Tom Lynch sent straight to Tribunal(dismissed) Sanity Prevails!

[dean33]

Tom Lynch has been sent straight to the tribunal for his hit on Alex Keath

42

Alex Keath

Age

32

Ht

198cm

Wt

93kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.0

4star

K

8.9

3star

HB

5.1

4star

M

5.1

5star

T

1.5

3star

MG

206.7

3star

D

11.0

3star

K

7.3

3star

HB

3.8

3star

M

3.6

4star

T

0.6

1star

MG

193.4

3star

D

11.4

3star

K

6.2

3star

HB

5.2

4star

M

4.6

5star

T

2.6

4star

MG

165.0

3star

that unfortunately concussed Heath.

Now this was in a marking contest so I would like to know what other options Lynch had?

Could he tackle?

Should he have lifted his knees and collected keath with his knee cap?

This is a ridiculous charge and I hope if he’s found guilty Richmond challenge this for the sake of the game.
If he goes for this you might as well take all contact from the game, collisions will happen and players will be concussed in a contact game.

 

[Tonythetiger]

Interesting to see other's views on this as well as the tribunals findings.

It looks to be a legitimate marking contest with Keath running back with the flight and minimal awareness of Lynch.

Lynch seems to have only eyes for the ball and braces at the last moment.

If there is a duty of care that they put onto Lynch, does Keath not have a duty of care to himself? Like if you run full speed with no awareness to a marking contest, you are either going to come out unscathed, injure yourself or injure others.

Like I said, eager to see what other think. If it was another club/player I feel I would come to the same conclusions. Dangerfield in the Grand final on Vlaustuin comes to mind.

 

[MisterMarcus]

Interesting to see other's views on this as well as the tribunals findings.

It looks to be a legitimate marking contest with Keath running back with the flight and minimal awareness of Lynch.

Lynch seems to have only eyes for the ball and braces at the last moment.

If there is a duty of care that they put onto Lynch, does Keath not have a duty of care to himself? Like if you run full speed with no awareness to a marking contest, you are either going to come out unscathed, injure yourself or injure others.

Like I said, eager to see what other think. If it was another club/player I feel I would come to the same conclusions. Dangerfield in the Grand final on Vlaustuin comes to mind.

What's the alternative....pull out and let Lynch take the mark uncontested?

OP was complaining about "might as well remove all contact from the sport if Lynch goes for that". Well, blaming the injured party for getting injured when another blokes crashes into them, would do exactly the same. Who would fill a hole or run back with the flight or challenge a mark again if they not only got no protection but got actively blamed for it?

If you want to argue Lynch should get off because the whole thing was an 'accident' and Lynch 'had no choice but to brace' or whatever, that's fine. But I really don't think this victim-blamey thing is the way to go.

 

[maskmcgee]

He should of jumped for the mark like Bont(?) is? If he had of jumped for the ball, put his knee through Keath's head he wouldn't have been cited.

 

[Tonythetiger]

What's the alternative....pull out and let Lynch take the mark uncontested?

OP was complaining about "might as well remove all contact from the sport if Lynch goes for that". Well, blaming the injured party for getting injured when another blokes crashes into them, would do exactly the same. Who would fill a hole or run back with the flight or challenge a mark again if they not only got no protection but got actively blamed for it?

If you want to argue Lynch should get off because the whole thing was an 'accident' and Lynch 'had no choice but to brace' or whatever, that's fine. But I really don't think this victim-blamey thing is the way to go.

In terms of alternative, it depends on whether you think he was in a position where he would be capable to affect the contest. If he runs in from the front looking up (no awareness of Lynch and the other player) then gets cleaned up, does that affect whether Lynch has a case to argue?

The point I'm trying to make is sort of how in a marking contest you can have an unrealistic attempt and give away a free. Is Keath's position coming unrealistic to affect the contest? If Lynch was concussed would he have a case to answer?

I know these are all hypotheticals it's just trying to consider it from all angles.

 

[BF Tiger]

Compare with "nothing to see here" O'meara on Witherden.

 

[domin8]

He should have jumped for the mark like Bont(?) is? If he had of jumped for the ball, put his knee through Keath's head he wouldn't have been cited.

Great alternative

 

[Bald]

Still don't know how to feel about this. I think he was just in an awkward situation and it was a little bit clumsy. I don't think it's worth a suspension.

 

[BF Tiger]

What's the alternative....pull out and let Lynch take the mark uncontested?

OP was complaining about "might as well remove all contact from the sport if Lynch goes for that". Well, blaming the injured party for getting injured when another blokes crashes into them, would do exactly the same. Who would fill a hole or run back with the flight or challenge a mark again if they not only got no protection but got actively blamed for it?

If you want to argue Lynch should get off because the whole thing was an 'accident' and Lynch 'had no choice but to brace' or whatever, that's fine. But I really don't think this victim-blamey thing is the way to go.

What's the alternative for Lynch? He's 100kg moving at speed toward the ball with a Bulldogs player behind him and another coming at him from the front. He is under the ball, checks his leap somewhat when he realises that and turns to protect himself. Now he could have continued with the leap and collected Keath with a knee or hip in the head, or he could have not leapt at all and run straight through him. Look at the video and you'll see both players were only aware of the other until the very last moment.

