Lynch !!

[Sintiger]

It's a contact sport and as long as you are contesting the ball and only the ball you're generally fairly safe.
Take your eyes of the pill or choose not to contest the pill and bump instead then under all the new rules n standards that the AFL has been trying to establish over the last few seasons you're dead meat. It's taken Christian and the Tribunal a few years to catch up to what the AFL has been pushing but they're starting to get there.
Coaches, players n us fans are still a long way off understanding and accepting the way AFLHQ wants the game to go. But the concussion and brain injury issues means there's no choice but to change the game even further from what we've previously known and enjoyed. Otherwise in a few years time there might not be a game at all.

All very laudable TM except that it fundamentally changes the concept of risk of suspension for a player.
The logical conclusion to that is the only possible way a player can avoid suspension is to not put himself in a position where injury could occur i.e. in Tom’s case don’t contest the mark.
Tom Lynch had 2 choices when he realised he could not contest the mark
1. Not brace for contact and leave himself wide open. This is a completely unnatural thing to do, not protecting yourself.
2. Do what he did
What those advocating suspension are saying is that somehow in that split second he made a choice to bump. The problem with that is it isn’t a bump, it is a collision.
If the AFL goes the way you suggest then the marking contest may also be in trouble.
Lynch did not contest the ball because he couldn’t and the reason he couldn’t was not of his making. To suspend him is essentially saying he accepted that risk when entering the marking contest and If we go in that direction then Aussie rules as we know it is finished.
Maybe it is

 

[Tenacious Tiges]

All very laudable TM except that it fundamentally changes the concept of risk of suspension for a player.
The logical conclusion to that is the only possible way a player can avoid suspension is to not put himself in a position where injury could occur i.e. in Tom’s case don’t contest the mark.
Tom Lynch had 2 choices when he realised he could not contest the mark
1. Not brace for contact and leave himself wide open. This is a completely unnatural thing to do, not protecting yourself.
2. Do what he did
What those advocating suspension are saying is that somehow in that split second he made a choice to bump. The problem with that is it isn’t a bump, it is a collision.
If the AFL goes the way you suggest then the marking contest may also be in trouble.
Lynch did not contest the ball because he couldn’t and the reason he couldn’t was not of his making. To suspend him is essentially saying he accepted that risk when entering the marking contest and If we go in that direction then Aussie rules as we know it is finished.
Maybe it is

It’s finished as long as *smile*-sags like McLaughlin are corrupting the game. The only plausible reason it is Richmond that gets the shitty end of the stick so many times is that our club has rubbed this prick up the wrong way too many times. Maybe we don’t kiss his arse like he expects and gets from the rest of the grovellers. Sick of the *smile* the AFL make up against our club.

 

[Dont Argue]

Been saying this for a long time , I think the game as we know/knew it is stuffed . Simply can’t be played with gladiatorial way it once was , the impact of head injuries / concussions has left sport handcuffed it the way games can be played and hence rules have to be changed.

Problem is that’s what we love about so many sports is the bravery , the big hits , the collisions , so much has changed and will continue too, it’s unquestionable that AFL is now a totally different game to what it once was and will only have less an less contact . As poorer a job as SHocking no doubt did , the stand rule etc are minuscule in the overall scheme of things .

I can’t remember any rule change that has made the game better in the last decade or so , if the game was invented today , it wouldn’t look much at all like it did 10 years ago.

im hoping in time I’ll start loving the “new” game , however with players now been suspended for simply wanting to win the footy in a collision/impact sporut it’s just heartbreaking where this sport is going, no doubt we will continue to have more and more rule changes , however I think it’s just pluging holes in a sinking boat and the game will end up looking more like field hockey without the sticks .

Games *smile*

Please don’t change your name to Mr Darkside.
But you’re not wrong

 

[Tigers of Old]

Yep we're on our way towards AFLX.
Class action lawsuits means this is the death of AFL as a contact sport by a thousand hundred cuts.
If you cannot protect yourself in a marking contest then the sport is dead to me & I'll start putting more time into other things.
All I can say is I'm glad we saw the flags.

 

[graystar1]

The trial by media has been successful yet again.
Who, at the Tigers will be next to be targetted?
Possibly Dusty yet again, bring up the chopsticks saga and get him suspended for conduct unbecoming.
Anything is possible these days for any Richmond player.
As for contact....may as well forget tackling in any form, just run around like headless chooks.

 

[bigwow]

Lynch is being penalised for Keath’s brain explosion. If anything Keath is the one who should be suspended for causing the whole thing.

