Lynch !! | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • 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 !!

Thanks for the detailed analysis and yeah I'm one who doesn't like the luck word in this particular space.

Should not these secondary issues be able to be predicted as a possibility and something put in place to handle / detect if they are starting to emerge so the issue doesn't get worse? You are able to talk in some detail as to what probably happened and why it potentially got missed. I have pretty high expectations of a professional organization to handle and mitigate risks.

I worked in oil and gas so making one thing better and then having a secondary effect lead to an explosion/serious injury is not acceptable. Lynch being out for the season as the result of trying to fix something is the equivalent outcome to me in a sporting organization (maybe a career ending outcome would be the worst possible outcome)

I'm living proof of one injury leading to another injury - but getting told after the fact kind of sucks. But I don't have an organization managing my health and wellbeing.

There's a few thing to keep in mind there I think. Firstly the plantar fascia release surgery is very much a last resort and not undertaken lightly.

They were managing Lynch for quite some time and would have exhausted every other method of treatment without getting a response, before having to turn to a surgical option.

That's because the surgery, like any surgery has inherent risks. Gibcus is a good example of this. In this case you need to accept those risks because Lynch has a condition that isn't responding to treatment and won't allow him to play at AFL capacity.

I understand the position that the medical team should be watching him like hawks for any signs of post operative issues but this is a complicated one to say the least.

Unquestionably the plantar fasciitis contributed to the stress fracture in his foot, it may have been because of the initial injury causing him to change gait or because the release changed the mechanics of his foot.

The logical question is why weren't they monitoring him for such issues when they are a logical outcome of the initial issue, and the answer to that would be they almost certainly did. Stress fractures of this nature are often very difficult to pick up with scans unless they progress to be more significant fractures, and with the plantar fascia issues present some discomfort in that area of the foot is readily explainable and to not take further investigation is a reasonable position to take. If the discomfort was there without the plantar fascia issues then you would certainly be further investigating a potential stress fracture.

People would generally respond to that with why not just investigate anyway given the stakes are high, but we don't just send players for scans as a fishing expedition, these resources are part of the health system and needed by many more critical cases than footballers who might have an injury.

From the outside I can't see any obvious faults with what has happened with Lynch, and I'm always prepared to question high performance decisions I find peculiar.

Basically he's had the worst end of the scale of plantar fasciitis and then quickly developed the worst end of a stress issue in his foot. It's unusual and for me just really unfortunate.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 15 users
A lot of people very accepting of two absolute disasters in Gibcus and Lynch and putting it down to bad luck.

Lightning can strike once, but twice warrants some severe investigation.

What would you expect an investigation to find? Two different players, two very different injuries, two very different treatment paths. I think you seeing a pattern that really isn't there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
What would you expect an investigation to find? Two different players, two very different injuries, two very different treatment paths. I think you seeing a pattern that really isn't there.
Mismanagement of recovery from injury / risk taking with view potentially driven by a view to get players back on park ASAP before shot at flag disappears.

Anyway I'd expect them to review the decision making process. The consequences of the decision making and / or recovery regime have been disastrous where the reentry program seems to have lead to further damage and an overall massive non-availability. My professional experience with incident investigations, albeit not related to injury recovery, but often related to human behavior, means patterns like this signal something significantly wrong.
 
A lot of people very accepting of two absolute disasters in Gibcus and Lynch and putting it down to bad luck.

Lightning can strike once, but twice warrants some severe investigation.
A footballer getting injured is not lightning striking.

It's like having it rain in consecutive matches and blaming the greenkeeper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Mismanagement of recovery from injury / risk taking with view potentially driven by a view to get players back on park ASAP before shot at flag disappears.
Anyway I'd expect them to review the decision making process. The consequences of the decision making and / or recovery regime have been disastrous where the reentry program seems to have lead to further damage and an overall massive non-availability. My professional experience with incident investigations, albeit not related to injury recovery, but often related to human behavior, means patterns like this signal something significantly wrong.

I'm not against some sort of "investigation" but TBR has given us a great explanation on how Lynch's situation could have occurred. It seems likely they followed best practice.

Gibcus had a ligament off bone hamstring injury, then a "regular" hamstring injury. Did the one increase the likelihood of the other? Dunno... not a sport scientist.

In both cases they seem to have gone an extremely precautionary route since the second injury.

Your sample size of two is wrong as well... you've neglected all the successful returns from injury in the same period.

Point is, the pattern of two players with serious injuries followed by complications is not really a pattern. An investigation might find they did everything right - human bodies and injury under AFL conditions are complex problems as we know.

One thing you are right to ask is were they rushed back. I don't think Richmond has done that kind of thing for many years, but it's worth asking the question.

In short have an investigation if you like but don't be surprised if it turns out they did everything right and bad things still happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Tom had surgery to repair his plantar fasciitis just before xmas, and then off a limited pre-season played round one, it seemed a bit rushed to me.
Foot injuries can be very nasty, Matthew Egan's career was cut short by a foot injury. I hope the club makes sure that Tom is 100% before he plays again, as he's too valuable.
I understand progress has been much slower than anticipated and a return highly unlikely , to me that’s becoming obvious and I agree he’s too valuable to risk , foot injuries are notoriously slow to heal at best of times
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I'm not against some sort of "investigation" but TBR has given us a great explanation on how Lynch's situation could have occurred. It seems likely they followed best practice.

