Missed free kick after siren: changes result of tonight’s game

[Mitchell Madness]

Another one of those stupidly written AFL rules.

Why is "intention" written into the rule? Why isn't the rule just "if a player shakes the goal post it's a free against"? There is no reason whatsoever that this rule needs to be interpreted.

Write the rules clearly and unambiguously and this wouldn't be up for debate.

Because that means any time a player runs into the post in a contest it's a free

 

[kingswood71]

The funniest bit will be when the MRO slaps him with a fine.....

 

[HairyO]

The funniest bit will be when the MRO slaps him with a fine.....

My guess is the AFL will say that it happened before the kick was taken, not while the kick was being taken.

Therefore the umpire was right.

 

[Suma Magic]

I think his intention was to climb the post to block a kick, not to shake it.

A poorly written rule. If climbing is banned it should just say it.

No free kick IMO.

 

[Farm Boy]

To my astute eye, I don't believe Rampe set out to shake the goal post. It didn't look as though that was his intention. To the letter of the rule I don't believe a free kick could be paid. Unless the umpire were to say that Rampe intentionally climbed the post and he should have known that as a result the post would shake. But that would be a big stretch.

 

[legend166]

I'm not going to lie.



This makes the win even more satisfying.

 

[kingswood71]

If climbing is banned it should just say it.

That will be added to the rules.....during the week

 

[triggering bro]

Technically, the kick is taken from the centre of the GOAL LINE (not the top of the squre) so it could be argued as a certain goal.
View attachment 671265

“Intentionally” - That’s the threshold. Was climbing the post & it subsequently shaking “reckless” conduct? Yes. But again, unfortunately the conduct required is “intentional” not reckless or negligent. Whilst it was intentional to climb the goal post it was not to intentional to shake it. That’s just how rules/legislation is interpreted. Correct call.

 

[10571z]

Oh cool Essendon fans blaming umpires again for their poor performance.

 

[Banyo Bloods]

I think intention is included because accidentally running into the goal post will make it shake. Not a free kick.

However, Rampe's intentional action made the goal post shake. That should be classed as intention and therefore a free kick. I don't think there is any room for interpretation here. That's a clear free kick.

I don't understand why Rampe would do such a stupid thing when the kicker is so far away from goal.

Can't argue about Rampe's stupidity

His intent can be argued that he was climbing to jump off the post to touch the ball (which insanely is what I believe was his intent)
If you can't conclusively argue his intent was to shake then there is an out for the umpires. Disgraceful act, poorly written rule which requires a re-write but as it stands (in my opinion) gives the umpires and AFL a legit out to justify the non call.

Like the Swans fans upset over Adam McPhee kicking from 2 foot outside the boundary years ago swings and roundabouts.

It adds fuel to a rich history of close or controversial finishes between these teams and stepping away from the result is kind of cool to have happened in that respect.

 

[PerthBoy86]

sidenote, but what is the actual point of shaking the post anyway? you're just as likely to widen the goals as narrow them

Distraction? If the ball goes really close to the goal posts? But then again there are a lot of more distracting things you could do to put someone off lol. Still wouldn't think it'd have much effect though yeah.

 

[PerthBoy86]

It's a prefer obscure rule, tbh it's the first I've even heard of it, so it makes sense. I don't expect them to be sure of every single AFL rule (though ideally they would be). Given the circumstances I don't blame them too much. Rampe was given a warning, if he'd ignored that then yeah, free kicks sounds fair enough. Odd thing to do, seems better to just try to leap and spoil it. If he could've seen Myers was going for a drop punt from 65 out though he may not have done anything. I'd say blame Myers for not going the torp, almost a lost art, even Ben Graham would've struggled to slot a 65m set shot with a drop punt. Very few players could do it.

 

[ManOfClay]

To think Jake Stringer is the only one out there who knew the rule.

Well he had to do something productive right?

 

[Nuwanda]

I thought the umpiring was excellent throughout the game.

The warning the umpire gave Rampe was exactly what we want to see. That is common sense officiating. It was dealt with and hence had absolutely no impact on that ‘play’. If Myers was running in and having a shot at goal at the time, well that’s a different story.

 

[RAPPA]

If Rampe actually intended to launch off the post to somehow spoil the ball - even though his ability to do that would be so limited given how unsecured he was - I fear for his stupidity. He would’ve been better off standing behind the goal line with a teammate on the goal line, and then launching for a spoil over the top

 

[btdg]

I thought the umpiring was excellent throughout the game.

The warning the umpire gave Rampe was exactly what we want to see. That is common sense officiating. It was dealt with and hence had absolutely no impact on that ‘play’. If Myers was running in and having a shot at goal at the time, well that’s a different story.

