AFL legend Mick Malthouse has expressed strong criticism regarding the five-week suspension imposed on Richmond forward Tom Lynch, branding the penalty a “public relations exercise” driven by “vigilantes” seeking retribution. The tribunal handed down the lengthy ban after Lynch struck Adelaide player Jordan Butts during a match, an incident triggered by Lynch’s frustration which led to his arm connecting with Butts’ head, resulting in a brief scuffle.
Lynch defended his actions, stating that he did not throw a punch since he was unable to form a fist. Malthouse concurred, suggesting that the incident did not resemble a traditional strike. He believes the tribunal misjudged the severity of the offence, proposing that a suspension of two or three weeks would have been more appropriate, citing that the additional three weeks imposed was primarily due to its appearance.
Malthouse remarked on the tribunal’s focus on the optics of Lynch’s action, implying that the outcome was disproportionate to the actual event. He noted, “He knows he erred, we all know he erred… I think it was a hand.” He cautioned against making decisions based solely on how an incident appears rather than its actual consequences.
Further, Malthouse raised concerns over the integrity of the decision-making process, questioning the justification behind the lengthy ban if it was mainly a reaction to public perception. He stated, “That’s a statement, but where is the actual integrity over the casting of five weeks?” He reiterated that Lynch, who he described as a decent person, will continue to bear the consequences of the suspension, which prevents him from returning until Richmond’s clash with St Kilda in Round 22.
In conclusion, Malthouse’s critique underscores a growing debate about the penalties in professional sports, particularly regarding how public sentiment and perception can influence disciplinary actions.