MRP / Trib. Tom Lynch -How many?

[jannissary]

For a second there I though you were talking about Tex and his punch to the back of the head of Hugo.

nice concern trolling, why would i be concerned about a racist from adelaide? this is a thread about tom lynch. if you want to talk about walker go make a thread about him.

 

[CrowToon]

Wondering if Ray's analysis went a step further and critiqued all the infringements made by Lynch and missed frees paid to Butts?

I was waiting for this the whole time. That moment where they show a couple that shouldve gone Lynchs way and then hit back with the 'yeah but then look at these examples of Lynch holding too'

Monday the whole footy world (except serial accountability-dodgers Richmond) was condemning the act.

Seemingly over Tuesday/Wednesday this creeping subtle narrative has emerged about how frustrated Lynch must've been. Under the guise of analysis.

I cannot think of too many other instances where the perpetrator has had their claims dissected this openly to the point where people are sympathising with Lynch.

Absurd.

 

[ReturningHawk]

'Game died when my team stopped being good'

How convenient

As a supporter of team that is also slightly less exciting this year than previous years, I’ll allow it.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

A forward being held in the contest? By all the gods, why didn’t you tell us earlier? This has completely changed my view of things. We can only be thankful that those wicked Adelaide defenders didn’t employ any other dangerous tactics. I heard rumours that they sometimes use spoiling and tackling as well, but they’re probably just rumours.

The issue isn't that he was being held. The issue is that his opponent was continually doing it and never getting pinged for it. On the other hand, the ball would go up the other end and, hey presto, a free would be plucked out for holding. Now that free was definitely there but so to was the ones that Lynch wasn't getting.

There is no statistic available that shows free kicks that should have been given that weren't. Maybe there should be one. We all know that feeling at games. It's called inconsistency and is the number 1 gripe about umping in our game.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

I was waiting for this the whole time. That moment where they show a couple that shouldve gone Lynchs way and then hit back with the 'yeah but then look at these examples of Lynch holding too'

Monday the whole footy world (except serial accountability-dodgers Richmond) was condemning the act.

Seemingly over Tuesday/Wednesday this creeping subtle narrative has emerged about how frustrated Lynch must've been. Under the guise of analysis.

I cannot think of too many other instances where the perpetrator has had their claims dissected this openly to the point where people are sympathising with Lynch.

Absurd.

You simply don't get it at all. Nobody is sympathising with him. He did the wrong thing. However, had the umpiring been consistent, he probably would have never got to the point of doing that WRONG thing. Frustration isn't an excuse to clobber someone. Preventing frustration by officiating better though, is not a totally unreasonable suggestion. Or do you think that the umpiring has been super stellar this year?

The whole point of the 4 umpire system was to pick up these holds off the ball or holds heading into contests. When we had one umpire (unfortunately I can remember that) it was impossible to pick these things up. Two umpires still found it hard. Three umpires were supposed to better and four was supposed to pick up all these things.

 

[Interdimensional Bigfoot]

You simply don't get it at all. Nobody is sympathising with him. He did the wrong thing. However, had the umpiring been consistent, he probably would have never got to the point of doing that WRONG thing. Frustration isn't an excuse to clobber someone. Preventing frustration by officiating better though, is not a totally unreasonable suggestion. Or do you think that the umpiring has been super stellar this year?

The whole point of the 4 umpire system was to pick up these holds off the ball or holds heading into contests. When we had one umpire (unfortunately I can remember that) it was impossible to pick these things up. Two umpires still found it hard. Three umpires were supposed to better and four was supposed to pick up all these things.

How dare these "umpires" let it get to the point that Lynch feels he needs to throw a punch! What Lynch did was bad but the umpires could have prevented all this.

 

[ReturningHawk]

The issue isn't that he was being held. The issue is that his opponent was continually doing it and never getting pinged for it. On the other hand, the ball would go up the other end and, hey presto, a free would be plucked out for holding. Now that free was definitely there but so to was the ones that Lynch wasn't getting.

There is no statistic available that shows free kicks that should have been given that weren't. Maybe there should be one. We all know that feeling at games. It's called inconsistency and is the number 1 gripe about umping in our game.

Excuses and whingeing that is irrelevant to Tom Lynch breaking the rules and getting his right whack.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Excuses and whingeing that is irrelevant to Tom Lynch breaking the rules and getting his right whack.