I agree with this totally.

The umpire might have made a mistake in not paying a free kick, but in the context of the game... we want to see the shot from 60 after the siren, not a free kick for a non-footy act during a dead ball situation.

Essendon didn't deserve to win, but if a miracle kick happens after the siren, that's a 'fair' result. If the umpires pluck something off the ball to hand them an undeserved victory... I dunno, but that's not what I want to occur.

The umpire gave a warning, the kick missed, Essendon supporters melted down... pretty much the fair outcome imo

 

[Sedat!]

Your reasoning there is ridiculously flawed. Didn’t intend to shake it but he did

Did the umpire see the goal post shake? If not, he cannot guess and pay a free kick. I bet this is the BS narrative the AFL will run with to exonerate the umpire and sweep this under their massive rug.

 

[M Malice]

100% free kick to the Bombers, what else was his intention other than to shake the post and distract the kicker? He did it just before the kick so as Myers looked up before running in for the shot he would see the post shaking.

A question for those saying no free kick- Why did Rampe do it?

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Are you sure though? I mean do you think every police officer knows every law? I mean the AFL rule book is huge, so it is easy to imagine the umpires not knowing a few of the more obscure ones.

These are chosen as the elite umpires, the best of the best. How is it possibly acceptable that they don't know every rule, especially rules that have such obvious potential to directly change the result of a game?

When I was 14 and doing boundary umpiring on Saturday in the local league for a bit of pocket money, the local league wanted all of us to read the rule book at the start of every year. That expectation was probably tenfold for the central umpires in the top division and it would be tenfold again for an AFL umpire.

 

[JayJ20]

Can't argue about Rampe's stupidity

His intent can be argued that he was climbing to jump off the post to touch the ball (which insanely is what I believe was his intent)
If you can't conclusively argue his intent was to shake then there is an out for the umpires. Disgraceful act, poorly written rule which requires a re-write but as it stands (in my opinion) gives the umpires and AFL a legit out to justify the non call.

Like the Swans fans upset over Adam McPhee kicking from 2 foot outside the boundary years ago swings and roundabouts.

It adds fuel to a rich history of close or controversial finishes between these teams and stepping away from the result is kind of cool to have happened in that respect.

When Dempsey played on, that was harsh, but the umpire made the right call. He had the balls to do it in front of the home crowd and umps who do that need to be recognised.

There is a difference between McPhee's incident and this. That can be excused by the umpire missing the incident. I remember Elliot (or was it Sidebottom) kicked it from out of bounds in a one point loss to Colllingwood once, but that's during the course of the play. Umps miss some and get some.

This isn't in the course of the play. It's after the siren.

The umpire actually saw Rampe on the goal post and told Rampe to get off the post. Last time I checked, the rule book doesn't state to give a warning before calling it.

The AFL are probably in damage control at the moment because this actually changed the outcome of the game and not just in a hypothetical way.

 

[Checkered]

By the letter of the law that's a free but I would hate to ever see a game decided by something like that which affected the play in no way. Common sense umpiring came through.

Stupidity by Rampe though

 

[Final Siren]

sidenote, but what is the actual point of shaking the post anyway? you're just as likely to widen the goals as narrow them

You just know some dick in 1904 grabbed the little weedy posts they used back then and shook it like buggery while the oppo was lining up for goal, and everyone was like, "George, knock it off," and George was all, "I'm allowed to do it, it's not in the rules."

 

[Suma Magic]

100% free kick to the Bombers, what else was his intention other than to shake the post and distract the kicker? He did it just before the kick so as Myers looked up before running in for the shot he would see the post shaking.

A question for those saying no free kick- Why did Rampe do it?

I think he was climbing up to block a goal.

If his intention was to shake it, why didn’t he just shake it?

 

[HirdsTheWord]

To my astute eye, I don't believe Rampe set out to shake the goal post. It didn't look as though that was his intention. To the letter of the rule I don't believe a free kick could be paid. Unless the umpire were to say that Rampe intentionally climbed the post and he should have known that as a result the post would shake. But that would be a big stretch.

So the umpire can’t assume Intention that a guy climbing a ****ing goal post isn’t shaking it? I pity the poor bastards who kick the ball and it bounces at a right angle out of bounds.

No issues with umps assuming the intent was deliberate out of bounds....

 

[MF]

I think he was climbing up to block a goal.

If his intention was to shake it, why didn’t he just shake it?

Exactly. It would be far easier to shake the post by simply standing there and you know... Shaking the post.

He obviously thought he could climb up to get a touch on the ball. Dumb thing to do but I don't see how you can apply the rule in this scenario.