MRP / Trib. Lynch To Tribunal

Remove this Banner Ad

Roachy8 said:
I'm astounded at how many media and non media commentators are so quick to just say "lynch chose to not contest the mark"

He misjudged the flight of the ball on a wet and windy afternoon and realised he was too far under the drop point - he could have put his arms up but would have likely totally missed the ball anyway and run under it and looked like a total goof. It happens in games often.
He senses an opponent coming in from the front and realises there will be a collision.

At the same time a bulldog guy is fast approaching the contest from the front.
He too is initially looking at the ball (like Lynch) but at the last minute realises he will crash into the oncoming players and actually starts looking towards the impact point rather than the ball flight.

Lunch realises there will be contact first and instinctively braces for the inevitable clash (initiated by the bulldog guy by approaching the contest FROM THE FRONT.)

Those suggesting Lynch should have contested the mark and "put his arms up" are being unreasonable - he knew he had over-run the ball drop, sensed there would be initially UNEXPECTED contact with a guy coming from the opposite direction but should have still had the clarity of thought within a split second to think...
"I'm a bigger guy than the opposition player, if there is contact one or both of us could be injured, I might concuss him, so I better put my arms up to make it look like I am contesting the ball which will on it's current trajectory actually sail over my head anyway, but then we would come into contact with my ribs and front-on exposed and I might be hurt but that will be better for me as I wont be potentially hurting the other guy"

Lynch chose to brace for the contact - sadly the bulldog guy who had put himself into a dangerous position by running front on into a contest that he was not ever going to impact anyway, was concussed as the two bodies came together.

Possibly the only thing Lynch could have done differently is to have not left his feet in anticipation of the clash (although this is a very very common instinctive reaction to brace for solid contact)

This is 100% a footballing incident - bodies coming together a hundred times during a normal game.

An accidental injury occurred.

We feel sorry for the Bulldog - it is a physical game - next week there will be other injures due to the nature of the contest that we love.
Click to expand...
did he have his eyes on the ball or the man? this 'it's a man's game' trope is by-gone days stuff. toughness is putting your head over the ball. being first in. body on the line stuff. francis bourke style.
 
Meteoric Rise said:
Ok let's take this a step further then. Here are a couple of the stills shown earlier in the thread.

View attachment 1656452

I have watched some footage of players setting themselves for marks an I am quite confident players take at least 4 steps per second in these situations. You can clearly see the second last step, probably about 0.2 to 0.25 seconds before Lynch is set to jump, his eyes are on the ball and he is setting himself to jump. Some time in the next 0.2 to 0.25 seconds he is reacting to new information, ie that he was going to collide with Keath and had misjudged the flight of the ball. It takes humans around 0.2 seconds to recognise and react, elite sportsmen maybe a little quicker than that.

So at most 0.25 seconds before jumping he is 100% intending to jump at the ball, I think the first photo shows that pretty clearly. When he changed his mind and decided to not jump at the ball could for example have been half way between his right foot being on support and his left foot being on support. As little as 0.10 seconds or possibly even less. This would generally not be enough time for a player to abort a previously planned action. So he could have been irrevocably committed to the jump but had just enough time to decide to also turn side on and brace.

And remember even if there was sufficient time for him to react and choose all the correct courses of action, he has absolutely no time to weigh up pros and cons of one course of action over another. He more or less has to act instinctively. You cannot train this precise formation of positioning and velocity of all the moving parts because there are so many possible combinations, it is just something you need to react to instinctively as it arises.

The only possible guilt you could assign to Lynch here is he jumped into the collision, given the collision was clearly unavoidable for him. But I think the above shows it is highly doubtful he had enough time between realising he had misjudged the ball and launching his jump to be able to abandon the jump.
Click to expand...
That last pic of Tommy...is a dead give away...destroy it!
Tommy's eyes may be originally for the footy...but suddenly his spider senses are tingling...warning, warning says the tiny robot waving its arms in his head...as a result then...
Tommy now has foregone the marking contest cos of the arrival of the oppo in front of him...and Tommy has now commenced the physical proceedings where he is going to physically obliberate the oppo instead...
How do we know this to be true..?!?
Tommy's left foot is firmly and flatly planted on the turf for maximum physical leverage of delivering his muscled left shoulder into the unguarded fragile sconse of the oppo at full speed...
Cos if Tommy was fair dinkum about not bumping...his left foot would be springing off his toes for maximum leverage to gain height for a mark!
Certainly not a good look...cos that left flat foot of Tommy's is a dead give away/evidence of his true intentions!
 