Gibcus had a ligament off bone hamstring injury, then a "regular" hamstring injury. Did the one increase the likelihood of the other? Dunno... not a sport scientist.

In both cases they seem to have gone an extremely precautionary route since the second injury.

Your sample size of two is wrong as well... you've neglected all the successful returns from injury in the same period.

Point is, the pattern of two players with serious injuries followed by complications is not really a pattern. An investigation might find they did everything right - human bodies and injury under AFL conditions are complex problems as we know.

One thing you are right to ask is were they rushed back. I don't think Richmond has done that kind of thing for many years, but it's worth asking the question.

In short have an investigation if you like but don't be surprised if it turns out they did everything right and bad things still happened.

Well put. I get your logic.

My perspective is that serious incidents are the tip of an iceberg and there are usually a series of questionable behaviours / culture where you get away with it until eventually you roll snake eyes.

Bit like not wearing a seat belt probably doesn’t matter 49 years and 364 days out of 50 years but then on that one day a minor crash becomes a life altering injury. There is a culture / attitude that lets you get away with that. So in terms of number of events there is one visible one. In terms of questionable behaviours there are over 18000.

I’m the other way and would be very surprised if an independent investigation didn’t find some kind of built in issue.

I could be wrong and maybe 25% of these type of injuries have issues in recovery and we hit the 1 in 16 of getting both. My big blind spot in this case is knowing this type of percentage. As I said I base it on years of work experience leading and being part of investigations and an interest in podcasts like cautionary tales by Tim Harford.

Also the risk/consequences of rolling the dice late in a season very different to early on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Well put. I get your logic.

My perspective is that serious incidents are the tip of an iceberg and there are usually a series of questionable behaviours / culture where you get away with it until eventually you roll snake eyes.

Bit like not wearing a seat belt probably doesn’t matter 49 years and 364 days out of 50 years but then on that one day a minor crash becomes a life altering injury. There is a culture / attitude that lets you get away with that. So in terms of number of events there is one visible one. In terms of questionable behaviours there are over 18000.

I’m the other way and would be very surprised if an independent investigation didn’t find some kind of built in issue.

I could be wrong and maybe 25% of these type of injuries have issues in recovery and we hit the 1 in 16 of getting both. My big blind spot in this case is knowing this type of percentage. As I said I base it on years of work experience leading and being part of investigations and an interest in podcasts like cautionary tales by Tim Harford.

Also the risk/consequences of rolling the dice late in a season very different to early on.
Yes however the reward of lynch off a very limited prep v Risk of re injury , not worth it ,,, he is our greatest asset ,,, put more rehab time into that foot and will be cherry ripe to commence pre season
 
The thing with risk is that its an estimate of potential, no guarantees.
Probably the doc, a "Surgeon", looked at Tom's foot after the plantar fascitia surgery.
No doubt made the joke and looked at his left foot first, "it looks fine to me"
Then he says "this may come good. You may be able to play footy no worries. Or it may break a bone, probably one of the long skinny ones. Both may happen I guess"

Thanks doc. Whats more likely?

"You're a heck of a big lump of fella. And you run a lot playing footy. Jump too.
But your body has healed. So lets say 1 in 4 chance of a break?"

So whadda ya do?
Play footy and take the risk? Or sit and wait when in all probability your fine to play.
I guess you could wait until finals, just to make sure.
Maybe sit out the elimination rounds and slot in for the prelim
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Another monumental f up from Louie #endthefarce
Haven’t been overwhelmed by Meehan thus far but Lynch return has nothing to do with anyone but Lynch and his foot healing properly. Foot injuries are so precarious. Can quickly come good or just as likely end a career.
Give Tom as much time as is needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Haven’t been overwhelmed by Meehan thus far but Lynch return has nothing to do with anyone but Lynch and his foot healing properly. Foot injuries are so precarious. Can quickly come good or just as likely end a career.
Give Tom as much time as is needed.
He was being prep’d to start running 4wks ago and now back in a moon boot! That’s a monumental f up.

My guess is he reinjured it on the alter g machine.
 
Your guess??
They are hardly going to admit that are they!

What is fact:

He was out of the moon boot 4-6wks ago
Article was released by club saying he was about to start running on the alter g
2 weeks later he is back in the moon boot with no return date

Not hard to join the *smile* dots
 
They are hardly going to admit that are they!

What is fact:

He was out of the moon boot 4-6wks ago
Article was released by club saying he was about to start running on the alter g
2 weeks later he is back in the moon boot with no return date

Not hard to join the *smile* dots

You seem to want to draw this picture of it being a *smile* up for some reason.

Facts are, they are saying that the bone hasn't healed yet. Returning to running (alt g or not) wouldn't have rebroken the bone, it would however have highlighted where a fracture has not healed either properly or fully yet. The facts that they are still going through scans on the fracture seem to be indicating that the bone hasn't healed the way they expected it to.

I assume you've never had a bone that hasn't healed the way that it should by your response. Its bloody frustrating and can take a long time for the bone to fully recover. Bones take varying times to heal, and the rough 6 week rule doesn't mean that a bone is fully healed, but is usually a rough time as to when a bone can be used again, but again this depends on the site of the injury and the type of fracture / break.

From what I know, you seem to be looking for a problem, and finding 1 because thats what you wanted to find.
 
He would have to be at least six weeks away even if the scan in a couple of weeks gives him the all clear to return to training. It would probably only be worth it if we are still in the finals hunt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users