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

[Lavender Bushranger]

That’s gone on for 100 years

I know.

But now you get suspended for it.

 

[BF Tiger]

I genuinely don’t think there was any intent to bump Keath, and therefor shouldn’t be suspended - it was just a bit of an awkward, clumsy one. But this slow mo really doesn’t do him any favours, makes it look a lot more intentional than I think it was, and almost looks like he went the bump (again which I don’t think he did)

As others have said now he’s injured the AFL probably go hard because he’s out anyway and it’s easy for them - would have been pretty interesting and quite crucial for the game to see how they would have went if he wasn’t injured

Again it’s another one where we’re punishing a bloke for being big based on the outcome if he does get 3 weeks like is suggested by tribunal visit then you cannot tell me thats fair when Kosi gets 2 for cannoning into a blokes head off the ball who luckily gets straight up. It’s just ridiculous that the AFL has taken this path, again if Keath gets straight up this hasn’t even been mentioned

I agree the slow-mo may not be the best look for him, but do realise it is a slow-mo and look at the full speed version as well. It's better than people just posting a still shot though that offers context. It is literally all fraction of second stuff with both players having no awareness that the other was there until the last moment.

 

[LSRU]

Nothing in it for mine. He puts his arms up to mark he’s looking at crushed ribs. Blokes allowed to protect himself

 

[Cdog71]

I think it was a split second decision to protect himself and players need to be able to commit to a contest and still be able to do that.

I think it’s a bad idea for the tribunal to protect players that don’t protect themselves.
A good example is the Dangerfield Vlauston collision in the 2020 GF.
I thought it was right to be play on in that instance and the umpire was right to call play on in this Lynch instance.

Players have to protect themselves, that’s how I was taught to play.

 

[Tonythetiger]

The eyes only for the ball type defence is an interesting one. On the surface it makes sense like "He only had eyes for the ball, a collision was accidental and unavoidable" but if you put a duty of care onto Lynch to be that you can't just have eyes only for the ball, you need to be aware of who is in your field of vision and your actions to contest the ball do not put the opposition player at risk of injury, then under that sort of philosophy he gets a suspension based on the outcome of Keath getting concussed.

I feel like if that's the view currently and that's how things will be consistently looked at moving forward, it's sort of the end of the speccy and these big pack marks. It also penalises the bigger guys and would push the game more towards run and carry and uncontested possessions. It would mean teams change tactics which is fine if that's the way the AFL want the game to go but it's like you can't really have both the spectacle of the big pack mark and also protect players the way that they want to.

 

[tiger_tough]

Well yeah.

So weh he gets weeks for knocking a guy out from behind, I have some empathy for him.

He's coached to do it.

Hardwick is happy to see opposition players get concussed and suffer head injuries, as long as his team wins. And he sends Lynch out with specific guidance to do it.

 

[Tonythetiger]

I think it was a split second decision to protect himself and players need to be able to commit to a contest and still be able to do that.

I think it’s a bad idea for the tribunal to protect players that don’t protect themselves.
A good example is the Dangerfield Vlauston collision in the 2020 GF.
I thought it was right to be play on in that instance and the umpire was right to call play on in this Lynch instance.

Players have to protect themselves, that’s how I was taught to play.

Agreed, also I don't think it's 'victim blaming' to say that a player needs to protect themselves and not put them in situations where they are very likely to be cleaned up.

 

[citizen-erased]

Ideally the tribunal throw this out with a memo to the MRO to stop wasting their time.
Lynch never takes eyes off the ball, braces for front on contact as keath tries to block his run, and keath runs under lynch.

 

[Underdog]

People letting Lynch off the hook because "he misjudged it, what else was he supposed to do?" - for starters, not put himself in the position where he horribly misjudges it. There is literally nobody else responsible for him being in the position where all he could do was crunch Keath outside a legal contest. I wouldn't say it's intentional but it was clearly careless or negligent. We can't use the poor decisions leading up to the incident as an excuse for getting off when he is the one directly responsible for making those decisions.

And no, it won't kill contested marking contests because this is a rare occurence.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

<cough> Cripps <cough>

You clearly don’t understand why Cripps got off.

Was actually given 2 weeks whilst an almost identical contest earlier last year (Rioli) received 0.

I don’t believe Lynch deserves a suspension for this act. I’m not sure why you’re getting all worked up over the club I support.

 

[PAFC_FOREVER]

When seeing it the first time i struggled to see any reason why its reported.

Having said that.... It's Lynch, he deserves the other side of the stick.

 

[mrposhman]

Nothing in it for mine. He puts his arms up to mark he’s looking at crushed ribs. Blokes allowed to protect himself

This is how I see it as well. Was moving for the mark, out of the corner of his eye sees Keath coming towards him and braces his body for contact.

