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

[Elton Johns Wig]

The whole process was moot with him out for the next 2 months anyway. The only thing on the line today was the BF Richmond persecution complex.

Maybe the whole thing isn't a Steve Hocking, brother of Chris Scott-run conspiracy after all.

No, I actually said to a mate yesterday this outcome has nothing to do with Richmond, it's about the game itself.

Keath only intention was to impede. He got very unlucky, and I hope he's ok.

Lynch never deviated off his line, never clenched his fists, didn't follow through. It was self preservation after already being in the air after failing to affect the marking contest.

People need to understand that incidental and accidental contact can still happen in this game, where someone is unfortunately hurt, but it wasn't a bump, and there was no intent.

All players have a duty of care to their opponents, that is a given. And I for one welcome the crackdown on head high contact (i.e. no issue with Broad 4 weeks, it was the right punishment)

BUT

Players also have a duty of care to themselves. Tom (or any player) caught in a position where someone comes from the peripheral, should not leave themselves open or exposed. They have the right to brace for contact.

Poor technique is hurting people. We saw it in the Cats/Hawks game on Monday, the head clash between Nash and I think it was Bews? Both went in with head unprotected/leading. Gone are the days where players turn side on and tuck in behind the shoulder. The rules around head contact have actually made technique worse. Because now the act of protecting yourself can be used against you.

 

[ferball]

So by that reasoning Keaths fly wasn't part of a marking contest either as he was even further off it. So wtf was he doing?

It was a marking contest - the ball was right there to be marked, they just misread it which happens (see the Swans v port final kick). All the other incidecents you have referenced have been loose balls, that's the difference, and it's the deciding difference.

You don't quite understand this game do you.

Obviously Keath didn't take part in a contest. There wasn't one.

Lynch took him out before he got to the contest. Your Tiges mate posted all these marking packs and what have you just before your comment. In every single one of them there are at least two players at the fall of the ball competing or trying to compete for the ball. If that Dogs player who punched it was a Richmond player then Lynch would have been penalised for a block preventing the opposition player from contesting the mark.

Lynch is a soft thug anyway. Always hits tiny blokes and ran away from Pendlebury the other week when pendles was upset at him. You guys will probably be better off with him out of the side for a while despite this farcical decision.

 

[domin8]

You don't quite understand this game do you.

Obviously Keath didn't take part in a contest. There wasn't one.

Lynch took him out before he got to the contest. Your Tiges mate posted all these marking packs and what have you just before your comment. In every single one of them there are at least two players at the fall of the ball competing or trying to compete for the ball. If that Dogs player who punched it was a Richmond player then Lynch would have been penalised for a block preventing the opposition player from contesting the mark.

Lynch is a soft thug anyway. Always hits tiny blokes and ran away from Pendlebury the other week when pendles was upset at him. You guys will probably be better off with him out of the side for a while despite this farcical decision.

Hahahahahaha

Wow

Hahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[ferball]

Poor technique is hurting people. We saw it in the Cats/Hawks game on Monday, the head clash between Nash and I think it was Bews? Both went in with head unprotected/leading. Gone are the days where players turn side on and tuck in behind the shoulder. The rules around head contact have actually made technique worse. Because now the act of protecting yourself can be used against you.

The tribunal actually suspended a player for failing to do what Bews and Nash did the week before even tho no one was injured and at any other time in footy history that incident would have been forgotten about moments later.

They explicitly said in their guidelines that what Nash and Bews (go lower and don't shape to the impact) did was the appropriate way to contest the ball.

The AFL has no hope of avoiding concussion lawsuits if it advises players to do that sort of stuff.

 

[tiger_tough]

You don't quite understand this game do you.

Obviously Keath didn't take part in a contest. There wasn't one.

Lynch took him out before he got to the contest. Your Tiges mate posted all these marking packs and what have you just before your comment. In every single one of them there are at least two players at the fall of the ball competing or trying to compete for the ball. If that Dogs player who punched it was a Richmond player then Lynch would have been penalised for a block preventing the opposition player from contesting the mark.

Lynch is a soft thug anyway. Always hits tiny blokes and ran away from Pendlebury the other week when pendles was upset at him. You guys will probably be better off with him out of the side for a while despite this farcical decision.

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

The tribunal actually suspended a player for failing to do what Bews and Nash did the week before even tho no one was injured and at any other time in footy history that incident would have been forgotten about moments later.

They explicitly said in their guidelines that what Nash and Bews (go lower and don't shape to the impact) did was the appropriate way to contest the ball.

The AFL has no hope of avoiding concussion lawsuits if it advises players to do that sort of stuff.