In medicine, prevention is always looked at as far better than cure.

You obviously don't care about preventing people from doing the wrong thing. Nobody is saying it's not the wrong thing but if Butts actually got hurt on this occasion, wouldn't it have been better if simple solutions could have prevented that?

Yes, punishing people is one way but they have already hurt the person for them to be punished.

If the umpires had done their job, the situation would have likely been averted. That would have been a better solution all round.

Ah yes, that sensible approach is interpreted by you as excuses and whingeing.......

 

[Mop]

In medicine, prevention is always looked at as far better than cure.

You obviously don't care about preventing people from doing the wrong thing. Nobody is saying it's not the wrong thing but if Butts actually got hurt on this occasion, wouldn't it have been better if simple solutions could have prevented that?

Yes, punishing people is one way but they have already hurt the person for them to be punished.

If the umpires had done their job, the situation would have likely been averted. That would have been a better solution all round.

Ah yes, that sensible approach is interpreted by you as excuses and whingeing.......

The issue with this argument is what you're saying is the onus isn't on Lynch not to snap and hit someone, the onus is on the umpires to give extra attention to forwards, or hell, even Tom Lynch to give him special free kicks so he doesn't.

That is what you're saying.


Again, if it were Nick Larkey or Tim Membrey who did it, would you feel the same way? I sincerely doubt it

 

[ReturningHawk]

In medicine, prevention is always looked at as far better than cure.

You obviously don't care about preventing people from doing the wrong thing. Nobody is saying it's not the wrong thing but if Butts actually got hurt on this occasion, wouldn't it have been better if simple solutions could have prevented that?

Yes, punishing people is one way but they have already hurt the person for them to be punished.

If the umpires had done their job, the situation would have likely been averted. That would have been a better solution all round.

Ah yes, that sensible approach is interpreted by you as excuses and whingeing.......

You’re arguing that the sensible thing is to blame the umpires for Tom Lynch’s actions. Ok.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

You’re arguing that the sensible thing is to blame the umpires for Tom Lynch’s actions. Ok.

No I'm not. Can you read? I'm saying that if umpires did a better job, Tom Lynch probably wouldn't have performed those actions. His actions are his fault obviously. That's very different.

 

[Mop]

No I'm not. Can you read? I'm saying that if umpires did a better job, Tom Lynch probably wouldn't have performed those actions. His actions are his fault obviously. That's very different.

Nah dude. They're basically the same thing. You're still putting the onus on the umpires and not Lynch.

Doesn't work like that, dawg.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

The issue with this argument is what you're saying is the onus isn't on Lynch not to snap and hit someone, the onus is on the umpires to give extra attention to forwards, or hell, even Tom Lynch to give him special free kicks so he doesn't.

That is what you're saying.


Again, if it were Nick Larkey or Tim Membrey who did it, would you feel the same way? I sincerely doubt it

No I'm not. I'm saying that umpires should do their job. Holding onto ANY player is a free kick. The fact they can see what's going on but choose not to pay is a problem and can create new problems like it did in this situation. Again, there is no excuse for Lynch, but he wouldn't have needed excuses if umpires diffused the situation by paying appropriate free kicks.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Nah dude. They're basically the same thing. You're still putting the onus on the umpires and not Lynch.

Doesn't work like that, dawg.

The onus I'm putting on the umpires is to do their job properly. Isn't that what they are paid to do? Or do you think they should do a shit job and promote frustrations on field for any player?

 

[Mop]

No I'm not. I'm saying that umpires should do their job. Holding onto ANY player is a free kick. The fact they can see what's going on but choose not to pay is a problem and can create new problems like it did in this situation. Again, there is no excuse for Lynch, but he wouldn't have needed excuses if umpires diffused the situation by paying appropriate free kicks.

So why is Lynch a special breed? Lets be real here, Tom Lynch is far from the best forward in the AFL these days. Why is only he prone to uncontrolled bursts of rage, and not Charlie Curnow or Jed Walter?

 

[Mop]

The onus I'm putting on the umpires is to do their job properly. Isn't that what they are paid to do? Or do you think they should do a shit job and promote frustrations on field for any player?

So why is it only Tom Lynch manages to lose his head and not the 35 other key forwards in the comp? Hmm?

