He’d probably get into an accident on the way to the hearing after merging without looking and then miss the whole thing.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Lynch !!
- Thread starter Tigaman
- Start date
The rules are crystal clear on this.
Reportable offences include:
There is a long list so I left out most of them, there is one about bumping but it specifies "from front-on" so not relevant.
Another factor to always remember, is that these are the rules as determined by the AFL, these are their rules, if an offence occurs which is not covered by their rules then it is their problem.
The Dangerfield hit on Vlastuin was clearly a strike to the head (intentional or careless - up to the tribunal) and should have gone to the tribunal. What the tribunal would have decided we don't know because, contrary to the rules written and distributed by the AFL, it wasn't even cited. That was not a simple one to determine but it needed scrutiny, especially given that Dangerfield had his elbow raised which one can argue was at the very least careless.
Similarly, this incident with Lynch should go to the tribunal according to the rules. Actually fitting this into the reportable offences is not so easy. Lynch did not strike Keath, the bump was not front on. It can be argued it was careless or intentional rough conduct but that is it according to the rules. I'm sure they will just pull some crap out of their rear ends and effectively make up a rule which does not exist to suspend Lynch, but, looking at the rules, there is no grounds for suspension, I hope they fight this hard. The first thing I would question is which of the 11 intentional or careless actions Lynch is supposed to have contravened.
The other huge issue here is the media beat up which assumes that any player cited to the tribunal is guilty. Not presumed guilty, but already found guilty. This is wrong, the player has been cited, now the tribunal needs to decide on guilt or innocence. Part of the problem, typical with the AFL, is that none of us actually trust the tribunal to look at the actual incident, rather we know that they will follow the dictates of the AFL hierarchy and the bleating media.
You can see this in the AFL reporting of the incident, they state in their article:
Lynch's hit? That was not a strike by Lynch by any definition. It was a bump, but not front on. So, careless what exactly? Which if the reportable offences in Section 22.2 of the rules of Australian Football is it? They don't specify, because they can't, because it doesn't really fit the rules. Furthermore, who was bumping who? I would certainly argue that Lynch was launching to contest the mark, it is the player who was not intending to contest the mark who initiated the bump, and that was Keath.
How can they say Lynch will get at least 3 weeks when he has not been found guilty? You work out the penalty after deciding on guilt, unless of course you are just assuming guilt.
One other aspect which is not sufficiently covered in any of the media stories I have seen, is whether Keath was attempting to tunnel Lynch to prevent him from competing in the marking contest. Keath does not have eyes on the ball, he runs directly under where Lynch is about to jump to contest the mark - you can certainly argue Keath was blocking Lynch and that he unduly bumped Lynch (that he did this with his head is his own problem). The rules state that "The Player whose sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark shall be permitted to do so." Of the 2 players it is clear that Lynch was attempting to contest the mark and it is clear that Keath wasn't. In fact, Keath should be fronting the tribunal. If Lynch is to be cited for careless contact then surely Keath should be cited for the same thing, if not for intentional contact given he was clearly not going for the ball, rather, he was deliberately running into Lynch's path.
DS
Reportable offences include:
There is a long list so I left out most of them, there is one about bumping but it specifies "from front-on" so not relevant.
Another factor to always remember, is that these are the rules as determined by the AFL, these are their rules, if an offence occurs which is not covered by their rules then it is their problem.
The Dangerfield hit on Vlastuin was clearly a strike to the head (intentional or careless - up to the tribunal) and should have gone to the tribunal. What the tribunal would have decided we don't know because, contrary to the rules written and distributed by the AFL, it wasn't even cited. That was not a simple one to determine but it needed scrutiny, especially given that Dangerfield had his elbow raised which one can argue was at the very least careless.
