously I think a free kick from the centre is my preferred outcome in those situations, but it’s always been a free in the goal square when it does happen. It was stupid by the Port player and the outcome should’ve been known by him.

If the umps had pulled up the Power players earlier it might have been a free to Lynch 50 metres from goal. But then Power fans would be calling it a soft free.
I hear your point and I ask you for perspective. Is that worse than the coat hanger as one gifted a goal and the other there was no penalty.
 
Back