Should the AFL impose more severe penalties in Grand Finals?

[Tezmyster]

Following up from the Grand Final tribunal hearings, RealFooty has an article which indicates that the sentences given to the players were so severe because it was a Grand Final. (see Lynch, Black pay for blows) However heavy penalties in Grand Finals only effect the following season, and do not affect the current game in any way. For this reason a team could go all out in order to win the flag for the current season, but pay the overall small price of sacrificing players in the early stages of the following season.

-----<><><><><>-----
The AFL Tribunal last night made an example of retiring Brisbane Lions full-forward Alastair Lynch, giving him a 10-match suspension and a total of $15,000 in fines for his fight with Port Adelaide full-back Darryl Wakelin, who also received a $5000 fine for trying to strike Lynch.

Tribunal chairman Brian Collis said the penalty against Lynch, found guilty of two counts of striking and four of attempting to strike, was so severe because the grand final was the showcase event and players "ought to set an appropriate example" for young viewers.
-----<><><><><>-----

So, ignoring the fact that in this instance the players involved are from Brisbane, and instead looking at it as a precedent that will be set for future Grand Finals, should heavy penalties be applied in Grand Finals matches?

 

[eddiesmith]

Without a doubt, yes. Black did not get a severe penalty. what a joke

 

[Hoonose atall]

The main gripe we always here about the Tribunal is that they are never consistent.
Yes, the GF is the pinnacle of the season, viewed by millions and therefore the showpiece of our great game but does that make striking someone in the head any different than if it was 1 week, 2 weeks or even 15 weeks earlier.
The 10 weeks suspension given to Lynch only highlights the stupidity of the tribunal and also the AFL for letting them get away with it time and time again.
The main precedent that has been set is that players now know that if you get reported in the GF not to announce your retirement until after you go up.

Taking the hardline of dishing out a 10 week suspension to a player who has announced his retirement is, IMO, pointless.
It's a bit like fining a millionaire $15,000. It won't hurt them.

Can we scream for consistency from the tribunal on one hand and then on the other hand say "Except for when its in a Grand Final"?

 

[coasting]

No, keep the biff. I would have thought the 'biff' would have added to the showpiece and made it more appealing. It certainly did for me. After Carr and Brown stopped punching each other I became bored and feel asleep.

 

[karnaby]

It's my understanding that the tribunal have been talking about this for a number of years.

As far as I'm concerned if there is any sense of either premeditation or an effort to take an opposing player out of the match (which is my impression of lynch's effort) then the more severe the penalty the better.

 

[eddiesmith]

The main problem with Lynch is if they didnt suspend him he could turn around and keep playing. Setting the precedent of blokes announcing their 'retirement', belting someone and getting a fine instead of suspension and then change their mind and keep playing. Suspension must be handed down.