MRP / Trib. Lynch To Tribunal

[energyquant]

I find the arguments in favour of Tom Lynch being suspended overstate the duty of care that Tom Lynch owes to 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

. A collision was inevitable. Was Lynch expected to sustain an injury to prevent injury to the other player?

On the other hand, the AFL simply must deregister Paddy McCartin. It is clear that he is not fit to play the game of AFL. If they allow him to continue to play the game then they have absolutely failed in their duty of care.

 

[SDMTiger4]

Our best hope is a new and improved Gill. campaigners a cockroach, never dies

Gill won't leave until the hatchet job on the tigers by the AFL is complete

 

[domin8]

oppos trying to get this trending
View attachment 1655418View attachment 1655419View attachment 1655424View attachment 1655432View attachment 1655425

Simple we just say he’s available this week

 

[Rioli2Rioli]

Richmond should just send Balmey to the tribunal

Where Mr Tom Lunch

Balme : He couldnt make it because he couldnt be farrk'd
But he did ask me to pass on his message

Farrrrk uff

 

[Tiger Toffee]

Did we even receive a free kick for front on contact, Keith did make no attempt to get the ball.

 

[Rioli2Rioli]

Now that is so true...
The AFL mentally abuse the RFC players by a relentless media barrage and on-field umpiring non decisions...
All that nonsense about Lynch's goal...over turned...and we were promised unseen ARC footage of the POINT! Sound of crickets!
Porkins push in the back that caused Soldo's knee injury...where were the AFL on the front foot for player safety/change in rules?!? Sound of crickets!
Dangerflop driving his elbow into Vlossy's jaw come GF time...where were the AFL on the front foot for player safety?! Sound of crickets!
TS's shoulder to Prestia's jaw...concussed! Match keeps playing around a concussed player! Where were the AFL on the front foot for player safety?!
Lop sided frees for...RFC bottom of the ladder for years...Sound of crickets...no explanation!
Richmond Football Club held to ridicule by all in the media...physically and illegally battered!...what does this do to the mental health of all the players...
All the Media...driven by the AFL...is framing Cut Lunch's latest incident as Tommy's BUMP! Not as an accidental collision in the course of play!
No body is challenging this framed perception...as Tommy's BUMP!...no one in the media...sound of crickets!
Duty of care by the AFL to player's health both physical and mental is a joke...sound of crickets!
AFL dealing with the Racist claims against Hawthorn...sound of crickets!
AFL...it's just not cricket!

 

[Tigeral]

There’s a strong from other sports administrations that the AFL is way way too late in addressing the concussion issue, so now playing catch-up . We should expect significant changes and reactions such this crackdowns


Let’s hope for consistency, unlikely, but that’s the best outcome…

Agree but they need to come out upfront and explain their changes, not after an incident has happened

 

[Barnzy]

There’s a strong from other sports administrations that the AFL is way way too late in addressing the concussion issue, so now playing catch-up . We should expect significant changes and reactions such this crackdowns


Let’s hope for consistency, unlikely, but that’s the best outcome…

They've already failed on consistency.

One week ago - no suspension, fine, not even cited. Looks familiar to me. We should play this clip at the case then walk out

 

[Grrr]

For those suggesting that what Lynch did was fair, IMO it's no different to Cameron doing this in 2018, except that Lynch didn't have the long run up, however he did opt to make contact with the opponent rather than contest the mark. Had Lynch put his hands up and at least contest the mark there wouldn't be an issue, but when you elect to make contact with the opponent and not contest the footy, you're always going to be in trouble.

Not a good example. Idiotic that a player running back into the pack as Andrews did completely open to what is coming at him should be protected. AFL is not a nursery for idiots who don't know the basics of football. Never run face first into an on coming pack. Cameron has his eyes on the ball and at the last milli-second saw a player coming at just about equal speed from the opposite direction. Exactly why Dangerfield wasn't cited when he cleaned up Vlastuin, who was coming the other way. It was so split second players don't have the time to react and have every right to continue going at the ball.

Lynch's was similar I guess, the player running back to the pack was not quite as open as Andrews but Lynch was competing in the marking contest, was out bodied which sent his momentum forward and in the last instant saw his opponent coming the other way so tucked up. What was his option mid air, take in it the ribs. It was a glancing blow but at that speed it was significant enough, but not significant for the ump to notice anything untowards, nor the Doggies team mates who didn't even raise a glance.

This would be the most insane report I can remember. From now on players going for a mark have to make sure they don't collide with anyone resulting in a concussion whether that is their fault or not.

 

[Sir_Rancelot]

Happy easter buddy. What’s rooted in my eyes is if Keith gets up with no effects, this isn’t even looked at. It’s a reactionary system which is why it’s so inconsistent and infuriates and confuses people.

Happy Easter to you also CB.

