A good sign that they realise most Richmond supporters have stopped buying their *smile* rag.Hun put Mckay's downgrading to a fine on the back page. Lynchman free miniscule article buried 7 pages further in among the crap n waffle.
A good sign that they realise most Richmond supporters have stopped buying their *smile* rag.Hun put Mckay's downgrading to a fine on the back page. Lynchman free miniscule article buried 7 pages further in among the crap n waffle.
Great post David.Interesting decision.
Keath was concussed so it is a question over whether it should have been cited. But the issue there is whether there were grounds to cite this. Clearly rough conduct was the only charge they could have brought, and, given it was Keath who initiated the contact, it was very very tenuous.
When we compare to the Vlastuin incident, that was a much clearer case to be cited. As I also said back then, it would be up to the tribunal to decide whether it was careless or not and proceed from there. The fact the Dangerfield case wasn't sent to the tribunal, when this case was, is a testament to the ridiculous inconsistencies in the way they treat these incidents.
There are clear differences here between the 2 incidents. Dangerfield did not take evasive action, he raised his elbow. Lynch was taking evasive action. In the Vlastuin incident both players were going for the ball, in this case Keath clearly wasn't. I think Dangerfield had more of a case to answer, whether he would have been able to answer that case we will never know. One thing is for certain, there were more grounds to cite Dangerfield's hit on Vlastuin than there were to cite Lynch's collision with Keath.
A few things come out of this.
Firstly, the football media need to take a very long hard look at themselves. The tribunal decides guilt, players are not deemed to be guilty just because they have been sent to the tribunal. The trial by media has to stop, it's a f**cken circus.
The AFL need to sort out what they will and won't send to the tribunal. They need to grow a backbone and consistently apply their own rules. If they did this more consistently, and more cases went to the tribunal, where some charges are upheld and other charges dismissed, it would make this process far better.
I suspect there may have been some legal advice taken here too. If this went to court, for example Keath later tries to sue the AFL or Footscray over this incident, I suspect he would lose. He would lose because he initiated the contact. There was simply no reason for Keath to be running towards that marking contest, unless he wanted to block Lynch. So, Keath's actions led to the collision, and his actions were in contravention of the rules of the game, therefore, it was his fault. I hope he is ok but it was his actions which led to the collision.
I have a tiny bit more faith in the tribunal and hopefully this can be a catalyst for at least parts of the AFL to stop pandering to the whims of the powers that be and the f**ckwits in the football media.
I have no faith the football media will change their spots, they are just after more clicks, we all need to stop going anywhere near them. Cancel Foxtel, don't listen to SEN, don't watch their idiotic shows. If they want us to watch their shows they need to get a hell of a lot better at their jobs, in fact, it would be even better if most of them just resigned and made way for some journos who actually deserve the name journalist.
DS
is 'The Big Richo' a lawyer?
because if i'm ever in trouble with the law I won't be calling him ..
Don't have a problem with the way it's been assessed so far. Players that use the double action sling are getting punished for their actions, the more severe the action and injury the greater the punishment. Similar to what happens everywhere.This will get very little air time as press all wanted him hung..... On a side note - the sling tackle still rated on outcome and not the action itself such as Broady Vs the two on the week end. How can they say they want the action taken out of the game and still rate the action on the outcome. What a load of crap.
You sort of got your way though. He’s missing weeks regardless.Definitely according to the tribunal, no problems there.
2020 I think. It wasn't as much of a hot button issue then though. As evident by the more muted reaction to Dangerfield almost killing Vlastuin in the GF.Balta to Josh Kennedy 2020 or 21?
There is no other 'criminal' in this league....Tom Lynch has now been sent straight to the tribunal twice, the first time was those ridiculous charges relating to Michael Hurley in 2020.
Both times exonerated
Has that happened to anyone else ?
I'm still waiting for Nonsense Wankley to say something....Ha ha ha is the Refuter OK, those kornflakes will be tasting a little sour this morning.
It's crazy, he's the only impartial fan on the planet. And he knows everything football. If he thought Lynch should have been suspended he must be. Hopefully he lodges some sort of protest with the AFL.
A good result, hopefully the media put some heat on players doing what Keath did - it wasn't courageous, it was dumb and dangerous and put multiple players in terrible positions, most importantly himself.
I’m not saying he didn’t know there was an incident
What I said wasn't a cheap shot, I just thought you were wrong.
You are entitled to your view TBR, just think you are wrong on this one.
Hun put Mckay's downgrading to a fine on the back page. Lynchman free miniscule article buried 7 pages further in among the crap n waffle.
is 'The Big Richo' a lawyer?
You sort of got your way though. He’s missing weeks regardless.
Meh. It's all academic *smile* anyway. The *smile* would have given Lynch weeks if he wasn't already out with injury. Of that I have no doubt.Well it seems everyone was wrong on this one
There is no big anti-lynchy afl house conspiracy,
And
lynchy didnt deliberately concuss Keath.
We still have the foot to deal with.