 

[PrinceCharles]

He should of jumped for the mark like Bont(?) is? If he had of jumped for the ball, put his knee through Keath's head he wouldn't have been cited.

Got there in the end!

 

[beez]

In all seriousness, you can argue that it was Keath who didn't demonstrate a duty of care and should be sanctioned for his careless play.

 

[Foucault1989]

I don't think he should get suspended for this but I do think he pulled out of the marking contest to make contact with Keath. He simply did not go for the ball which is why he has been sighted. There are countless examples of players in the same position as Lynch going for the ball rather than pulling out and making contact. Was it a "football action"? If he contested the mark and made contact, then it would be a football action.

We are in a tricky terrain at the moment. The game is changing with this head high contact/concussion concerns. The onus is on the player to take all reasonable steps to avoid making contact to the head.

 

[Worm4]

If he attacked the ball by launching for the mark , instead off pulling out and ramming his body into Keath , he would have been ok.

 

[Foucault1989]

Like the more I watch it, the more I cannot understand what he was trying to do in the contest. He just flopped out of it and braced for contact.

 

[catters05]

Richmond will probably have to show that there was no other option for Lynch. What may hurt Lynch is leaving the ground with the hit. As others have said, he probably should have still committed to the mark. This is based on that still photo anyway which for some reason the AFL and it’s tribunal thinks players can react with microseconds.

 

[MisterMarcus]

What's the alternative for Lynch? He's 100kg moving at speed toward the ball with a Bulldogs player behind him and another coming at him from the front. He is under the ball, checks his leap somewhat when he realises that and turns to protect himself. Now he could have continued with the leap and collected Keath with a knee or hip in the head, or he could have not leapt at all and run straight through him. Look at the video and you'll see both players were only aware of the other until the very last moment.

I don't have an issue with trying the "He didn't have a chance to pull out, he didn't see him until it was too late, it was just a terrible accident" argument if that's what Richmond want to run.

It was more the "Keath shouldn't have even put himself in that position" I was responding to. Players will never run back with the flight or stand in the hole if they're going to get victim-blamed when someone else smashes into them.

 

[tiger_tough]

Like the more I watch it, the more I cannot understand what he was trying to do in the contest. He just flopped out of it and braced for contact.

He ran underneath the ball....

 

[Foucault1989]

He ran underneath the ball....

I think he pulled out completely. He didn't raise his arms to try and touch the ball. He jumped forward towards Keath rather than up at the ball. That is an action to make contact with Keath rather than contesting the ball.

If this was a ground ball and the ball bounced above Lynch's head and he opted to go towards the player rather than up at the ball it would clearly be an illegal bump. This is tricky because at first it was a marking contest but one could argue Lynch chose not to contest the mark.

It could be considered a "careless" action but impact would be graded "high" as he was concussed. It's not a football action in a marking contest

 

[Foucault1989]

A few years about Plowman got rubbed out for making excessive contact with the body contesting a loose ball. He had the option to contest the ball/was late and chose to smash the body. We were furious he was rubbed out but it seems this is how the tribunal view these incidents.

 

[domin8]

I think he pulled out completely. He didn't raise his arms to try and touch the ball. He jumped forward towards Keath rather than up at the ball. That is an action to make contact with Keath rather than contesting the ball.

If this was a ground ball and the ball bounced above Lynch's head and he opted to go towards the player rather than up at the ball it would clearly be an illegal bump. This is tricky because at first it was a marking contest but one could argue Lynch chose not to contest the mark.

It could be considered a "careless" action but impact would be graded "high" as he was concussed. It's not a football action in a marking contest

Put his arms up to mark he leaves himself wide open. It was a millisecond split decision to brace for contact once he knew he wasn’t in a position to mark the ball. But neither was Keath. His action of running back onto the pack with no chance of contesting the footy contributed to Lynch’s action.

Both players misread the ball. Lynch closed up to protect himself. It was unfortunate. Funnily enough no body (umps or doggies players) at the time gave it a second thought of it being untoward.
No one wants to see players concussed but no one should be rubbed out for that action. No malice just protection

 

[tiger_tough]

A few years about Plowman got rubbed out for making excessive contact with the body contesting a loose ball. He had the option to contest the ball/was late and chose to smash the body. We were furious he was rubbed out but it seems this is how the tribunal view these incidents.

Loose ball is different to a marking contest though. Rioli nearly killed Rowell and got off.

 

[rye]

doesnt look like he ever really competes for the ball to me

 

[JasRulz63]

View attachment 1655329 View attachment 1655332

Compare with "nothing to see here" O'meara on Witherden.

On Witherden, I still can't believe Lynch only copped a $500 fine for this:



Lynch has a history of grubby acts every so often, but I think this one is a bit rough on him. He's a bit unlucky because it ended up in a concussion (obviously so is Keath), with the current increasing noise around concussions and the lawsuit/s floating around and the AFL needing to show publically that they're doing something about it. Especially on the same weekend as the McCartin concussion.

 

[Shadow89]

If Rioli got off last year, Lynch gets off this year. Not deliberate, just clumsy and careless. Fine at worst

Yet another example of result determining outcome. If Keath is fine, Lynch doesn't even get looked at. All about how strong you are rather than the action itself.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Now that he looks to be out for an extended period with injury it’s a good chance for the AFL to pretend they care about the head with little to no push back from Richmond. It’s perfect for them.