Is Keath required to give evidence at the tribunal? Surely, if he accepts responsibility, at least partially, Lynch is cleared.

 

[Mr Brightside]

Just watched it , forgetting who it is and any bias I have as Lynch fan or the AFL have as trying to suspend all our players , it’s my exact point that the game is gone from what we once grew up loving if that even gets looked at in any possible way of been a suspension.

Sad

 

[Stackey]

All very laudable TM except that it fundamentally changes the concept of risk of suspension for a player.
The logical conclusion to that is the only possible way a player can avoid suspension is to not put himself in a position where injury could occur i.e. in Tom’s case don’t contest the mark.
Tom Lynch had 2 choices when he realised he could not contest the mark
1. Not brace for contact and leave himself wide open. This is a completely unnatural thing to do, not protecting yourself.
2. Do what he did
What those advocating suspension are saying is that somehow in that split second he made a choice to bump. The problem with that is it isn’t a bump, it is a collision.
If the AFL goes the way you suggest then the marking contest may also be in trouble.
Lynch did not contest the ball because he couldn’t and the reason he couldn’t was not of his making. To suspend him is essentially saying he accepted that risk when entering the marking contest and If we go in that direction then Aussie rules as we know it is finished.
Maybe it is

The sole narrative and driven media agenda is about framing the Lynch/footscrayplayer incident as an intentional BUMP (Tommy's BUMP!) and not as a unfortunate physical collision in the course of play.
Bracing for a collision is allowable...no case to answer...ala Dangerflop V Flossy in the GF! Case thrown out!
Calling and framing it as a BUMP (Tommy's BUMP!), with a concussed player being the outcome, means all the big, long and shiny pointy MRO knives can be drawn out.
And with the AFL's known agenda against the RFC...we all know the outcome of this scenario...
4 WEEKS!

 

[Tigers of Old]

Tom Lynch is the best contested mark in the competition.
He always has eyes for the ball & this marking contest is no different to thousands of others.
However like anyone if I saw a player coming in from the side to block my run (with no eyes for the ball) at the last second in his peripheral vision then what else is he supposed to do? of course he's going to brace or he may get hurt himself.
Far from a suspension, that should have been a free kick to Lynch.
Cooked!

 

[Butch67]

Isn't keath the one chosing to bump, he has no intention to contest the ball he is looking to contest the body.

 

[Sintiger]

The sole narrative and driven media agenda is about framing the Lynch/footscrayplayer incident as an intentional BUMP and not as a unfortunate physical collision in the course of play.
Bracing for a collision is allowable...no case to answer...ala Dangerflop V Flossy in the GF!
Calling and framing it as a BUMP, with a concussed player being the outcome, means all the big, long and shiny pointy MRO knives can be drawn out.
And with the AFL's known agenda against the RFC...we all know the outcome of this scenario...
4 WEEKS!

I have always defended Dangerfield for that Vlastuin hit because imo he went to punch the ball away and Vlossy was collateral damage, it was an in play incident. I have been criticised for that view on here.
However if you apply the Lynch thinking to that incident then Dangerfield decided to punch the ball away knowing there was a danger that Vlossy’s head was there. Straight to the tribunal.
There is no other conclusion

 

[eZyT]

Lynchy should wear a netball GA bib to the tribunal.

Actually, he shouldnt attend.

Actually, we should ring up Gil and say

'Jam your gather round up your arse, our players cant tackle, they cant mark. to prevent them being suspended for kicking, we forfeit henceforth, until you sort your *smile* out - we want parity in free kicks inside 50 - we want the stand rule, doob, rushed behind, dissent, and any other subjective, inconsistently applied, bullcrap rule, abolished. We want the rule book rewritten by a committee of recent players who didnt all play for collingwood and geelong. We want peggy oneil on the commission. We want disclosure on racism at hawthorn and the league. We want to know who ordered the hatchett job on Phil Egan. We want to know when Gil intends to leave. We want to know the Tasmania team plan. We want the ARC footage from the 2022 elim final. We want an overhaul of the MRO and tribunal. We want more tickets to the grandfinal. We want to know how much people in AfL house get paid. And were not playing in your opaque, self-serving, old xaverians, racist, snout in the trough, corrupt league, until you sort this *smile* out'

 

[tigermouseau]

The trial by media has been successful yet again.
Who, at the Tigers will be next to be targetted?
Possibly Dusty yet again, bring up the chopsticks saga and get him suspended for conduct unbecoming.
Anything is possible these days for any Richmond player.
As for contact....may as well forget tackling in any form, just run around like headless chooks.

Oh bugger, we need George back….he played the headless chook role so well.

