MRP / Trib. Tom Lynch -How many?

[Jeremy McLovin]

My first post stated he is guilty of striking. No Tiger supporter is stating otherwise despite your rants. What we are stating and nobody is listening, is that he hit Buttts with an open hand to the back of his head and neck and it caused no harm. Maybe that's luck but also, as stated by the player themselves, they weren't trying to really hurt the Adelaide player and it was more a frustration reaction than a full out assault. Nobody is also saying he shouldn't get suspended. We are saying that the rules themselves state that off the ball incidents can only be graded as potentially causing injury if the player swings a closed fist which didn't happen here. So, by the AFL's own rules, they should not be able to ping him for "potential to cause injury" and he then should be suspended on what actually happened - no injury. This would mean, grading is now intentional, high and moderate severity. I don't know exactly the penalty for that, but it's not the electric chair as many are demanding.

Except that's not true. Tribunal 2025 guidelines linked below.

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2025/02/14/24bc7921-5a4b-4ccb-bca6-df93229183c1/149960_2025_AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines_RGB_FA-2-.pdf

Potential to cause injury must be considered in both intentional strikes, and off the ball incidents, per section 4.2(B). Lynch fits both.

Lack of injury does not preclude a grading of Severe impact.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Except that's not true. Tribunal 2025 guidelines linked below.

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2025/02/14/24bc7921-5a4b-4ccb-bca6-df93229183c1/149960_2025_AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines_RGB_FA-2-.pdf

Potential to cause injury must be considered in both intentional strikes, and off the ball incidents, per section 4.2(B). Lynch fits both.

Lack of injury does not preclude a grading of Severe impact.

But what serious injury could he have caused?

 

[Jeremy McLovin]

But what serious injury could he have caused?

Fractured skull or TBI probably the most likely.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Fractured skull or TBI probably the most likely.

With an open hand? How many times has that happened in the history of footy? Guess. Never.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Fractured skull or TBI probably the most likely.

Picketts high bump on Bailey Smith could have potentially killed the guy the other year but potential to cause harm wan't even considered....

 

[Jeremy McLovin]

With an open hand? How many times has that happened in the history of footy? Guess. Never.

You keep saying it was an open hand and not to the head. Neither are consistent with the footage I've seen. I expect arguing the topic with you is pointless though. Potentially there will be more footage that becomes available when he fronts the tribunal. Doubtless you'll continue to spread your version of events regardless of their findings though.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

You keep saying it was an open hand and not to the head. Neither are consistent with the footage I've seen. I expect arguing the topic with you is pointless though. Potentially there will be more footage that becomes available when he fronts the tribunal. Doubtless you'll continue to spread your version of events regardless of their findings though.

The findings will show there was no injury. The AFL is INCONSISTENT with the use of the potential to cause injury clause. This is totally frustrating. They should use it all of the time or never. They cannot pick and choose when to use it. As I have said, he should get weeks for that stupid action but to get more weeks for not hurting someone than other players who have concussed others or even broken opponents noses is just nonsense. The pile on here has been immense.

 

[matthew_s]

How many?
The answer is two premierships won in 2019 and 2020.

Nice trivia question op.

Lol.

plenty of campaigners win premierships. barry hall has one, ben cousins has one and a brownlow.

 

[Jeremy McLovin]

The findings will show there was no injury. The AFL is INCONSISTENT with the use of the potential to cause injury clause. This is totally frustrating. They should use it all of the time or never. They cannot pick and choose when to use it. As I have said, he should get weeks for that stupid action but to get more weeks for not hurting someone than other players who have concussed others or even broken opponents noses is just nonsense. The pile on here has been immense.

The findings will, based on footage I've seen, be that he clubbed someone over the back of the head with a closed fist and work from there. The pile on has been justified based on the action.

 

[daniel_4tw]

This is what the tribunal should exist for.

People get scrubbed out for tackles or late bumps that have unfortunate consequences, but at the core are party of the game.

A swing to the head has no place in the game. It’s absolutely thug behaviour and it needs to be kicked out of the game. This is what the tribunal is for. If the AFL are serious he’ll get 6-8 weeks.

Richmond starting to get a bit of a culture with thug acts. First Balta where the courts had to give him a curfew because Richmond didn’t take it seriously enough, and now Lynch trying to king hit a player on the field. There’s being tough and then there’s being a thug. Gotta make a statement.

 

[ReturningHawk]

If it was a full blooded blow to the back of the head he would have stayed down for the count or do you think otherwise?

You must be a lawyer

 

[Meteoric Rise]

This is what the tribunal should exist for.

People get scrubbed out for tackles or late bumps that have unfortunate consequences, but at the core are party of the game.

A swing to the head has no place in the game. It’s absolutely thug behaviour and it needs to be kicked out of the game. This is what the tribunal is for. If the AFL are serious he’ll get 6-8 weeks.

Richmond starting to get a bit of a culture with thug acts. First Balta where the courts had to give him a curfew because Richmond didn’t take it seriously enough, and now Lynch trying to king hit a player on the field. There’s being tough and then there’s being a thug. Gotta make a statement.