If he doesn't do that and gets collected by Keath dangerously going back into the pack, and Lynch comes out of it with broken ribs, does Keath then get suspended for injurying Lynch? When does the incessant need to punish the outcome not be overridden by the action. For Pickett to have received 2 weeks (and no trip to the tribunal) for what is clearly a way way more dangerous act (he got lucky in who he hit), and then compare it to this, its plainly laughable and clearly shows the complete hypocrisy of Christian.

Christian is well passed his sell by date and needs to go, not at the end of the year, not at the end of the season but right now.

 

[mrposhman]

People letting Lynch off the hook because "he misjudged it, what else was he supposed to do?" - for starters, not put himself in the position where he horribly misjudges it. There is literally nobody else responsible for him being in the position where all he could do was crunch Keath outside a legal contest. I wouldn't say it's intentional but it was clearly careless or negligent. We can't use the poor decisions leading up to the incident as an excuse for getting off when he is the one directly responsible for making those decisions.

And no, it won't kill contested marking contests because this is a rare occurence.

So if he doesn't turn his body slightly to brace for contact and continues through with the marking action (he wouldn't have got there anyway), and Keath came through and broke his ribs. Does Keath then become suspended because he injured Lynch when he was in an open and vulnerable position?

 

[tiger_tough]

People letting Lynch off the hook because "he misjudged it, what else was he supposed to do?" - for starters, not put himself in the position where he horribly misjudges it. There is literally nobody else responsible for him being in the position where all he could do was crunch Keath outside a legal contest. I wouldn't say it's intentional but it was clearly careless or negligent. We can't use the poor decisions leading up to the incident as an excuse for getting off when he is the one directly responsible for making those decisions.

And no, it won't kill contested marking contests because this is a rare occurence.

You mean like Keath did too?

 

[Underdog]

So if he doesn't turn his body slightly to brace for contact and continues through with the marking action (he wouldn't have got there anyway), and Keath came through and broke his ribs. Does Keath then become suspended because he injured Lynch when he was in an open and vulnerable position?

Given the context of my post, you're answering your own question...

 

[Stamos]

Not sure why some many people still don't understand that Cripps got off purely because of error of law, not the actual act that he committed. If the tribunal didn't balls it up so hard he would've missed games (and a brownlow). He got lucky.

This is not true, this was just the media spin on the decision either due to being lazy, not understanding (being too stupid to understand) the ruling, or malfeasance.

The Appeals Board found the ruling was unreasonable because there was no bump, AND there was an error of law.

Kellam said the finding of the jury on Tuesday night was unreasonable as both players, Cripps and the player he collided with, Brisbane’s Callum Ah Chee, were contesting for the ball, resulting in the collision.

The 'error of law' was that the Tribunal just made up the outcome with no evidence provided to support their decision.

Appeal won: Patrick Cripps in the clear over rough conduct charge

Patrick Cripps has sensationally been cleared to play this weekend after the AFL appeals board overturned Tuesday night’s tribunal decision to ban him for two matches on a rough conduct charge.

www.theage.com.au

 

[BF Tiger]

You clearly don’t understand why Cripps got off.

Was actually given 2 weeks whilst an almost identical contest earlier last year (Rioli) received 0.

I don’t believe Lynch deserves a suspension for this act. I’m not sure why you’re getting all worked up over the club I support.

Worked up... over Carlton? Good one.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Worked up... over Carlton? Good one.

Yeh, have a look at yourself.

 

[maskmcgee]

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

Because he went the ball.

 

[BF Tiger]

Because he went the ball.

If you say so...

 

[Foucault1989]

I do think coaches like Hardwick need to have some more nuance when discussing these issues and incidents. Concussions are very serious and should be treated seriously. Incidental or not, I don't rate Hardwick's dismissive and condescending responses.

 

[maskmcgee]

If you say so...

View attachment 1655468

The whole GIF will do fine, not just one frame with no context

 

[Frank Grimes]

When seeing it the first time i struggled to see any reason why its reported.

Having said that.... It's Lynch, he deserves the other side of the stick.

In the end there will be no real punishment for Lynch because he's going to be out for about 6 weeks with a fractured foot anyway.

This tribunal hearing significance is setting the standard for the rest of the competition rather than punishment for Lynch.

I guess the question is if this is the bar we want to set for everybody else.

Will be interesting to see how hard Lynch will defend this seeing that there is ultimately no consequence to him.

 

[Profop]

This one does feel like the AFL are currently looking at every concussion suffered and if it’s in a contest reporting the opponent no matter how the concussion came to be

You’re not really going to get rid of concussions that way and if that’s the actual aim then a vast change to the way the game is played is required

Not sure it’d still be the same sport if you had to engineer out any chance of concussion

 

[geelong_crazy26]

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.

Part that he is in trouble for is he braces for a bump and left the ground which contributed to the head high hit. Those two decisions will see him gone.

You choose to bump and jump off the ground to do so, your instantly gone.. especially if the player gets concussed