Lynch !!

[eZyT]

It's not the same though Ezy, the ball is in a much different position.

Brisbane?

Hipwoods off the ground, turns and gets frampton in the head with his hip.

How much is concussion worth?

We can use Broads tackle and Rohans tackle to extrapolate the current concussion penalty, because its controlled for everything, except team (t).

Concussion is the dependent variable here

Identical technique - broads resulted in concussion, rohans didnt

Therefore Broads penalty - Rohans penalty = X

Where X is the penalty for a concussion that occurs in an act of football between two opposing players

Ill anticipate X=4 in this case

Then marshall has to go for X weeks for Paddy McCartins concussion doesnt he?

 

[Mantikorr]

It's not the same though Ezy, the ball is in a much different position.

It is however exactly the same as the O'Meara - Witherden hit from last week someone posted earlier. I bet Longmuir wasn't asked about that one in his presser. Witherden missed a week with concussion, O'Meara played with no case to answer for

 

[jb03]

The Lynch v Cameron comparison is interesting.

Richmond recruit Lynch from the Gold Coast and pretty much the club and Lynch have been vilified by the AFL and media ever since. Geelong recruit Cameron and are lauded for astute list management. Lynch plays the toughest role on the ground but cannot buy a free kick despite constant harassment and infringing by opposition players. Cameron, far more of sniper than Lynch, is lauded because he likes going fishing with Dangerfield.

 

[TigerForce]

The Lynch v Cameron comparison is interesting.

Richmond recruit Lynch from the Gold Coast and pretty much the club and Lynch have been vilified by the AFL and media ever since. Geelong recruit Cameron and are lauded for astute list management. Lynch plays the toughest role on the ground but cannot buy a free kick despite constant harassment and infringing by opposition players. Cameron, far more of sniper than Lynch, is lauded because he likes going fishing with Dangerfield.

Runs around with blinkers on and whacks out a boundary umpire and all is good. Can't believe what I'm not hearing/seeing as the flog was in the right path.

 

[The Big Richo]

It is however exactly the same as the O'Meara - Witherden hit from last week someone posted earlier. I bet Longmuir wasn't asked about that one in his presser. Witherden missed a week with concussion, O'Meara played with no case to answer for

Correct and the Witherdon one is what Lynch should have done. Contested the ball and protected himself from the player coming from the front.

 

[tigerman]

So if Lynch is deemed to be reckless, what is Keath, foolhardy?

Run back with the flight of the ball and contact is going to happen. Lynch didn't raised his arm and hit him in the head with an elbow like Tom Stewart did.

 

[Brodders17]

Runs around with blinkers on and whacks out a boundary umpire and all is good. Can't believe what I'm not hearing/seeing as the flog was in the right path.

If a player ran straight into an umpire with their eyes on the ball they would be in trouble, but because he was celebrating a goal all is good?

 

[Sintiger]

I disagree, but lets say your mates are right and AFL agree.

if your talking reckless movement,

jeremy cameron gets a month for off the ball front on contact to an umpire, surely?

I dont want to see Cameron suspended for an accident,

But how much more reckless can you get, than a 100kg bloke pretending hes an aeroplane and the umps the world trade centre, whilst laughing his head off yelling '*smile* yeah, Cumooooooonnnnnm

If thats not reckless movement, then i give up on the english language.

But the accident logic doesnt apply anymore.

lynch or broads intent wasnt to knock blokes out, as camerons intent wasnt to poleaxe an ump

But on the duty of care logic,

Cameron has to be accountable. Front on, high contact, to an ump, off the ball.
Did the ump have a concussion test?

Yes, it had entered my mind that if the umpire had got concussed then it would have to have been a significant suspension.
It would be defended as an accident but under current thinking it doesn’t matter, he chose to run off recklessly endangering the field umpires.

 

[TigerForce]

If a player ran straight into an umpire with their eyes on the ball they would be in trouble, but because he was celebrating a goal all is good?

No. He should've been aware of where he's running. Accidental or not, I've noticed past incidents were decided to fine the player simply because they literally 'touched' an umpire. This should be the same, especially on how hard the impact was.

 

[TT33]

I'm not even getting into the Dangerfield one, anyone who thinks that was something are talking through their bias and therefore impossible to reason with.

There's no issue with your description of the Lynch play, the problem is he has gone off the ground and hit him high which has concussed him. If he had gone low and got him hip to hip then there's no issue. A bit like Broad previously, no problem with his intent or laying a tackle in that situation, but he has stuffed it up. It's execution.