Biggest baddest monsters feared and reviled throughout the industry in the AFL last 10 years, evil bad, bad people: Marlion Pickett, Noah Balta, Tom Lynch.

Players concussed or injured in incidents for which Pickett, Balta and Lynch were reported: Z. E. R. O. Not one.

How did that happen?

 

[Daka]

Lack of injury does not preclude a grading of Severe impact.

Why isn't this severe impact used in more potential to cause injury than? it's stupid and everything that is wrong with the MRO it's open to interpertation grey area.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Richmond starting to get a bit of a culture with thug acts. First Balta where the courts had to give him a curfew because Richmond didn’t take it seriously enough, and now Lynch trying to king hit a player on the field. There’s being tough and then there’s being a thug. Gotta make a statement.

 

[Daka]

You must be a lawyer

Nash's hit on Miers way more force than Lynch's and that got 4 weeks, did they use potential to cause injury in that case?
I don't see how he should get more than that he should get fair punishment but not over the top just because ppl don't like him.

 

[Cyclops]

Biggest baddest monsters feared and reviled throughout the industry in the AFL last 10 years, evil bad, bad people: Marlion Pickett, Noah Balta, Tom Lynch.

Players concussed or injured in incidents for which Pickett, Balta and Lynch were reported: Z. E. R. O. Not one.

How did that happen?

Pickett in my view a fair player, I'd say Balta hard but fair player. I don't know the guys, maybe off field they are good or bad people.

Don't know Lynch either. Might be a top person off field.

On field, from the dozen or so games I've seen him play, hes consistently a cheap shot gutless sniper. Kneed blokes who were down, elbows, cheapies from behind.

On character not a Tiger. Not fit to play alongside Jack Riewoldt and Dusty, who took hits, kept the peace and were absolute exemplars of footy courage. Both those latter might have dished out a lick but they took on their enemies on face to face unlike the bedwetting sook sniper that is Tom Lynch.

 

[MisterMarcus]

Richmond supporters in this thread: "We're not making excuses for Lynch!!"

Also Richmond supporters in this thread:
"It was just an open-handed slap!"
"It didn't even hit his head!"
"It wasn't hard!"
"Butts deserved it!"
"Lynch is the only KPF in the history of the AFL to get niggled and scragged!"
"It's all a CFL media conspiracy against us!"
"If it was any other club it would have been a fine at most!"
"Whatabout your club?!?!"

Sounds like a lot of excuses to me....

 

[ReturningHawk]

Nash's hit on Miers way more force than Lynch's and that got 4 weeks, did they use potential to cause injury in that case?
I don't see how he should get more than that he should get fair punishment but not over the top just because ppl don't like him.

Miers had the ball. The difference is subtle, I know.

 

[ReturningHawk]

Richmond supporters in this thread: "We're not making excuses for Lynch!!"

Also Richmond supporters in this thread:
"It was just an open-handed slap!"
"It didn't even hit his head!"
"It wasn't hard!"
"Butts deserved it!"
"Lynch is the only KPF in the history of the AFL to get niggled and scragged!"
"It's all a CFL media conspiracy against us!"
"If it was any other club it would have been a fine at most!"
"Whatabout your club?!?!"

Sounds like a lot of excuses to me....

You left out the best one in this thread:
“Lynch’s fist slipped on Butts’ neck!”

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

So Lynch got nothing for kicking Worrell in the face? How was that not also misconduct

That's the question mark for me, if the AFL is so serious about "making a statement" and throwing the book at Lynch.

If Lynch had just done that and none of the other stuff, with his priors I don't think many would have batted an eyelid at him getting two down to one, or one down to a fine for that. But, nothing at all? Very odd...

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Miers had the ball. The difference is subtle, I know.

So the ball in hand gives a player an excuse to do anything he wants, even if having the ball in hand stops the victim from protecting themselves.

This notion about being in play or out of play makes no sense. All it means is players can use it as an excuse to literally almost kill someone and get away with it.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

That's the question mark for me, if the AFL is so serious about "making a statement" and throwing the book at Lynch.

If Lynch had just done that and none of the other stuff, with his priors I don't think many would have batted an eyelid at him getting two down to one, or one down to a fine for that. But, nothing at all? Very odd...

If they pinged him for that, they know that there are literally hundreds of incidents per round that they would then have to prosecute. Maybe they should have.....

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

If they pinged him for that, they know that there are literally hundreds of incidents per round that they would then have to prosecute. Maybe they should have.....

Dragging the studs across a prone player's face?

Show me a few of the hundreds or so times it happened from last round.

 

[dazbroncos]

Lynch is the biggest wanna-be tough guy in the league. Can dish it out but can't take it. Leads the league in pushing opponents heads into the turf.

Grub will grub

GO Catters

 

[Soggy2112]

Out of interest, are there any tribunal experts who can recall if there’s been a similar incident in the past?

I.e. a player taking a deliberate swing at another but not connecting fully.

Obviously, there’s the Bugg, Brayshaw, Houli etc ones, but I can’t remember one where a player has swung this hard and not KO’d someone.