Yep. It's insanity.

 

[ferball]

Hahahahahaha

Wow

Hahahahahahahahahahaha

Are you thick?

If no one actually contests the mark, and Lynch obviously failed to or he wouldn't have done what he did, then its an uncontested ... well punch in this case .... no one put any body on the player punching the ball.

We are just being pedantic about this but if you can't look at that and see that only one player is there when the ball hits the ground and the Richmond players defense is based on his failure to create a contest then nothing else you say can be taken seriously. Lynch said it himself, he said he ran under the ball. Ergo no marking contest. Saying the tribunal called it a contest so it is one is hardly a credible argument given the s**t they come out with regularly.

Anyway carry on.

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

You don't quite understand this game do you.

Obviously Keath didn't take part in a contest. There wasn't one.

Lynch took him out before he got to the contest. Your Tiges mate posted all these marking packs and what have you just before your comment. In every single one of them there are at least two players at the fall of the ball competing or trying to compete for the ball. If that Dogs player who punched it was a Richmond player then Lynch would have been penalised for a block preventing the opposition player from contesting the mark.

Lynch is a soft thug anyway. Always hits tiny blokes and ran away from Pendlebury the other week when pendles was upset at him. You guys will probably be better off with him out of the side for a while despite this farcical decision.

No, he didn't. He protected himself from a peripheral Keath whose sole intention was to block. Lynch had eyes on the ball until he saw Keath on the side and instinctively protected himself.

At no stage did Lynch "take him out".

The tribunal was very clear on this.

 

[ferball]

Can you go to a marking contest but misread the ball and mistime your attempt? He aborted his jump at the ball because an opposition player was backing back into him and he had misread the flight. As if a key forward is going to go to a marking contest with the pre-conceived idea of not contesting. That might only happens if they are late to the contest, in which case they are aiming to spoil or make the opponent earn it. Lynch was early to the contest and got lost.

The thing that makes a contest is two or more players contesting the ball yeah?

 

[mrposhman]

You don't quite understand this game do you.

Obviously Keath didn't take part in a contest. There wasn't one.

Lynch took him out before he got to the contest. Your Tiges mate posted all these marking packs and what have you just before your comment. In every single one of them there are at least two players at the fall of the ball competing or trying to compete for the ball. If that Dogs player who punched it was a Richmond player then Lynch would have been penalised for a block preventing the opposition player from contesting the mark.

Lynch is a soft thug anyway. Always hits tiny blokes and ran away from Pendlebury the other week when pendles was upset at him. You guys will probably be better off with him out of the side for a while despite this farcical decision.

and you don't understand physics do you.

Our bodies are in built to protect the most important parts (our organs). Its why if I walked upto you and went to punch you in the stomach your reaction would be identical to everybodys. You don't even think, its called instinct.

Footage from behind Lynch shows as he plants his left foot (and is jumping for the mark) his eyes are solely on the ball. Keath can almost touch Lynch at this point. He had a millisecond to decide on his next actions, which is where instinct kicked in. Lynch probably didn't even realise that his body turned slightly because his instincts kicked in to protect his chest (ie. vital organs), its a natural movement like as I say, if I was walking down the street and went to punch you in the chest.

 

[mrposhman]

The tribunal actually suspended a player for failing to do what Bews and Nash did the week before even tho no one was injured and at any other time in footy history that incident would have been forgotten about moments later.

They explicitly said in their guidelines that what Nash and Bews (go lower and don't shape to the impact) did was the appropriate way to contest the ball.

The AFL has no hope of avoiding concussion lawsuits if it advises players to do that sort of stuff.

I don't agree with much of what you say on this thread, but what you have indicated in this thread is that the MRO / tribunal process is creating a scaenario right now that is confused. Its confusing to supporters, its confusing to players, essentially confusing to everyone.

Sometimes an action will result in a penalty, other times it won't. Its a complete mess and IMO Christian is a big part of that. 4 weeks in and we have had confusing punishment after confusing punishment. Only an idiot would think that the Lynch on Keath incident was worse than what Pickett did in Round 1, but thats Michael Christian for you.

 

[ferball]

No, he didn't. He protected himself from a peripheral Keath whose sole intention was to block. Lynch had eyes on the ball until he saw Keath on the side and instinctively protected himself.

At no stage did Lynch "take him out".

The tribunal was very clear on this.

That may be the case but if that had been a Ricmond player in a position to mark and Lynch did that he'd have had a free payed against him cos no umpire would apply the sort of analysis the tribunal did. They'd see the player get taken out while trying to make the contest and pay a free. well maybe if we were playing Carlton they wouldn't but that's for another thread.