Log in to remove this ad.

From both pictures it looks like both Lynch & Keith are in the exact same position just before the impact
only difference is Keith gets the concussion.

If its the act they are trying to eradicate and the outcome is not the thing that indicates verdict then nothing to see

But if the AFL are true to their word then Harry Mckay should get 4 weeks
 
Rioli2Rioli said:
From both pictures it looks like both Lynch & Keith are in the exact same position just before the impact
only difference is Keith gets the concussion.

If its the act they are trying to eradicate and the outcome is not the thing that indicates verdict then nothing to see

But if the AFL are true to their word then Harry Mckay should get 4 weeks
Click to expand...
Instead he’ll get off
 
thought it would have been thrown out by now

it appears the AFL and the media are hell bent on on letting it drag on. milking every last drop.

pleasing and looking after its sponsors

every clickbait story on it is guaranteed to have a sports betting promo ad.
 
Just got the vision through of the AFL on their way to AFL house last night for Lynch's crucifixion tonight.

crowd riot GIF
 
Not Important said:
did he have his eyes on the ball or the man? this 'it's a man's game' trope is by-gone days stuff. toughness is putting your head over the ball. being first in. body on the line stuff. francis bourke style.
Click to expand...
Sorry, not sure what you are asking me or was it rhetorical?
Tom had eye's for the ball - until he realised he had miss-timed and overshot where he needed to be to attempt the mark - was running at speed and he had already commenced the process of launching for the mark.
Then peripherally, around the same moment, he became aware of imminent contact with an oncoming opponent, eyes went from the ball to the other player - so he braced for that contact.
 
Do the Dew said:
Think you're giving way too much credit to Michael Christian. Past rulings have shown he's incompetent as *, doubly so given that they let the Witherden/Freo incident highlighted earlier completely go. He hands out penalties based on what the media is able to drum up. Remember when both Vlastuin and Grimes got fined by MC for staging a couple of years ago after the incidents went nuts on social media. Then we challenged and both fines were thrown out.

You've even contradicted yourself in the part I've bolded above. Bracing for impact does not equal a bump. A player could be standing completely still with a guy sprinting at them, the standing player goes "oh s**t, I'm about to be flattened here", and turns his shoulder to protect himself. You can't say that the standing player bumped the guy running into him. The other point is intent. If you bump, then there's an intent to hit a guy with your shoulder. It's obvious when there's an intention to bump because players will lean into the contact and often follow through because their momentum is taking them forward. Think the Pickett/Franklin/McAdam bumps from Rd 1. Lynch's is completely different.
Click to expand...
Here is the Tribunal Guidelines regarding high bumps

1. Rough Conduct (High Bumps) The AFL Regulations provide that a Player will be guilty of Rough Conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) the Player causes forceful contact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck. Unless Intentional, such conduct will be deemed to be Careless, unless: » The Player was contesting the ball and it was reasonable for the Player to contest the ball in that way; or » The forceful contact to the opponent’s head or neck was caused by circumstances outside the control of the Player which could not be reasonably foreseen. In the interests of Player safety, the purpose of the rule dealing with high bumps is to reduce, as far as practicable, the risk of head injuries to Players and this purpose needs to be kept firmly in mind by all Players and will guide the application of the rule. Any high bump which constitutes Rough Conduct that has the potential to cause injury will usually be graded at a minimum as Medium Impact, even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low. For the purpose of these Guidelines, head clashes that result when a Player has elected to bump are circumstances that can reasonably be foreseen. Players will ordinarily be liable if they elect to bump if not contesting the ball.

I've highlighted the 2 areas which directly impact the Lynch/Keath incident and also why it doesn't apply to O'Meara/Witherden incident.

The MRO will argue that Lynch tucking himself up constitutes a bumping action which then brings into effect the first highlighted part. Was it reasonable for Lynch to contest the footy, by making contact with Keath? The answer unfortunately is no and the only other out is if they can show that Jones made contact with Lynch that forced him into Keath. If the MRO doesn't believe that Lynch was legitimately contesting the footy then the 'decision to bump' (self preservation mode of tucking) unfortunately kicks in.