 

[Ancient Tiger]

So why is Lynch a special breed? Lets be real here, Tom Lynch is far from the best forward in the AFL these days. Why is only he prone to uncontrolled bursts of rage, and not Charlie Curnow or Jed Walter?

He isn't a special breed. However, he is the only experienced key forward at his club and thus he is targeted by opposition backmen more so than most. If they can cover him and prevent him from having any influence they basically take away Richmond's one wood so that then becomes any opposition teams aim. The fact he gets only 0.7 frees per game over his career shows that even when he was at his best, he wasn't attracting many free kicks.

Jed Walter? You have to be joking. How many games has he played?

Charlie Curnow? Well he is the exact opposite as he DOES get free kicks pretty frequently (1.82 per game) and so why would he get frustrated?

Shit examples to justify your statement.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

So why is it only Tom Lynch manages to lose his head and not the 35 other key forwards in the comp? Hmm?

Did I say he did the correct thing? All I am saying is that poor umpiring of him contributed to his frustration, not that him losing his cool was the right thing to do.

 

[ReturningHawk]

No I'm not. Can you read? I'm saying that if umpires did a better job, Tom Lynch probably wouldn't have performed those actions. His actions are his fault obviously. That's very different.

Obviously, the discussion ends there.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Obviously, the discussion ends there.

So when anyone ever commits a crime, you are obviously an individual that doesn't look at contributing circumstances that if one could remove, may stop others from going down the same path.

A totally narrow minded and immature position to take.

 

[Jeremy McLovin]

He isn't a special breed. However, he is the only experienced key forward at his club and thus he is targeted by opposition backmen more so than most. If they can cover him and prevent him from having any influence they basically take away Richmond's one wood so that then becomes any opposition teams aim. The fact he gets only 0.7 frees per game over his career shows that even when he was at his best, he wasn't attracting many free kicks.

Jed Walter? You have to be joking. How many games has he played?

Charlie Curnow? Well he is the exact opposite as he DOES get free kicks pretty frequently (1.82 per game) and so why would he get frustrated?

Shit examples to justify your statement.

Where are you getting those numbers from? Afl tables has Lynch at 1.12 and Curnow at 1.3

 

[Mop]

Did I say he did the correct thing? All I am saying is that poor umpiring of him contributed to his frustration, not that him losing his cool was the right thing to do.

You haven't managed to explain why none of the other forwards haven't tried to knock a blokes head off. I don't see North Melbourne winning too many games but Jack Darling and Nick Larkey both appear to be doing a stellar job of keeping their fists in check. How many suspensions have Oscar Allen or Jake Waterman had this year pre season ending injuries?

 

[ReturningHawk]

So when anyone ever commits a crime, you are obviously an individual that doesn't look at contributing circumstances that if one could remove, may stop others from going down the same path.

A totally narrow minded and immature position to take.

The kind of language you use when talking about a juvenile offender from an underprivileged background. Lynch is a 33-year-old millionaire playing a ball-sport. Finding excuses for him is embarrassing.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

No I'm not. Can you read? I'm saying that if umpires did a better job, Tom Lynch probably wouldn't have performed those actions. His actions are his fault obviously. That's very different.

If Richmond were doing a better job and winning by 6-7 goals (instead of being down by that much), Lynch probably wouldn't have felt the need to throw a wild punch at his opponent's head a mile of the ball either.

Opponents know they can get in his head and throw him off his game. And now that he's not the player he once was, that's a disaster waiting to happen as he's looked upon to lead a painfully inexperienced forward line.

 

[MisterMarcus]

No I'm not. I'm saying that umpires should do their job. Holding onto ANY player is a free kick. The fact they can see what's going on but choose not to pay is a problem and can create new problems like it did in this situation. Again, there is no excuse for Lynch, but he wouldn't have needed excuses if umpires diffused the situation by paying appropriate free kicks.

So I repeat my question from the previous page.

On Saturday, if Ben Miller scrags and niggles Jeremy Cameron, and Cameron isn't paid sufficient frees by the umps, then Cameron belts Miller in the head. You'll be on here writing 30+ posts tying yourself in knots to downplay and deflect what Cameron did, blame the umps, blame Miller, play "Whatabout", and "I'm not making excuses BUT" for Cameron?

Yes or No?