 

[ferball]

and you don't understand physics do you.

Maybe not but no one really does. I do understand what a marking contest is. Unlike some of your fellow posters.

Our bodies are in built to protect the most important parts (our organs). Its why if I walked upto you and went to punch you in the stomach your reaction would be identical to everybodys. You don't even think, its called instinct.

Footage from behind Lynch shows as he plants his left foot (and is jumping for the mark) his eyes are solely on the ball. Keath can almost touch Lynch at this point. He had a millisecond to decide on his next actions, which is where instinct kicked in. Lynch probably didn't even realise that his body turned slightly because his instincts kicked in to protect his chest (ie. vital organs), its a natural movement like as I say, if I was walking down the street and went to punch you in the chest.

Our bodies evolved skeletons to protect our vital organs and that's why if you walked up to me and tried to punch me my reaction would be the same as everyone's? You guys are unreal.

If you walked up to me on the street and tried to punch me in the gut then someone should have pointed out to you that copying a sniper like Tom Lynch isn't necessarily a good way to live your life. Beforehand ideally.

I reckon you'd miss anyway to be honest.

 

[HairyO]

The doubling down after being proven wrong is some A grade delusional salt.

Particularly since the Tribunal finding contained common sense reasoning. Its not like with Cripps where they somehow managed to find guilt without ever actually even discussing what Cripps did.

 

[Profop]

Maybe not but no one really does. I do understand what a marking contest is. Unlike some of your fellow posters.


Our bodies evolved skeletons to protect our vital organs and that's why if you walked up to me and tried to punch me my reaction would be the same as everyone's? You guys are unreal.

If you walked up to me on the street and tried to punch me in the gut then someone should have pointed out to you that copying a sniper like Tom Lynch isn't necessarily a good way to live your life. Beforehand ideally.

I reckon you'd miss anyway to be honest.

Willing to put a considerable stake on the fact you’ve never been in a marking contest

 

[ferball]

I don't agree with much of what you say on this thread, but what you have indicated in this thread is that the MRO / tribunal process is creating a scaenario right now that is confused. Its confusing to supporters, its confusing to players, essentially confusing to everyone.

Sometimes an action will result in a penalty, other times it won't. Its a complete mess and IMO Christian is a big part of that. 4 weeks in and we have had confusing punishment after confusing punishment. Only an idiot would think that the Lynch on Keath incident was worse than what Pickett did in Round 1, but thats Michael Christian for you.

The MRO/MRP thread on the north board has called it lotto since I joined BF. Its a farce.

Honestly I don't think Lynch should have been suspended. I did at first but the tribunal got that right really. I don't think McKay, Acres or Logue should have been either. Logue's is a massive farce. The point where a brace for impact becomes a bump is almost impossible to pick these days. No one hits like Choppy pickett anymore anyway.

Players do exercise a duty of care to each other most of the time. Most serious hits occur because football is a high speed contact sport where incidental contact happens all the time. s**t incidents happen sometime but the way this has gone we have idiots in the media like Whately carrying on like players are david Rhys Jones when they are just competing hard for the ball. Then some s**t like Ainsworth on McKay (Ben) last year happens and the tribunal doesn't even act on it. (Ainsworths elbow is away from his body when he hits McKay, he's not bracing at that point its a strike.)

 

[ferball]

Willing to put a considerable stake on the fact you’ve never been in a marking contest

You'd lose.

I played footy in the 70s (from the age of about 6), the 80s (less than 20 games most likely), the 90s, the 00s and even a couple of games in 2011. In my mind a contest involves multiple players contesting for the ball. Failing to make a marking contest cos you ran under the ball doesn't magically make it one. Lynch admitted he ran under the ball btw. its a key part of his defense - that he failed to create a marking contest. He is quoted saying it in this thread.

 

[Profop]

You'd lose.

I played footy in the 70s (from the age of about 6), the 80s (less than 20 games most likely), the 90s, the 00s and even a couple of games in 2011. In my mind a contest involves multiple players contesting for the ball. Failing to make a marking contest cos you ran under the ball doesn't magically make it one. Lynch admitted he ran under the ball btw. its a key part of his defense - that he failed to create a marking contest. He is quoted saying it in this thread.

In almost every marking contest there is a player that has misjudged the ball and either ran under or has been moved under the ball by an opponent

They are still in the contest

 

[domin8]

Are you thick?

If no one actually contests the mark, and Lynch obviously failed to or he wouldn't have done what he did, then its an uncontested ... well punch in this case .... no one put any body on the player punching the ball.