With the O'Meara/Witherden incident, both players were contesting the ball and while some will argue Witherden had no right to act like he did, it is still a reasonable attempt by him to contest the ball, even more so with O'Meara as he was leading towards the ball and had leapt to attempt the mark and it was only when he knew he was going to collide with Witherden that he stopped the action of attempting the mark.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

_RT_ said:
Pretty much exactly what I've been trying to convey and explain why the MRO decided to send Lynch to the tribunal (Lynch leaving his feet and making high contact with Keath left him vulnerable to drawing attention).

Now it's up to our advocate to mount a strong enough case so that it does get dismissed, however I don't believe that will happen.

Also for those using the Witherden/O'Meara clash, both players had left the ground to contest the mark, Witherden (stupidly) bravely going back with the flight and O'Meara coming hard on the lead. A clash was inevitable as O'Meara had already committed to trying to mark the ball and possibly would have had Witherden not entered the contest. There is no similarity to the Lynch incident as Lynch had never left the ground to contest the mark until he was past the drop zone and headed for impact with Keath, which is why he his has been sent to the tribunal.
Click to expand...

What dribble. You do realise this all happens in a micro second don’t you? If JOM wasn’t even cited, then Lynch gets off. I still don’t believe you’ve come up with any reasonable description of what he ‘should’ have done given the ball was not in play for Lynch.

I wouldn’t be surprised if he gets suspended as the entire system is incompetent, but it’ll not be based on logic or common sense.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
Meteoric Rise said:
Ok let's take this a step further then. Here are a couple of the stills shown earlier in the thread.

View attachment 1656452

I have watched some footage of players setting themselves for marks an I am quite confident players take at least 4 steps per second in these situations. You can clearly see the second last step, probably about 0.2 to 0.25 seconds before Lynch is set to jump, his eyes are on the ball and he is setting himself to jump. Some time in the next 0.2 to 0.25 seconds he is reacting to new information, ie that he was going to collide with Keath and had misjudged the flight of the ball. It takes humans around 0.2 seconds to recognise and react, elite sportsmen maybe a little quicker than that.

So at most 0.25 seconds before jumping he is 100% intending to jump at the ball, I think the first photo shows that pretty clearly. When he changed his mind and decided to not jump at the ball could for example have been half way between his right foot being on support and his left foot being on support. As little as 0.10 seconds or possibly even less. This would generally not be enough time for a player to abort a previously planned action. So he could have been irrevocably committed to the jump but had just enough time to decide to also turn side on and brace.

And remember even if there was sufficient time for him to react and choose all the correct courses of action, he has absolutely no time to weigh up pros and cons of one course of action over another. He more or less has to act instinctively. You cannot train this precise formation of positioning and velocity of all the moving parts because there are so many possible combinations, it is just something you need to react to instinctively as it arises.

The only possible guilt you could assign to Lynch here is he jumped into the collision, given the collision was clearly unavoidable for him. But I think the above shows it is highly doubtful he had enough time between realising he had misjudged the ball and launching his jump to be able to abandon the jump.
Click to expand...
As I just posted above here are the guidelines that the MRO is bound by when assessing this incident.

1. Rough Conduct (High Bumps) The AFL Regulations provide that a Player will be guilty of Rough Conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) the Player causes forceful contact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck. Unless Intentional, such conduct will be deemed to be Careless, unless: » The Player was contesting the ball and it was reasonable for the Player to contest the ball in that way; or » The forceful contact to the opponent’s head or neck was caused by circumstances outside the control of the Player which could not be reasonably foreseen. In the interests of Player safety, the purpose of the rule dealing with high bumps is to reduce, as far as practicable, the risk of head injuries to Players and this purpose needs to be kept firmly in mind by all Players and will guide the application of the rule. Any high bump which constitutes Rough Conduct that has the potential to cause injury will usually be graded at a minimum as Medium Impact, even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low. For the purpose of these Guidelines, head clashes that result when a Player has elected to bump are circumstances that can reasonably be foreseen. Players will ordinarily be liable if they elect to bump if not contesting the ball.

