Stan_Darsh72
Hall of Famer
- Jun 18, 2011
- 39,064
- 65,622
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
500 dollar fine plus Lynch should at least give Witherden a slab of beer.
Tom Lynch’s cowardly act deserves a week
- Thread starter Stax on the mill
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Just saw that today. The video wasn't very clear. Must've been the AFL trying to invent some drama.
iBeng
Intentionally left blank
- Apr 3, 2012
- 58,140
- 66,407
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
If Zorko did the same to one of your players you'd be calling for his head.
telsor
Hall of Famer
Probably not. Check my other posts in this forum.
I just know what BF is like.
Non Richmond players do worse (as brought up in the thread), and it doesn't even get mentioned.
Richmond Player does something, and look at the thread title, attention, and claims of bias.
I'm not the hypocrite here. I can understand Brisbane fans getting worked up over this one, most people get worked up when it's their team's player on the receiving end.
All those who claim to be 'neutrals' are the joke that just never stops however.
iBeng
Intentionally left blank
- Apr 3, 2012
- 58,140
- 66,407
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
If Witherden did the same to Lynch id expect him to get a week for it.
But I guess you'll just call me a liar.
You're a fool if you think what Yeo did was worse, and with very sketchy, inconclusive video evidence still managed to get a week from the MRO.
Sterge
Premium Platinum
Well it's relevant to the topic at hand, how can Yeo cop a week but Lynch gets off not even 10 days later? Clubs need to start holding the MRO and the AFL in general to a higher standard of accountability. No consistency at all.
As I said in the Port forum earlier today, Lynch STRUCK the player HEAD HIGH, WITH SOLID IMPACT and ON PURPOSE with an open hand.
If the head is SACROSANCT as the AFL has stated many times, he should have been suspended.
If the head is SACROSANCT as the AFL has stated many times, he should have been suspended.
Sterge
Premium Platinum
Pretty much this, the MRO is basically a lottery.
Lynch deserved a fine it was a pretty s**t act, people blaming Richmond because the set fines aren't very big is a bit weird though
I don't think it is a lottery though
- Banned
- #112
Regardless of this or any other incident, that's true. If Lynch was suspended over this is be disappointed if the club didn't appeal and simply show the footage and assessment of the corr incident, saying if this doesn't get a suspension then Tom shouldn't.
I doubt the MRP would stand up if a club ever took it to court.
- Banned
- #113
Not technically a lottery, just run by a guy whose memory clearly doesn't last a week.
Solid impact based on a medical report? Or based on what you think when watching it?
When comparing it to the Aiden Corr non-suspension, there's a comparative precedent to not give him a week.
I am not sure your caps lock argument would hold up when the legal counsel would argue on appeal.
- Nov 27, 2014
- 9,643
- 15,855
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Chelsea
Deserved the same as Hawkins and Yeo. 1 week from Christian and cleared on a challenge, I’d have no issues if that’s how it played out.
But this is why everyone has problems with the MRO. At least make it look like you’re trying to be fair. In one breath you find some grainy footage of (maybe?) a strike and tell everyone you don’t want s**t like that happening.. then in the next we have clear as day vision of an intentional strike to the head (that we want to be rubbing out, at least, that was the flavour of the week last week) from someone who was being a tit all game with swinging arms whilst playing “tough guy”, and all he has to do is hand over a bit of pocket money.
But this is why everyone has problems with the MRO. At least make it look like you’re trying to be fair. In one breath you find some grainy footage of (maybe?) a strike and tell everyone you don’t want s**t like that happening.. then in the next we have clear as day vision of an intentional strike to the head (that we want to be rubbing out, at least, that was the flavour of the week last week) from someone who was being a tit all game with swinging arms whilst playing “tough guy”, and all he has to do is hand over a bit of pocket money.
telsor
Hall of Famer
If 2 previous similar cases got downgraded when challenged, then surely the MRO should adjust what it's been handing out in order to align with the (lower) verdict from the tribunal.
That's just common sense...
- Nov 27, 2014
- 9,643
- 15,855
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Chelsea
That’s not common sense at all and shouldn’t be the way it’s run. It just throws the whole system out of whack. There shouldn’t be any “adjusting”. The MRO and tribunal are entirely different and one shouldn’t be making decisions based on the results of the other. If it’s an intentional head strike, it’s an intentional head strike and should be a stock standard ban. That’s the entire reason they have the MRO guidelines. It’s not a case of “well if the tribunal cleared him I can be a bit more lenient next time someone else does it”.. can’t you see how delusional that sounds?
Same ban from the MRO and Lynch should be more than welcome to challenge it and use the previous two as reasons why he should get off. The way the MRO has just bypassed all of that and assumed he would get off is the entire issue. Zero consistency or process.
- Banned
- #119
If you want to compare it to another incident and apply the same sanction, why are you choosing completely different incidents? The correct one to compare it to would be the corr incident, where in a stop play he grabbed the hair on the back of a port players head and rams it into the ground from about a foot off the ground with some force. That didn't even get a fine, or even a free kick and the umps was literally 10m away looking right at them because he had paid a free the other way and was coming in to set the mark.
Not that I like what either of them did, and I thought corr deserved a week, and if he got a week then I couldn't argue Lynch getting a week. But I'd be spewing if corr got nothing and Lynch got a week, and it would be even more inconsistent than you're already claiming it is.
- May 29, 2013
- 3,854
- 9,297
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
If it was Carlisle he would have got 3 weeks minimum
Rules for some and rules for others
Rules for some and rules for others
- Sep 8, 2008
- 6,935
- 10,239
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Sadly the only way this becomes susendable is after public outrage at someone retaliating being suspended for weeks from a full punch, none of that jumper punch crap. Deserves to be squared up but the afl would only punish them. The system protects the provoker. AFL too dense to realize that the rule will change at some point, they might aswell get ahead of it.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
If a mistake was made on Corr, you don’t keep making the same mistake for the sake of precedence or consistency.
Sttew
Brownlow Medallist
Under mentor Mumford
Sttew
Brownlow Medallist
Open palm? Shoving a head into the turf and behind play? Stop trying to compare apples with oranges.
- Jan 14, 2016
- 2,781
- 7,117
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Why do people want to see Lynch get a week for this?
Really, how soft and soulless do we want this game to become?
Better not show any cheek or character or the AFL Media and BF outraged crew will get upset - led of course by a hypocritical double Dermie and Dunstall monolouge.
May our game eternally have Toby Greene's and Hayden Ballantynes running around pestering people.
Really, how soft and soulless do we want this game to become?
Better not show any cheek or character or the AFL Media and BF outraged crew will get upset - led of course by a hypocritical double Dermie and Dunstall monolouge.
May our game eternally have Toby Greene's and Hayden Ballantynes running around pestering people.
Similar threads
- Poll