 

[Dont Argue]

Lynchy should wear a netball GA bib to the tribunal.

Actually, he shouldnt attend.

Actually, we should ring up Gil and say

'Jam your gather round up your arse, our players cant tackle, they cant mark. to prevent them being suspended for kicking, we forfeit henceforth, until you sort your *smile* out - we want parity in free kicks inside 50 - we want the stand rule, doob, rushed behind, dissent, and any other subjective, inconsistently applied, bullcrap rule, abolished. We want the rule book rewritten by a committee of recent players who didnt all play for collingwood and geelong. We want peggy oneil on the commission. We want disclosure on racism at hawthorn and the league. We want to know who ordered the hatchett job on Phil Egan. We want to know when Gil intends to leave. We want to know the Tasmania team plan. We want the ARC footage from the 2022 elim final. We want an overhaul of the MRO and tribunal. We want more tickets to the grandfinal. We want to know how much people in AfL house get paid. And were not playing in your opaque, self-serving, old xaverians, racist, snout in the trough, corrupt league, until you sort this *smile* out'

I was about to post the exact same thing

 

[Stackey]

Lynchy should wear a netball GA bib to the tribunal.

Actually, he shouldnt attend.

Actually, we should ring up Gil and say

'Jam your gather round up your arse, our players cant tackle, they cant mark. to prevent them being suspended for kicking, we forfeit henceforth, until you sort your *smile* out - we want parity in free kicks inside 50 - we want the stand rule, doob, rushed behind, dissent, and any other subjective, inconsistently applied, bullcrap rule, abolished. We want the rule book rewritten by a committee of recent players who didnt all play for collingwood and geelong. We want peggy oneil on the commission. We want disclosure on racism at hawthorn and the league. We want to know who ordered the hatchett job on Phil Egan. We want to know when Gil intends to leave. We want to know the Tasmania team plan. We want the ARC footage from the 2022 elim final. We want an overhaul of the MRO and tribunal. We want more tickets to the grandfinal. We want to know how much people in AfL house get paid. And were not playing in your opaque, self-serving, old xaverians, racist, snout in the trough, corrupt league, until you sort this *smile* out'

 

[Stackey]

I was about to post the exact same thing

 

[larabee]

Yep we're on our way towards AFLX.
Class action lawsuits means this is the death of AFL as a contact sport by a thousand hundred cuts.
If you cannot protect yourself in a marking contest then the sport is dead to me & I'll start putting more time into other things.
All I can say is I'm glad we saw the flags.

I’m a touch more optimistic about the future of the game, but that is dependant on a big broom going through AFL house and sweeping out the mouse turds that are the commission.

At the moment they seem to be trying to eliminate concussion from a contact sport as a knee jerk reaction to the class action/s.
But as per usual they are totally missing the mark.
Every player knows going in that they might get injured - ping a hammy, do their knee, get concussed etc. The lawsuits aren’t about getting injured, they are about how the injured player was treated after the injury, or that they were put in to situations outside of the actual game that resulted in injury.
It’s the duty of care of the league and clubs at the heart of the lawsuits.

So there are two main areas to consider by the AFL to combat (not eliminate) the concussion issue:
1. Harsh, simply stated penalties for actions that result in concussion, eg: 2 weeks for the concussion plus loading for the action. Sling tackles, off the ball clashes, late bumps. Similar to what David King has been advocating.
Accidental head clashes are accidents.
2. Appropriate treatment and monitoring of the player and lengthier recuperation periods from concussions

It can’t be that hard, but until we get a league that is not so reactionary and hell bent on eliminating all contact, and can instead competently develop a set of guidelines, Australian footy is in the poo.

 

[tigertim]

You know it’s an AFL knee jerk reaction when nearly all the comments (many with “I hate Tom Lynch but…” ) on the socials say this is a ridiculous decision to send this to the tribunal.

 

[eZyT]

Hey Gil, lets build a concussion recovery centre and hire a couple of gun neurologists

And any player who is concussed gets worlds best treatment?

Think of it, its proactive, its practical, its leadership on a global scale. We could call it 'the McLachlan Brain Centre '

Nah, lets just suspend anyone who knocks someone out.*

*except tom hawkins or patrick dangerfield

 

[larabee]

You know it’s an AFL knee jerk reaction when nearly all the comments (many with “I hate Tom Lynch but…” ) on the socials say this is a ridiculous decision to send this to the tribunal.

And you know that it’s the hate of the media toward Richmond/ Lynch that’s driving it. It’s like a race to come up with a headline to fit the Lynch=thug narrative.