We are just being pedantic about this but if you can't look at that and see that only one player is there when the ball hits the ground and the Richmond players defense is based on his failure to create a contest then nothing else you say can be taken seriously. Lynch said it himself, he said he ran under the ball. Ergo no marking contest. Saying the tribunal called it a contest so it is one is hardly a credible argument given the s**t they come out with regularly.

Anyway carry on.

Hahahaha * me. Keep doubling down. You are WRONG

 

[ferball]

No, he didn't. He protected himself from a peripheral Keath whose sole intention was to block. Lynch had eyes on the ball until he saw Keath on the side and instinctively protected himself.

At no stage did Lynch "take him out".

The tribunal was very clear on this.

Yeah true and they were probably right but to the naked eye when it happens that's what it looks like and if that had been Reiwoldt instead whoever the Bulldog player was an ump should have penalised Lynch for blocking and preventing Keath from making the contest.

 

[ferball]

In almost every marking contest there is a player that has misjudged the ball and either ran under or has been moved under the ball by an opponent

They are still in the contest

Unlike Lynch and Keath who were off to the side.

Its no surprise the MB is full of stupid threads like this when people see one thing and call it another.

If you miss a marking contest cos you ran under it or didn't make and your opponent takes a mark the stats record it as an uncontested mark.

Here's a simple question. How much physical pressure did Lynch put on that other player who punched the ball, not Keath?

Any?

 

[domin8]

Unlike Lynch and Keath who were off to the side.

Its no surprise the MB is full of stupid threads like this when people see one thing and call it another.

If you miss a marking contest cos you ran under it or didn't make and your opponent takes a mark the stats record it as an uncontested mark.

Here's a simple question. How much physical pressure did Lynch put on that other player who punched the ball, not Keath?

Any?

This is great. Keep going

 

[mrposhman]

The MRO/MRP thread on the north board has called it lotto since I joined BF. Its a farce.

Honestly I don't think Lynch should have been suspended. I did at first but the tribunal got that right really. I don't think McKay, Acres or Logue should have been either. Logue's is a massive farce. The point where a brace for impact becomes a bump is almost impossible to pick these days. No one hits like Choppy pickett anymore anyway.

Players do exercise a duty of care to each other most of the time. Most serious hits occur because football is a high speed contact sport where incidental contact happens all the time. s**t incidents happen sometime but the way this has gone we have idiots in the media like Whately carrying on like players are david Rhys Jones when they are just competing hard for the ball. Then some s**t like Ainsworth on McKay (Ben) last year happens and the tribunal doesn't even act on it. (Ainsworths elbow is away from his body when he hits McKay, he's not bracing at that point its a strike.)

We've all had them. We had Soldo suspended a couple of years ago for strike, when he'd just kicked a goal (or might have had 1 kicked on him) and a Hawks player went up to remonstrate, he immediately put his arms up to protect himself, but because the Hawks player was short accidentally caught him whilst doing it. It was a defensive action to protect himself from another player off the ball but he got suspended. We also had the Pickett swinging arm when the "potential to cause injury" clause was I think 1st used (and only been used a couple of times).

I don't think we are getting many right in terms of the MRO / tribunal process. The penalties should all be focused around actions they are trying to prevent and not results of injuries (like Lynchs was) or actions to protect yourself.

We've gone the wrong way at some point. The most dangerous actions in footy right night are the bump (gaining an advantage and particularly when at high speed - Kosi Picketts is the perfect example) and the sling tackle. For mine, Rohans was worse than Day's at the weekend, but somehow gets half the penalty.

As you say its a massive lottery and IMO Christian's role is completely untenable. He's doing nothing to stamp things out of the game, and focusing on the wrong incidents entirely.

 

[Profop]

Unlike Lynch and Keath who were off to the side.

Its no surprise the MB is full of stupid threads like this when people see one thing and call it another.

If you miss a marking contest cos you ran under it or didn't make and your opponent takes a mark the stats record it as an uncontested mark.

Here's a simple question. How much physical pressure did Lynch put on that other player who punched the ball, not Keath?

Any?

Right so it’s your belief that had Jones taken a mark instead of spoiling the ball in that situation it would have been registered as an uncontested mark?

I mean he physically bumps into Jones on the way down

 

[Nebular]

Unlike Lynch and Keath who were off to the side.

Its no surprise the MB is full of stupid threads like this when people see one thing and call it another.

If you miss a marking contest cos you ran under it or didn't make and your opponent takes a mark the stats record it as an uncontested mark.

Here's a simple question. How much physical pressure did Lynch put on that other player who punched the ball, not Keath?

Any?