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

[Stars align]

My response to Stewart's was "I don't think he meant to knock him out but he meant to hit him and that's a s**t act".

But that's my exact same response to Lynch. He saw the guy coming back with the flight and decided to assert his physical dominance. I don't think he meant to knock him out but it was a s**t act.

Stew

My response to Stewart's was "I don't think he meant to knock him out but he meant to hit him and that's a s**t act".

But that's my exact same response to Lynch. He saw the guy coming back with the flight and decided to assert his physical dominance. I don't think he meant to knock him out but it was a s**t act.

I’ve wondered this too. I saw a friendly fire incident last year sometime that was off the charts in negligence. I mean concussion is concussion regardless of who charged in without looking or attempting the right technique

Only a matter of time before a player is suspended for concussing his teammate

 

[Erakor]

People actually believe these two incidents both deserve the same penalty ....





wow.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

I agree.

But I just see the AFL making so many errors with this s**t.


Someone made the point earlier that if Lynch was to get 4 weeks, it'd be the same punishment that Tom Stewart got. Now that's absurd.

They need to be harsher on grading things as 'Intentional'. It shouldn't be interpreted as 'intentionally tried to concuss him', it should be interpreted as you intentionally did a shitty act.

And if you intentionally get someone in the head, there should be huge suspensions.

None of us would care if shitty thuggish acts were gone from the game. So they should really come down hard on that stuff. Pickett should have gotten 8 weeks. Bailey Smith 6 for the headbutt. Tom Stewart 10. A genuine sling tackle with intent - 8 weeks. Jumper punches - 4 weeks. McKay - 4 weeks.
F**k off and stop doing that s**t to people on purpose because it's dangerous.

Then they can at least mount a case they've legitimately created a deterrent and made the football field safe for players to not be purposely hurt from shitty acts.


The whole 'Careless' thing should be chucked out. There should just be 'Intentional', and 'Reckless'.

Reckless s**t like kneeing Blicavs in the guts should still be reportable, but at a much lower grade. Fines, and maybe a week or 2 max if it's really bad.


I could run out on the field confident that the AFL has done everything they can to stop some a-hole knocking me out, or doing anything to hurt my head on purpose. I know I can get hurt, and still might get concussed - but so can cricketers and basketballers. There is always some inherent risk.

And meanwhile, the game remains at least remotely close to a hard, tough, physical game that demands bravery, strength and a bit of lunacy to play it.

Issue is it’s all looked at through legal lens, not a fans lens.

The AFL will change things as often as they have to until the game is watertight from concussion litigations.

What that means in terms of changes is what scares me… how far will it go??

 

[geelong_crazy26]

People actually believe these two incidents both deserve the same penalty ....





wow.

No, but it’s a lot more comparable than the dangerfield one.

The similarity is that both were off the play and out of the contest and elected to bump.

If Stewart is 4 I’d go 3 for lynch.

 

[Erakor]

'Both were off the play' ... really ?

 

[Erakor]

And this act only gets 1 week .... lol, come on. We just make stuff up.

 

[Footy Smarts]

A better Dangerfield vs Lynch comparison is this one:



Dangerfield in a position to compete lawfully (tackle or smother) until the last step where he decides to bump. Copped 3 weeks.

I think Lynch's is worse because Dangerfield's legal play here is to aggressively go at his opponent (should've been to tackle not bump) whereas Lynch has no valid reason to jump towards Keith rather than at the ball.

But I don't for the life of me see how Lynch is less culpable than Dangerfield.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Issue is it’s all looked at through legal lens, not a fans lens.

The AFL will change things as often as they have to until the game is watertight from concussion litigations.

What that means in terms of changes is what scares me… how far will it go??

But to be honest, I don't think the AFL are actually protecting themselves with the way they do shit.

I don't think they've done enough. And what they have done, hasn't been aimed at the real issues.

The real issues are that they don't do enough in terms of deterrence. This is evidenced by the fact that players just keep doing it!

So how can they claim to be creating a safe environment and doing everything they can to protect players' heads if there are guys getting done by the MRO for it every single week!!??

But instead of really whacking guys with severe penalties to deter them from doing it, they've instead targeted a bunch of stuff that is really hurting the fabric of the game, whilst being largely inconsequential in terms of making it game safer.

So they've ****ed the fabric of the game, but haven't even made it safer!


The other issue is that they have to make it clear to everyone that you play the game at your own peril. They need to openly accept, and get the public too also, that you can get hurt and get concussed from a fair football act. That's just the risk you take.


But instead, they want the players playing. They don't want them missing games. So they jib it at the tribunal and let the good players off.
And they don't want the kids to be scared and think the game is dangerous. So they won't admit it.

