The AFL Tribunal have suspended Richmond's Tom Lynch for five weeks following his strike on Adelaide's Jordon Butts after an unsuccessful attempt to reduce the charge.

The AFL's Match Review Officer (MRO) directly referred Lynch to the Tribunal following his second-term strike on Butts from Round 16, with the league's position standing at a five-week ban. The Tigers wanted three.

Richmond is scheduled to face Geelong, Essendon, West Coast, Collingwood and Gold Coast in their next five games.

Lynch's strike wasn't the only action noted by the MRO. The former Sun copped a fixed financial sanction of $1,000 for a different strike on Butts earlier in the quarter, and a $1,875 fine for engaging in a melee/wrestle in the first quarter.

Lynch fronts AFL Tribunal for strike on Crow

Verdict: The AFL Tribunal has decided on a five-match suspension for Tom Lynch for striking Jordon Butts.

Summation: Jeff Gleeson (AFL Chairman): "Tom Lynch of Richmond admits that he intentionally struck Jordan, butts of Adelaide. He contends that he did not intend to strike him high, but he admits that this is what he did.

"Therefore, the only matter in issue is the level of impact.

"In our (Tribunal) view. However, the potential for injury was very high indeed. Lynch made a full and unrestrained swing of his arm in an upwards motion, and the force of the impact with Butt's head was considerable.

"It is also relevant that butts had no reason to anticipate or expect that he may be about to be struck with force to the back of the head. The marking contest had completely finished, and the ball had spilled free. Butts had no ability to protect himself or attempt to deflect the blow, given that we have found that the strike had severe impact.

"We (Tribunal) note in this regard that the tribunal guidelines provide at section 3.1 that serious intentional actions will be subject to greater sanctions commensurate with the potential to cause serious injury and or the potential to prejudice the reputation of any person, club or the AFL, or bring the AFL or bring the game of football into disrepute.

We (Tribunal) find that a significant sanction is warranted. We impose a sanction of five matches suspension."

6:12 pm: The Tribunal is now deliberating.

6:06 pm: The Tigers (Tovey) used examples of Jack Scrimshaw (three weeks for an incident involving Jordan Ridley), Patrick Voss (three weeks for an incident involving Nick Vlastuin) and Conor Nash (four weeks for an incident involving Gryan Miers) in an attempt to convince the Tribunal of "high" impact in Lynch's action rather than "severe".

Scrimshaw and Nash rendered their opponents concussed due to their swinging arms, while Voss broke the nose of Vlastuin.

Richmond argues that Lynch's action is "medium impact", but given the potential to cause injury, "my submission is that the overall that the Tribunal would not go any higher than finding that the impact in this case was high".

5:58 pm: Pane (AFL): Pane admits he is "rusty" that he didn't provide the AFL's position earlier in the proceedings.

The AFL's position is "consistent with five weeks, not four. It's a blatant, forceful swinging arm... it was the type of action of a bygone era. The AFL position is quite simple: there's no place for it in our game."

5:53 pm: Summary of Richmond's (six) arguments:

  1. Lack of injury to Butts
  2. No swinging clenched fist from Lynch
  3. The front part of Lynch's hand makes contact with the back of Butts' head, ultimately reducing the risk of injury
  4. Lynch swiped or swatted rather than punched
  5. The strike was close to the ball, based on the distance from Lynch and Butts
  6. And the potential for injury wasn't greater than the outcome of Butts (Butts took his free kick and played out the remainder of the game)

5:49 pm: Tovey (Richmond): "In my submission, in order to uphold either a high or severe grading, the tribunal would nearly need to be clearly satisfied that the contact was made with a fully clenched fist, and the evidence simply doesn't allow for that. Finding in my submission, the fact of a clenched fist is not borne out by Mr. Lynch's evidence, it's not borne out by the footage, and it's particularly not borne out by the result upon Butts who was able to get up and play on it's inherently unlikely in my submission, that he would have been able to do so.

"It is more consistent with a swatting or a swiping action, more so than a punch."

Tovey also suggests that the ball was close enough to the play, and Lynch's strike was among the contest due to the distance the pair of players were from the ball.

5:43 pm: Tovey (Richmond): "First and foremost, we turn to the lack of any injury at all... has before it indicates that player butts was assessed on field, didn't leave the field... no further investigation needed or warranted, no ongoing treatment, no missed training, no missed matches."

"Secondly, in our submission, this is not a case that involves a swinging clenched fist.

"Nowhere on the footage is there clear evidence of a clenched fist, particularly at the point of impact."

5:32 pm: The AFL (Pane) says that regardless if Lynch's fist was fully closed, the forcefulness of his swing had significant potential to cause injury.

"The fact that the hand is being swung in such a forceful manner from down low up high means that, regardless of whether it is a partially clenched fist, there is significant potential to cause injury to an opposing player.

"I do acknowledge that player butts was not injured, and in my submission, that speaks more of good luck than good management on player Lynch's part, there's nothing about player Lynch's action which suggests it would which suggests that he was trying to minimise force."

5:28 pm: Chairman Jeff Gleeson refrained from being "cheeky" when assessing the evidence given by Lynch.

"Do you handball? I was going to say ever, but I won't be cheeky. Do you handball with your right hand?"

5:19 pm: Nick Pane (AFL) offered previous examples of Lynch's right hand being clenched in marking contests, with the Tigers forward attempting to spoil.

Lynch remained steadfast that he is unable to close his fist.

He also said that he was "swiping" towards Butts, rather than punching.

5:16 pm: Lynch said he went over to Butts following the game, shook his hand and apologised to him for "getting it wrong", but wished him good luck for the remainder of the year.

5:10 pm: Tom Lynch begun giving evidence: "I contested the mark, felt like Butts was holding onto me ... we won the ball and I wanted to get forward and get Butts off me as quickly as I could.

"Lynch: I got it wrong, and it was the wrong thing to do.

Sam Tovey (Richmond representative): Were you trying to get him high?

Lynch: No, absolutely not, but I clearly got him high.

Sam Tovey (Richmond representative): Where were you trying to make contact? Lynch: To his upper back."

Lynch insisted his fist was "absolutely not" clenched when striking Butts, with the Tigers forward demonstrating to the Tribunal of how his hand was positioned.

The forward referred to previous injuries that would prevent him from making a whole fist.

5:01 pm: Richmond will be contesting the impact. It concedes the contact was an intentional strike, but says this was "high" and not "severe". High impact would be a three-match suspension.

1 COMMENT

  1. Still โ€œamusingโ€ that he is not charged with kicking Worrell in the headโ€ฆโ€ฆ

    If it was a โ€˜wobbles player who was kicked the head whole on the ground โ€“ โ€“ Lynchโ€™d be up for 6 games for that.

Comments are closed.