If Lynch looked at Keath & deliberately crashed into him with his arm/elbow raised maybe he'd have something to answer for, but he didn't. All he did was brace for contact, the fact that he jumped in the air is really irrelevant. His back was turned to Keath & he doesn't appear to have looked at him at any stage. Keath has contributed to his own injury by his reckless action & putting himself in a dangerous situation.

As I said in my earlier post, your inconsistency is laughable.
I may be biased but I know that if this was reversed & it was Lynch in Keaths situation I wouldn't be calling for him to be suspended for 3 weeks or more.

 

[momentai]

Not sure the clubs have any say in this.

DS

Interesting. You may be right. I thought they collected something of a consensus from the clubs before going ahead with appointments to the Commission, which now includes the CEO.
That may have changed.
I recall C Wilson writing an article along the lines of the Presidents banning together and telling the Commission they would refuse to appoint a SA identity, to the Commission, which they then did, and some time later that it wouldn’t get approval for a further nominee, unless a very severe penalty was imposed on a J Elliot led Carlton, for putting cash in brown paper bags in under the counter match payments made to some of their players.
Her story went on the net for a few hours and was later withdrawn.

As I said it all may have changed, but you would still expect some consultation to take place.

 

[Tenacious Tiges]

Agree. RFC should lawyer up and fight this with everything we have. It is trial by media of a hard but fair footballer who is maligned by opposition supporters because he plays tough footy for a club they love to hate. He did nothing wrong.

Well said

 

[eZyT]

The Lynch v Cameron comparison is interesting.

Richmond recruit Lynch from the Gold Coast and pretty much the club and Lynch have been vilified by the AFL and media ever since. Geelong recruit Cameron and are lauded for astute list management. Lynch plays the toughest role on the ground but cannot buy a free kick despite constant harassment and infringing by opposition players. Cameron, far more of sniper than Lynch, is lauded because he likes going fishing with Dangerfield.

Indeed.

I was thinking about that. Lynch was taking the AFL GC ambassador money outside the cap, and was captain.

He would have been under enourmous pressure to stay and seriously *smile* off the AFL

 

[Sintiger]

I'm not even getting into the Dangerfield one, anyone who thinks that was something are talking through their bias and therefore impossible to reason with.

There's no issue with your description of the Lynch play, the problem is he has gone off the ground and hit him high which has concussed him. If he had gone low and got him hip to hip then there's no issue. A bit like Broad previously, no problem with his intent or laying a tackle in that situation, but he has stuffed it up. It's execution.

You talk as if he had a choice and time to make a conscious decision.
In my mind that is undoubtedly incorrect. These things happen incredibly quickly.
In my view all he is guilty of is a split second decision to brace for contact.
This is why we need to forget stills, play it at normal speed.

 

[The Big Richo]

This is where the discussions on this forum let themselves down. As soon as the Cameron one happened I knew we would get the old, tired 'If that was a Richmond player' *smile*. Dustin accidentally ran into a goal umpire and dislocated his shoulder a couple of years ago.

What complete crap. It's a freak accident and everyone knows it's a complete accident and not even slightly comparable to anything that happens while you are actually playing the game.

Understand the pro-Richmond approach, take that as read, but to go to these levels is well beyond that and kills the credibility of the poster and the forum.

 

[The Big Richo]

You talk as if he had a choice and time to make a conscious decision.
In my mind that is undoubtedly incorrect. These things happen incredibly quickly.
In my view all he is guilty of is a split second decision to brace for contact.
This is why we need to forget stills, play it at normal speed.

All fair and reasonable, he can make that decision even if it isn't the best option and all is good, if he executes it well.

The problem remains that he went high and bumped high.

 

[The Big Richo]

the fact that he jumped in the air is really irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant when you get the player high and concuss them. If you choose to bump and get them high you are in trouble.

The MRP have many inconsistencies but that message has been drummed in round and clear for a while now.

 

[Stackey]

It's not irrelevant when you get the player high and concuss them. If you choose to bump and get them high you are in trouble.

The MRP have many inconsistencies but that message has been drummed in round and clear for a while now.

I am thinking it's the other way around, Tommy choose to go high for a mark and then braced hisself from an illegal front on tunnelling tackle by an oppo.
Who only had eyes for Tommy! There is no accounting for stupid oppo actions!

 

[mrposhman]

It's not irrelevant when you get the player high and concuss them. If you choose to bump and get them high you are in trouble.

The MRP have many inconsistencies but that message has been drummed in round and clear for a while now.

Whats your definition of a bump?

 

[mjb]

It's not irrelevant when you get the player high and concuss them. If you choose to bump and get them high you are in trouble.

The MRP have many inconsistencies but that message has been drummed in round and clear for a while now.

If you’re saying Lynch “chose” to bump then what did Keath do?