Reasons via Tribunal:On certain views of this vision, Lynch's actions appear quite problematic. He did not ultimately attempt to mark the ball and his shoulder came into forceful contact with Alex Keath’s head, causing a concussion.
Considering all of the evidence, including importantly Lynch's cogent and emphatic evidence, including all of the various angles of vision, we are not clearly satisfied that this was rough conduct.
The vision supported Lynch's evidence that his eyes never left the ball and that his line towards the ball never deviated. We find Lynch intended to fly for the mark, realised he had misjudged at the moment he was committed to jumping, saw a Bulldogs player in his peripheral vision and rotated and braced for contact. This version of events is supported by the fact Lynch did not have clenched fists, not follow through with force and intends to pull his body in, in a way consistent with a brace for contact, not a bump.
Marking contests such as this present a number of challenges for players. The ball was kicked in long and high. Players are all aware there will be a pack-type aerial contest. All flight can be misjudged and leaps mistimed.
It is not careless for a player to do no more than brace for contact in those circumstances.
As we’ve repeatedly said, players must do all that they reasonably can to minimise the risk of head injuries to other players. If we found Lynch had not genuinely braced for contact, had not had eyes for the ball, likely deviated, we would have had little hesitation in upholding the charge.
In the event, he did not bump. He did not engage in rough conduct.
https://go.arena.im/live/fox-sports-australia/qSYhqpX?v=2