The 2 sections I've highlighted are what sent Lynch to the tribunal and as much as we all say what could Tom possibly do to avoid contact, the MRO/tribunal will say he could have pulled out/side stepped Keath once he realised he was out of position instead of continuing through to make contact with Keath who had also pulled out once he realised he wasn't going to make the contest.

The AFL for better or worse are going to do all they can to stop incidents like this happening and it's going to cause issues like this where a lot of supporters who grew up with blokes getting crunched in packs and nothing coming from it are going to shake their heads when players, not just Richmond players, but players across the league get rubbed out for similar incidents as the season/following seasons unfold.
 
_RT_ said:
I don't disagree with any of that, but the MRO doesn't really take all that into account. His responsibility is to lay the charge as per the guidelines issued, which he has done.

He will look at the following:
Did Lynch have an alternative course of action? As much as we don't agree, he could have contested the mark but didn't

Did Lynch elect to bump? Technically yes, given he braced for impact.

Did Lynch leave his feet while bumping/making contact with Keath? Yes and when you look at the side on angle Lynch doesn't leave his feet until he starts to brace for the collision with Keath.

What was the outcome? Keath left the ground and failed a concussion test.

As I said now it's up to our advocate to prove all the points everyone here has been putting forward in defence of Lynch. If they do then he gets off, if not he'll be suspended.



Keath had eyes on the ball as does Lynch when both decide to try and contest the ball, it's only when Keath is either called out by teammates or sees Lynch and Jones coming that he pulls out of trying to fly for the ball.

Again the difference between Lynch/Keath & O'Meara/Witherden is that both O'Meara and Witherden had left the ground when they collided both had eyes solely for the ball and the collision was the result of both players trying to either take the mark or effect a spoil and neither had pulled out of that contest as opposed to what I mentioned above with Lynch/Keath.
Click to expand...

Did JOM raise his arms above his head in a marking attempt? No. He leaped to contest, saw oncoming traffic, stopped trying to contest the ball as his instinct was to protect his own ribs
and took out the oncoming player in the head.

The only difference is Keath was concussed and the AFL are gun shy. Reality is if you jump recklessly into an oncoming pack of players without eyes for the ball you have to suffer the consequences if the players brace for inevitable impact.

I defy anyone to place their arms above their heads if a 195cm, 100KG man is flying headlong into your path.

If they decide Lynch’s actions were not reasonable in the circumstances then they are kidding themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
_RT_ said:
As I just posted above here are the guidelines that the MRO is bound by when assessing this incident.

1. Rough Conduct (High Bumps) The AFL Regulations provide that a Player will be guilty of Rough Conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) the Player causes forceful contact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck. Unless Intentional, such conduct will be deemed to be Careless, unless: » The Player was contesting the ball and it was reasonable for the Player to contest the ball in that way; or » The forceful contact to the opponent’s head or neck was caused by circumstances outside the control of the Player which could not be reasonably foreseen. In the interests of Player safety, the purpose of the rule dealing with high bumps is to reduce, as far as practicable, the risk of head injuries to Players and this purpose needs to be kept firmly in mind by all Players and will guide the application of the rule. Any high bump which constitutes Rough Conduct that has the potential to cause injury will usually be graded at a minimum as Medium Impact, even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low. For the purpose of these Guidelines, head clashes that result when a Player has elected to bump are circumstances that can reasonably be foreseen. Players will ordinarily be liable if they elect to bump if not contesting the ball.

The 2 sections I've highlighted are what sent Lynch to the tribunal and as much as we all say what could Tom possibly do to avoid contact, the MRO/tribunal will say he could have pulled out/side stepped Keath once he realised he was out of position instead of continuing through to make contact with Keath who had also pulled out once he realised he wasn't going to make the contest.

The AFL for better or worse are going to do all they can to stop incidents like this happening and it's going to cause issues like this where a lot of supporters who grew up with blokes getting crunched in packs and nothing coming from it are going to shake their heads when players, not just Richmond players, but players across the league get rubbed out for similar incidents as the season/following seasons unfold.
Click to expand...

The most telling thing is image 2, where Keath takes his eyes off the ball as he realises it’s over his head and he no longer has a play on it. So logically Lynch no longer has a play on it either.

