I was in that thread defending Lynch hard despite not liking him or Richmond.I find this all a little odd, as I and others vehemently defended Lynch's bump as a football action...yet there's plenty in here crucifying Duncan, for what is not a black and white situation at all.
a) Fox runs past the ball, so is not contesting the ball
b) Fox slips, and cannons into Duncan - very similar to Brayshaw and Libba last night
c) Duncan braces, rather than electing to bump
d) The main impact from the hit comes from the whiplash, and the head hitting into the ground
e) Fox does not leave the ground, nor suffer any injury
f) The ball is in the vicinity, so it's not off the ball
***********************
Now with everything we've seen over these past few weeks, I legitimately do not know how this will pan out. But I do think that this is not an open and shut case, like say the Jonas hit today.
It's very murky given all the aforementioned factors, and it's quite an unusual incident that will be hard to both grade and decide on a penalty/or not at all.
These discussions shouldn't be about tribal differences - perceived or otherwise -, they should be about the facts at hand and an objectively correct outcome.
If Duncan does get a week, we are then saying he's not allowed to protect himself when another player comes at him. We also could be saying that bracing to protect, is still a bannable offence, so get out of the way or try to tackle them somehow without hurting yourself.
If he does get a week, it'll fall in line with the trend of banning contact...and that is inherently problematic.
TL; DR - If you believe Lynch should have gotten off due to what was a football incident, then you probably should feel the same about this incident - even if it is a player from a team that you hate.
I also typed Richmond fans are way to bias to be able to do a similar thing if the situation was reversed. The proof has arrived already.