The biggest issue for me is you can't call out the umpires for ridiculous umpiring decissions, the decent rule and how the players and media should respect umpires but on the other hand the media, AFL house are only too eager to call out players and throw them under the bus.
It's blows my mind that within a split second of that incident Lynch had already been trialled and prosecuted by the media.

Like I said in a previous post RFC are obliged to stand firm, fight hard to clear Lynch and show the masses that the Club stands by him whilst everyone else is saying he should be hung and executed. If the club take the easy way out and accept whatever is handed to him on the premis that he is off injured anyway I will be disgusted and pissed off with RFC.

The umpires are NOT bigger than the game and without guy's like Lynch there wouldn't be a competition.

 

[Dunger]

They've already failed on consistency.

One week ago - no suspension, fine, not even cited. Looks familiar to me. We should play this clip at the case then walk out

**** the afl

The mro are as crooked as a dogs hind leg. Politicians have more integrity than the afl, and they're as slimy and dodgy as anything.

Lunch was going for the ball, keath wasnt. That's the crux of the issue there.

 

[TigFan1966]

oppos trying to get this trending

Haters gonna hate!

 

[PetterdHoisted]

They've already failed on consistency.

One week ago - no suspension, fine, not even cited. Looks familiar to me. We should play this clip at the case then walk out

another perfect example, and this was just last week?

If you run head first at a bloke who is up in the air in a marking contest...duty of care is on you

this at least is consistent with the rules - if you knee a bloke in the back of the head in a marking contest, it is just fine, as long as you touched the ball at some point. no FK for high contact

 

[Sir_Rancelot]

I find the arguments in favour of Tom Lynch being suspended overstate the duty of care that Tom Lynch owes to Alex Keath. A collision was inevitable. Was Lynch expected to sustain an injury to prevent injury to the other player?

On the other hand, the AFL simply must deregister Paddy McCartin. It is clear that he is not fit to play the game of AFL. If they allow him to continue to play the game then they have absolutely failed in their duty of care.

Excellent Post!

Exactly right the AFL have a duty of care which they have failed to exercise.
I'm also pretty sure that the AFL have a duty of care under the employer act and they can be prosecuted under the Law Andrews brought in.
I guess it only applies to small businesses and not the AFL or the Government.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

They've already failed on consistency.

One week ago - no suspension, fine, not even cited. Looks familiar to me. We should play this clip at the case then walk out

Feck me dead Tommy are you all right son?!?

 

[Sir_Rancelot]

* the afl

The mro are as crooked as a dogs hind leg. Politicians have more integrity than the afl, and they're as slimy and dodgy as anything.

Lunch was going for the ball, keath wasnt. That's the crux of the issue there.

Politicians have zero integrity so the base is very low

 

[Not Important]

the care factor for me is low as he'll miss 8 weeks through injury anyway. huge loss for us.

 

[Livonski]

There’s a strong from other sports administrations that the AFL is way way too late in addressing the concussion issue, so now playing catch-up . We should expect significant changes and reactions such this crackdowns


Let’s hope for consistency, unlikely, but that’s the best outcome…

If they were genuinely addressing the issue Kosi would’ve got 4, Cripps 4, Stewart 6 and McCartin wouldn’t be playing.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

the care factor for me is low as he'll miss 8 weeks through injury anyway. huge loss for us.

sad, but reality is, it's probably just a development year + farewell year for JR and Cotch

 

[kozi]

K Pickett uses his body as a human missile.. 2 weeks

Lynch goes for mark - life ban

 

[_RT_]

They've already failed on consistency.

One week ago - no suspension, fine, not even cited. Looks familiar to me. We should play this clip at the case then walk out

You don't see the difference. O'Meara had actually leapt in an attempt to fly for the mark, it's only when Witherden comes across him that he braces for when contact occurs. Lynch doesn't actually fly for the mark instead he braces for contact and leaves his feet while bumping into Keath, that is why Lynch is being sent to the tribunal. We may not agree with it, but by the guidelines for reportable incidents it ticks off all the boxes. Now it is up to our advocate to present an argument that gets Lynch off if possible.

Not a good example. Idiotic that a player running back into the pack as Andrews did completely open to what is coming at him should be protected. AFL is not a nursery for idiots who don't know the basics of football. Never run face first into an on coming pack. Cameron has his eyes on the ball and at the last milli-second saw a player coming at just about equal speed from the opposite direction. Exactly why Dangerfield wasn't cited when he cleaned up Vlastuin, who was coming the other way. It was so split second players don't have the time to react and have every right to continue going at the ball.

Lynch's was similar I guess, the player running back to the pack was not quite as open as Andrews but Lynch was competing in the marking contest, was out bodied which sent his momentum forward and in the last instant saw his opponent coming the other way so tucked up. What was his option mid air, take in it the ribs. It was a glancing blow but at that speed it was significant enough, but not significant for the ump to notice anything untowards, nor the Doggies team mates who didn't even raise a glance.