So given there’s an oncoming player without eyes for the ball, and given neither Keath nor Lynch have a play on the ball, it has to be reasonable that in those circumstances the tribunal finds Lynch acted reasonably in bracing to prevent getting a jumper full of broken ribs.

But I would say that even if Lynch DID have a play on the ball, is it unreasonable for your instincts to take over and tuck up to protect yourself from someone coming front on as opposed to raise your arms and expose your ribs?



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
Noidnadroj said:
What dribble. You do realise this all happens in a micro second don’t you? If JOM wasn’t even cited, then Lynch gets off. I still don’t believe you’ve come up with any reasonable description of what he ‘should’ have done given the ball was not in play for Lynch.

I wouldn’t be surprised if he gets suspended as the entire system is incompetent, but it’ll not be based on logic or common sense.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Click to expand...
I played the game for over 25 years and have watched it for well over 40 years so I'm well aware of how quick it all happens.

O'Meara wasn't cited because he was contesting the ball and it was reasonable for him to contest the ball in that way, if it wasn't for Witherden coming in from the opposite direction he likely would have taken the mark uncontested and this from the tribunal guidelines back up why O'Meara wasn't cited, nor should he have been.

As for Lynch he could have pulled up and made slight contact with Keath, he could have attempted to side step Keath, he could have tried to engage with Jones. Not that it matters because you're no doubt going to tell me none of those options were viable. Well tonight at the tribunal our advocate will have the chance to put forward the arguement that Lynch didn't have those options and if they make a good enough case then Lynch will get off, if not then he'll get suspended.
 
Noidnadroj said:
Did JOM raise his arms above his head in a marking attempt? No. He leaped to contest, saw oncoming traffic, stopped trying to contest the ball as his instinct was to protect his own ribs
and took out the oncoming player in the head.

The only difference is Keath was concussed and the AFL are gun shy. Reality is if you jump recklessly into an oncoming pack of players without eyes for the ball you have to suffer the consequences if the players brace for inevitable impact.

I defy anyone to place their arms above their heads if a 195cm, 100KG man is flying headlong into your path.

If they decide Lynch’s actions were not reasonable in the circumstances then they are kidding themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Click to expand...
O'Meara is coming out on the lead to take a mark in his hands in front of his face and was poised to do that until the last moment when Witherden appeared. Completely reasonable for him to attempt to contest the ball in that instance.

Had Lynch actually leapt for the ball and then made contact with Keath he'd have no case to answer.

The problem with your argument is you've stated that Lynch was no longer contesting the ball, so by deciding to then jump into Keath which resulted in the high bump makes him liable under the guidelines to be charged as he has. So I'm thankful that you're not the one arguing for Tom tonight.
 
_RT_ said:
I played the game for over 25 years and have watched it for well over 40 years so I'm well aware of how quick it all happens.

O'Meara wasn't cited because he was contesting the ball and it was reasonable for him to contest the ball
.
Click to expand...
Well this is the part that gets interesting

How much time does Lynch have when he gets to the point of no longer being able to contest the ball ?
With that same criteria how about Keith ? He had as much time probably more going by the still pictures to avoid impact , Why didnt he do the same ?
where is his obligation to avoid impact/bump
 

Remove this Banner Ad

MRP / Trib. Lynch To Tribunal

Similar threads

Groupie_
News Tom Lynch out for 6-12 weeks with hamstring injury
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
184
Views
7K
Tiger_4_Life
Tiger_4_Life
Muddiemoose
News Short, Lynch & Baker Vice Captains
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Truetiger
Truetiger
Tigerish09
Analysis How important is Tom Lynch to Richmond?
Replies
23
Views
1K
Meteoric Rise
Meteoric Rise
_RT_
MRP / Trib. Nankervis Straight To Tribunal
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
269
Views
6K
Truetiger
Truetiger
RFCGloryJC
Toast Mark "Robbo" Robinson retires
2
Replies
42
Views
1K
Madtiger2006
Madtiger2006
wegetpumped
Off topic but footy related. Channel 7
2
Replies
43
Views
1K
Grrr
G
_RT_
  • Poll
Player Watch #38 Tom Sims
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
248
Views
16K
Grrr
G

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top