 

[Footy Smarts]

And this act only gets 1 week .... lol, come on. We just make stuff up.

Lol Franklin literally made contact with the ball running through there. That being a clumsy effort to compete for the ball is at least plausible since you know...he got the ball.

 

[Stars align]

No, but it’s a lot more comparable than the dangerfield one.

The similarity is that both were off the play and out of the contest and elected to bump.

If Stewart is 4 I’d go 3 for lynch.

Do you now concede that the two incidents were in fact not identical as you previously stated

 

[Erakor]

He didn't get the ball... he got the ball after the incident. He lined him up and had no intention for the ball at all. Otherwise he would have used his hands to pick it up. Freeze it at 21 seconds and watch it.... Franklin is in the middle, the ball on the right of Franklin and Collins to his left. He tucks his shoulder in and moves towards his left and hits Collins in the head. 1 week. It is a circus.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Do you now concede that the two incidents were in fact not identical as you previously stated

No 2 acts are identical.

The basics are the same though. They both chose to bump. Neither contested the ball. Neither meant to concuss their opponents. Both knocked their opponents out.

You can argue on the margins which was more likely to cause injury or which is a worse look, etc. But the discussion should be where each sit between 3-5 weeks not whether one should get off.

 

[Toump Ass]

I want him to get suspended for the melts, Richmond supporters are funny as.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

I want him to get suspended for the melts, Richmond supporters are funny as.

Yeah, I don’t even think it deserves a week but it’s funny to laugh at them.

They need some better lawyers.

 

[Some Idiot]

Changing direction and jumping towards someone is not the same thing as bracing for contact

 

[Footy Smarts]

He didn't get the ball... he got the ball after the incident. He lined him up and had no intention for the ball at all. Otherwise he would have used his hands to pick it up. Freeze it at 21 seconds and watch it.... Franklin is in the middle, the ball on the right of Franklin and Collins to his left. He tucks his shoulder in and moves towards his left and hits Collins in the head. 1 week. It is a circus.

Lol you're truly delusional. The game is called football and you're allowed to use your feet. He collects the ball with his right foot a split second BEFORE the impact. He can at least argue he was playing the ball because he actually got the ball.

It takes a true level of delusion to convince yourself an opposition player is not playing the ball when they literally get the ball while your own player is playing the ball when they get nowhere near it and don't seem to make any attempt to get near it.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

But to be honest, I don't think the AFL are actually protecting themselves with the way they do s**t.

I don't think they've done enough. And what they have done, hasn't been aimed at the real issues.

The real issues are that they don't do enough in terms of deterrence. This is evidenced by the fact that players just keep doing it!

So how can they claim to be creating a safe environment and doing everything they can to protect players' heads if there are guys getting done by the MRO for it every single week!!??

But instead of really whacking guys with severe penalties to deter them from doing it, they've instead targeted a bunch of stuff that is really hurting the fabric of the game, whilst being largely inconsequential in terms of making it game safer.

So they've ****ed the fabric of the game, but haven't even made it safer!


The other issue is that they have to make it clear to everyone that you play the game at your own peril. They need to openly accept, and get the public too also, that you can get hurt and get concussed from a fair football act. That's just the risk you take.


But instead, they want the players playing. They don't want them missing games. So they jib it at the tribunal and let the good players off.
And they don't want the kids to be scared and think the game is dangerous. So they won't admit it.

I think the issue is more around the fact that it is extremely hard to play AFL without concussions, the very nature of the way the game is played will result in players being concussed in the act of playing for the ball.

If you look at dangerfield on vlastuin as a good example, you literally can’t avoid a concussion to one or both potentially in a scenario like that. You can’t fully stamp it out in all scenarios of players going for the ball colliding. You would have to alter football so severely to get to that point where we have a situation of players avoiding the ball due to fear of concussing a player in doing so. AFL will not get to 100% reduction in concussion without very radical changes…

We can eradicate the Tom lynch and Tom Stewart hits off the contests, but the actual legit contested situations are the ones the AFL will have an issue with addressing without ruining the games fundamentals.

 

[Erakor]

Lol you're truly delusional. The game is called football and you're allowed to use your feet. He collects the ball with his right foot a split second BEFORE the impact. He can at least argue he was playing the ball because he actually got the ball.

It takes a true level of delusion to convince yourself an opposition player is not playing the ball when they literally get the ball while your own player is playing the ball when they get nowhere near it and don't seem to make any attempt to get near it.

'Collects the ball' wtf are you smoking ? He puts his elbow in, lines up his shoulder and goes towards Collins and happens to hit the ball with his knee. Under no interpretation is that 'collecting the ball'.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Lol you're truly delusional. The game is called football and you're allowed to use your feet. He collects the ball with his right foot a split second BEFORE the impact. He can at least argue he was playing the ball because he actually got the ball.