This would be the most insane report I can remember. From now on players going for a mark have to make sure they don't collide with anyone resulting in a concussion whether that is their fault or not.

It is one of those strange occurences where umpires and players don't think it's untoward, but when the MRO has a look at it it meets the criteria to be referred to the tribunal in part because Keath ends up concussed and when looking at the incident they see that Lynch has left his feet while electing to bump.

It's not an intentional act, as Lynch & Keath were both running in with eyes on the ball and it's only when both realise that they've misread the flight that both brace for contact. As mentioned by myself and others, if Lynch doesn't leave his feet and Keath doesn't end up concussed it gets overlooked as a football act and everyone moves on.

As I said this morning I don't necessarily agree that he should be rubbed out, but won't be the least bit shocked to see Lynch suspended when the tribunal sits and he won't be the last that gets rubbed out in similar circumstances given the AFL has a clear intention to try and limit incidents where players are unnecessarily hit in the head and concussed.

 

[Grrr]

You don't see the difference. O'Meara had actually leapt in an attempt to fly for the mark, it's only when Witherden comes across him that he braces for when contact occurs. Lynch doesn't actually fly for the mark instead he braces for contact and leaves his feet while bumping into Keath, that is why Lynch is being sent to the tribunal. We may not agree with it, but by the guidelines for reportable incidents it ticks off all the boxes. Now it is up to our advocate to present an argument that gets Lynch off if possible.

It is one of those strange occurences where umpires and players don't think it's untoward, but when the MRO has a look at it it meets the criteria to be referred to the tribunal in part because Keath ends up concussed and when looking at the incident they see that Lynch has left his feet while electing to bump.

It's not an intentional act, as Lynch & Keath were both running in with eyes on the ball and it's only when both realise that they've misread the flight that both brace for contact. As mentioned by myself and others, if Lynch doesn't leave his feet and Keath doesn't end up concussed it gets overlooked as a football act and everyone moves on.

As I said this morning I don't necessarily agree that he should be rubbed out, but won't be the least bit shocked to see Lynch suspended when the tribunal sits and he won't be the last that gets rubbed out in similar circumstances given the AFL has a clear intention to try and limit incidents where players are unnecessarily hit in the head and concussed.

He left the ground because he was going for the mark and was outbodied in the contest, which happens 100 times a game. Because somebody comes back with the flight and 'creates' the contact, i.e stepping into a forward and his man leading for the ball, how is it anyone's fault other than Keiths. Lynch is in the air when he 'feels' someone coming the other way and braces himself. Team mates do not miss it when a player is ironed out. It is only 'obvious' when it is replayed in slow motion over and over again.

It may fit a loose criteria technically I suppose, but that is a massive can of worms if he is found guilty. If it wasn't Lynch it would never have been even cited as rough play.

 

[Tiger Toffee]

the care factor for me is low as he'll miss 8 weeks through injury anyway. huge loss for us.

Forward line is easier to cover than other parts of the ground. It's not a huge loss it's just a loss.

 

[domin8]

the care factor for me is low as he'll miss 8 weeks through injury anyway. huge loss for us.

The suspension is really irrelevant. Players shouldn’t be suspended for protecting themselves in a marking contest. Sets a precedence that will come back and bite the AFL on the arse as we know they won’t be consistent with this

 

[_RT_]

So they just had Dunstall King & Montagna on Fox Footy talking about the Lynch incident.

Dunstall holds the position that it's line ball in that he should have contested the mark and had eyes on the ball pretty much all the way until just prior to making contact with Keath. Can see why he could get rubbed out as he doesn't contest the mark.

Montagna says he's ok with Lynch getting 3 as it sets the standard and helps set consistency for incidents like this that happen multiple times a game. Says the minimum when you bump someone when not contesting the footy should be a week and then goes up depending on the severity of the injury to the other player.

King, who is a major advocate for the head being protected, agrees with both and says that it's an interesting case to see what they do. All agree that the major issue is Lynch not electing to contest the mark.

He left the ground because he was going for the mark and was outbodied in the contest, which happens 100 times a game. Because somebody comes back with the flight and 'creates' the contact, i.e stepping into a forward and his man leading for the ball, how is it anyone's fault other than Keiths. Lynch is in the air when he 'feels' someone coming the other way and braces himself. Team mates do not miss it when a player is ironed out. It is only 'obvious' when it is replayed in slow motion.

It may fit a loose criteria technically I suppose, but that is a massive can of worms if he is found guilty. If it wasn't Lynch it would never have been even cited as rough play.

I don't agree that he is outbodied by Jones and it's a case that he misread the flight as did Keath who was coming back with the flight. Guess we'll all find out when Lynch fronts up tonight.