MRP / Trib. Tom Lynch eye gouge on Adam Saad

[Elmer_Judd]

Somewhere between 4-6 weeks he should get, but because Richmond are the pets of the MRP/Tribunal, that sniper will likely only get 1 or 2 weeks.

 

[JennyTaylor]

Video link?

 

[_RT_]

 

[Tiger71]

Somewhere between 4-6 weeks he should get, but because Richmond are the pets of the MRP/Tribunal, that sniper will likely only get 1 or 2 weeks.

laugh with tears emote

You can't be serious? Lol

 

[_RT_]

Video link?

They're talking about early first quarter when Lynch and Saad were chasing the ball and Lynch inadvertently got Saad in the eye with his thumb.

 

[djspank]

Saad should be ashamed for eyebutting Tom's finger.

 

[Tortured Tiger]

Somewhere between 4-6 weeks he should get, but because Richmond are the pets of the MRP/Tribunal, that sniper will likely only get 1 or 2 weeks.

What a ridiculous thread, the only person who needs a holiday is you !!

 

[BillHickman]

Cyclops Saad is massively left-sided because he has a glass right eye. We all know this. Lynch protected his good left eye and went for the prosthetic one, quite thoughtful I reckon.

 

[Bald]

I can’t stand Tom Lynch but it was very very clearly an accident.

 

[Coach_Required]

 

[Elmer_Judd]

I can’t stand Tom Lynch but it was very very clearly an accident.

You don't honestly believe that do you ?

 

[_RT_]

You don't honestly believe that do you ?

You honestly believe that Lynch was able to deliberately thumb Saad in the eye while both were running after a loose ball?

 

[Roksman]

I have it on good authority that Tom Lynch trained with Steven Seagal in the off season to learn how to pin point an eye gouge in open play while gathering a loose ball.

Honestly, this is where we're at with footy fans.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

You honestly believe that Lynch was able to deliberately thumb Saad in the eye while both were running after a loose ball?

If you watch it in slow motion, it looks pretty cut and dry in my opinion.

Look I think maybe been a bit hasty in my OP for the severity of the punishment for Lynch, but it still was a very reckless and negligent act from Lynch, I can accept the argument he probably didn't mean to do it, but it was still a very bad look and shouldn't go unpunished

 

[Muddiemoose]

If you watch it in slow motion, it looks pretty cut and dry in my opinion.

Look I think maybe been a bit hasty in my OP for the severity of the punishment for Lynch, but it still was a very reckless and negligent act from Lynch, I can accept the argument he probably didn't mean to do it, but it was still a very bad look and shouldn't go unpunished

You think Lynch perceived time and space in slow motion in order to perfectly poke Saad in the eye?

 

[GN272]

Somewhere between 4-6 weeks he should get, but because Richmond are the pets of the MRP/Tribunal, that sniper will likely only get 1 or 2 weeks.

 

[Tortured Tiger]

If you watch it in slow motion, it looks pretty cut and dry in my opinion.

Look I think maybe been a bit hasty in my OP for the severity of the punishment for Lynch, but it still was a very reckless and negligent act from Lynch, I can accept the argument he probably didn't mean to do it, but it was still a very bad look and shouldn't go unpunished

Do the smart thing and take the thread down, you are only embarrassing yourself.

 

[PuntRd_Seal]

Somewhere between 4-6 weeks he should get, but because Richmond are the pets of the MRP/Tribunal, that sniper will likely only get 1 or 2 weeks.

Pressure point, pressure point!!!

 

[Spirit Level]

Somewhere between 4-6 weeks he should get, but because Richmond are the pets of the MRP/Tribunal, that sniper will likely only get 1 or 2 weeks.

Dog act? Is that just because you lost?

 

[_RT_]

If you watch it in slow motion, it looks pretty cut and dry in my opinion.

Look I think maybe been a bit hasty in my OP for the severity of the punishment for Lynch, but it still was a very reckless and negligent act from Lynch, I can accept the argument he probably didn't mean to do it, but it was still a very bad look and shouldn't go unpunished

Step away from the computer and head outside mate.

 

[cub]

LMAO I miss Big footy melts - such GOLD !!! suck a fat one blooz

 

[Cdog71]

If you watch it in slow motion, it looks pretty cut and dry in my opinion.

Look I think maybe been a bit hasty in my OP for the severity of the punishment for Lynch, but it still was a very reckless and negligent act from Lynch, I can accept the argument he probably didn't mean to do it, but it was still a very bad look and shouldn't go unpunished

Your actually that old lady who was SEN aren’t you

 

[V_23]

It was an accident, just like Judd's was.

But seriously, unlucky for Saad but there's nothing in it.

 

[59Stanley]

If you watch it in slow motion, it looks pretty cut and dry in my opinion.

Look I think maybe been a bit hasty in my OP for the severity of the punishment for Lynch, but it still was a very reckless and negligent act from Lynch, I can accept the argument he probably didn't mean to do it, but it was still a very bad look and shouldn't go unpunished

Lol if you are not joking then i suggest you make an appointment with someone that can help you.

 

[aaron1123]

Somewhere between 4-6 weeks he should get, but because Richmond are the pets of the MRP/Tribunal, that sniper will likely only get 1 or 2 weeks.

This definitely looks intentional. The umpire did nothing. This type of acts should be reviewed and players sent off (like NRL) to the sin bin, or sent of for the rest of the match.
Fining a player 12-14K teaches them nothing. Tom Lynch is known for his dog acts like this. IMO for this act which could have left saad blinded in one eye, he should not be able to play for rest of season. AFL need to step up and make an example out of him for this act. What is this telling our kids, its OK to gauge the eyes of your opposition, BS!!!
The umpires give a free kick for shoulder taps, and this clearly if reviewed by video can be seen as a deliberate act. I am going to write to the AFL re this incident and see what response I get.

Also, the goal that was reviewed that went the wrong way for Carlton, should have been reviewed from different angles. The angle should to us last night, does not give enough evidence that it was touched. Such a crucial point in the match and it should have been reviewed again and again, and if not definitive which it wasn't it should have been a goal. Tigers are bad sportman's and cheats IMO....and the umpires look like they favour the tigers anyway. (so many wrong decisions last night against Carlton and in favour of Tigers)..