Similarly, this incident with Lynch should go to the tribunal according to the rules. Actually fitting this into the reportable offences is not so easy. Lynch did not strike Keath, the bump was not front on. It can be argued it was careless or intentional rough conduct but that is it according to the rules. I'm sure they will just pull some crap out of their rear ends and effectively make up a rule which does not exist to suspend Lynch, but, looking at the rules, there is no grounds for suspension, I hope they fight this hard. The first thing I would question is which of the 11 intentional or careless actions Lynch is supposed to have contravened.
The other huge issue here is the media beat up which assumes that any player cited to the tribunal is guilty. Not presumed guilty, but already found guilty. This is wrong, the player has been cited, now the tribunal needs to decide on guilt or innocence. Part of the problem, typical with the AFL, is that none of us actually trust the tribunal to look at the actual incident, rather we know that they will follow the dictates of the AFL hierarchy and the bleating media.
You can see this in the AFL reporting of the incident, they state in their article:
Lynch's hit? That was not a strike by Lynch by any definition. It was a bump, but not front on. So, careless what exactly? Which if the reportable offences in Section 22.2 of the rules of Australian Football is it? They don't specify, because they can't, because it doesn't really fit the rules. Furthermore, who was bumping who? I would certainly argue that Lynch was launching to contest the mark, it is the player who was not intending to contest the mark who initiated the bump, and that was Keath.
How can they say Lynch will get at least 3 weeks when he has not been found guilty? You work out the penalty after deciding on guilt, unless of course you are just assuming guilt.
One other aspect which is not sufficiently covered in any of the media stories I have seen, is whether Keath was attempting to tunnel Lynch to prevent him from competing in the marking contest. Keath does not have eyes on the ball, he runs directly under where Lynch is about to jump to contest the mark - you can certainly argue Keath was blocking Lynch and that he unduly bumped Lynch (that he did this with his head is his own problem). The rules state that "The Player whose sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark shall be permitted to do so." Of the 2 players it is clear that Lynch was attempting to contest the mark and it is clear that Keath wasn't. In fact, Keath should be fronting the tribunal. If Lynch is to be cited for careless contact then surely Keath should be cited for the same thing, if not for intentional contact given he was clearly not going for the ball, rather, he was deliberately running into Lynch's path.
DS
Great post. Nothing to lose here games wise and a further attack on Lynch's character by a howling media should finally motivate his defence to go all in. Keath should be examined and challenged on his own intent.
Among others the Dangerfield hit should also be raised.
Good summary DS. I just can't see how he'll be found guilty, there are so many arguments a smart defence lawyer could make.
If he is found guilty, the whole fabric of the game will have changed and I'll be out.
And that's the crazy thing. Would have been incidental contact in a marking contest.
Where are the questions about the stupidity of Keath's action? He wasn't going to get to the contest, what was he actually intending to do? Lynch was almost forced to protect himself from Keath. Players have an onus to protect themselves.
David King was 50/50 about this contest, which indicates it was not simply a deliberate act of thuggery by Lynch.
Great post David.
The calls for Lynch to get 4 weeks from some quarters is astonishing. Buddy continually runs past the ball to elbow guys in the head and continually gets a week. Pickett launches a hip and shoulder that could end a career and gets 2 weeks. It's lunacy.
Just a question from left field, “Did Lynch break a bone in his foot in this contest?”
If so, then the consequences of Keith’s action should hold Keith responsible for the injury to Lynch.
Have seen another camera angle of this incident which clearly shows Lynch has his eyes on the ball until the last moment where he realises that he can't contest the Mark & he pulls out of it, he doesn't look at Keath at anytime ( he actually has his back to Keath). Tom braces for contact which is natural in the circumstances. Keath is the one who puts himself into a "dangerous situation) he wasn't going for the ball at all, at no stage in that incident did He look at the ball, he was trying to take Lynch out of the contest. Tom had no option but to "bump" into Keath due entirely to his forward momentum.
If he gets suspended for this, the game is in big trouble,
If he gets suspended for this, the game is in big trouble,
Keath should be the one getting suspended. He ran into Tom, not the other way around.