It takes a true level of delusion to convince yourself an opposition player is not playing the ball when they literally get the ball while your own player is playing the ball when they get nowhere near it and don't seem to make any attempt to get near it.

I don’t think pattern recognition is a strong point amongst Richmond fans discussing what they believe are similar cases… they are so different i feel like a frustrated teacher at a school of failing kids.

 

[Rich01]

I actually think Richmond can use the whole thing for some political points.. come out and accept without a fuss the sanction and talk out about the importance of concussion bla bla given lynch is out for 10 anyway… what do you have to lose??

I think you need a bit of good publicity after hardwick making a flog of himself in the media

I don’t think they will bother to be honest Crazy.
I’m just struggling to see the consistency of their evaluation on similar incidents this season in particular.

The Harry McKay one is incredibly baffling.
To get a week for running into a bloke is a real change in the stance in the game.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

I don’t think they will bother to be honest Crazy.
I’m just struggling to see the consistency of their evaluation on similar incidents this season in particular.

The Harry McKay one is incredibly baffling.
To get a week for running into a bloke is a real change in the stance in the game.

If that was an injured geelong player I would absolutely love the club to make a political benefit from it. You can only look good and gain out of it given lynch is gone for 10 anyway.. take the smart route with it. You have everything to gain taking the moral route and saying we are against head knocks concussion we fully accept whatever penalty is given.. and I say that with honesty if it was a geelong player I’d be the same. You can only gain from taking that approach.

It’s the smart way to go about things given his out regardless. Use it to make Richmond look like little angels for the public.

That way, Richmond actually comes out looking good from it all and in reality it costs you nothing but a couple of PR emails or interviews…

 

[Footy Smarts]

'Collects the ball' wtf are you smoking ? He puts his elbow in, lines up his shoulder and goes towards Collins and happens to hit the ball with his knee. Under no interpretation is that 'collecting the ball'.

That would be one of the standard definitions of collect being "to collide with":



Simple question. Do you think Lynch was making a legitimate effort to play the ball when he jumped at Keath?

 

[Rich01]

If that was an injured geelong player I would absolutely love the club to make a political benefit from it. You can only look good and gain out of it given lynch is gone for 20 anyway.. take the smart route with it. You have everything to gain taking the moral route and saying we are against head knocks concussion we fully accept whatever penalty is given.. and I say that with honesty if it was a geelong player I’d be the same. You can only gain from taking that approach.

It’s the smart way to go about things given his out regardless. Use it to make Richmond look like little angels for the public.

Nah it won’t happen.
But I like your thinking to curry favour.

I’d be happier just seeing some clear adjudication and consistency with the mro and tribunal. If the player does the crime, so be it. Punish them for it. But be consistent with it across all plays throughout the season.
The examples of the bump in three different cases in the one round was the perfect example of their inconsistency. If we as fans don’t know what the grading and punishment should be for each, how the hell do the players know?

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Nah it won’t happen.
But I like your thinking to curry favour.

I’d be happier just seeing some clear adjudication and consistency with the mro and tribunal. If the player does the crime, so be it. Punish them for it. But be consistent with it across all plays throughout the season.
The examples of the bump in three different cases in the one round was the perfect example of their inconsistency. If we as fans don’t know what the grading and punishment should be for each, how the hell do the players know?

Fair enough point of view and tbh I don’t think the AFL even has a clear cut answer themselves.. I imagine the lawyers and the upcoming court case is going to determine to a great extent the future direction to waterproof litigation against the AFL.

Everything is a bit at sea at current and I actually don’t think we will get this clarity at all you’re speaking of… just expect inconsistency because reality is that’s where things are at.

All the AFL gives a stuff about is being sued and how do we prevent it.. make no mistake about it, it begins and ends with that one thought.

I do reckon you guys can really be smart here and look like angels at literally no cost… I’d go for it!! Honestly you can only gain out of it. Free publicity that everyone will pay you guys on the back for.

 

[Erakor]

That would be one of the standard definitions of collect being "to collide with":

View attachment 1656837

Simple question. Do you think Lynch was making a legitimate effort to play the ball when he jumped at Keath?

Collected the ball in the AFL sense means picking it up. Not a truck that 'collects' two cats.

Yes I do. He only has eyes for the ball until the very last moment where he doesn't look at keath, but looks away and braces for contact. Watch it in normal speed and tell me that is worth 3 + weeks. We are only talking about this because of the unfortunate reality that Keath got KO. If the exact same scenario happened except Keath just got up, this would not even be a thread.

As others have said, Lynch may be Richmond, but this makes no real impact on us given the fractured foot. But I know this will happen again at some point later in the season and be called a 'football incident' and glossed over.