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

[MC Extra Dollop]

Which is also illegal.

This. Has anyone stopped to think that there may be a reason that teams don't just park someone on the ruckman's shoulders or set up like a rugby line out on the goal line every time there's a set shot? Because it's against the rules.

 

[demondavey]

The rule involves intentions. If the umpire determines that Rampe was only trying to climb the post, not intentionally shake it, then they cannot award a free kick.

Can I ask your opinion on why you think Rampe was climbing the post?

 

[Satan]

Oh and the $1.01 shot lands

Totally shocked

 

[footyfan1978]

Didn't shake it, play on

There is no play on. The siren has gone.

 

[JayJ20]

Oh and the $1.01 shot lands

They will tick it off because if they admit mistake, then they'd have to review the result. This isn't a hypothetical situation where it cost us a kick from 50-metre mark. It actually cost a goal.

 

[Lensen]

this is what you get when you advocate for the 200 throws, holds, pushes etc per game that aren't paid to continue to not be paid because "let the players play" and "rules are over officiated"

because theres a supposed magic number of frees that people want to see per game and no more you give umpires discretion over what's a significant enough rule break and introduce the concept of warnings

the game reaps what it sows

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Essendon fans should also be annoyed with this
View attachment 671350

Yeah I was looking for some context or justification for that reaction, but there's no reason for smiles on the ground after that. You should be fuming losing a game like that.

 

[Satan]

They will tick it off because if they admit mistake, then they'd have to review the result. This isn't a hypothetical situation where it cost us a kick from 50-metre mark. It actually cost a goal.

And a minor thing a change of the result

 

[Ducky Tie]

Oh and the $1.01 shot lands

Absurd justification.

 

[Red Bull]

Off to court ?
Here’s your man ...

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

They will tick it off because if they admit mistake, then they'd have to review the result. This isn't a hypothetical situation where it cost us a kick from 50-metre mark. It actually cost a goal.

Which gets them through this controversy. What happens next, now that every team has been given the green light and it becomes common practice for players to climb goal posts?

 

[ManOfClay]

They will tick it off because if they admit mistake, then they'd have to review the result. This isn't a hypothetical situation where it cost us a kick from 50-metre mark. It actually cost a goal.

Name one other time a result has been overturned after a review into a free kick

 

[JayJ20]

Which gets them through this controversy. What happens next, now that every team has been given the green light and it becomes common practice for players to climb goal posts?

I actually hope one of our players climb the goal post next week in the exact manner just to test it. The AFL want to tick off on it, well let's see. I wonder if we get a warning. If we did that yesterday, it would be a free kick to appease the Sydney fans.

 

[The Warlord]

What is with Sydney always cheating?

Normally I would be right here with you ... 19 men etc ... but given the opponent, Go Bloods.

 

[Eshay187]

Anyone who watches that footage and ends up in mouth foaming rage rather than having a chuckle needs to have a serious think about their priorities.

 

[JayJ20]

Name one other time a result has been overturned after a review into a free kick

Irrelevant. It will have to be reviewed. This is not a missed free kick during the course of the play. It's after the siren. It's not a hypothetical goal either. If the AFL say "it should have been a free kick", it means that it should have been a certain goal. Therefore, they would be admitting that Essendon should have won the game and not Sydney.

The AFL will never say that, so the easier option is to tick it off and wait until the next round so that people stop talking about it.

 

[Red Bull]

I actually hope one of our players climb the goal post next week in the exact manner just to test it. The AFL want to tick off on it, well let's see. I wonder if we get a warning. If we did that yesterday, it would be a free kick to appease the Sydney fans.

Don’t sweat it mate
The AFL will likely gift you the number 1 draft pick as compensation ...

 

[footyfan1978]

Essendon fans should also be annoyed with this
View attachment 671350

Truly a weird reaction immediately after not going with a torp.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Rampe does some dumb things on/off the field no idea what he was thinking doing that.

 

[JayJ20]

Don’t sweat it mate
The AFL will likely gift you the number 1 draft pick as compensation ...

I hope so. One of the only VIC sides to never receive a priority pick. Unlike Hawthorn, Collingwood, Richmond and Carlton.

 

[Back One Out]

Just saw the Rampe goalpost incident

Free kick every day of the week

Absolute lunacy

Incorrect.

You really need to read the rules first before you post ignorant comments,



15.9 FREE KICKS – SHAKING GOAL POST OR BEHIND POST

15.9.1 Awarding Free Kick

Unless Law 15.9.3 applies, a Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player or Official who intentionally shakes a goal or behind post (either before or after a Player has disposed of the football):

15.9.2 Taking Free Kick

The following shall apply to a Free Kick awarded under Law 15.9.1:

(a) if a Free Kick is awarded against a Player or Official of the
defending Team and a Goal is not scored, the Player from the attacking Team who was about to or who has Kicked for Goal, shall take the Free Kick at the centre of the Goal Line;


15.9.3 The Sydney Leg-up Clause

If the infringing defender plays for the Sydney Swans, then umpires should look the other way and under no circumstances award any free kicks which may impact upon Sydney attendances and Channel 7 ratings. This not only applies to shaking the goal post, but also for jumper holds, arm chops, tunneling and blocking for each other in marking contests. Otherwise known as the Rod Carter/Andrew Dunkley/Leo Barry/Craig Bolton/Heath Grundy Clause.

 

[Andrew Mc]

If he had any chance of going the distance, this might be relevant. Since he was a soft **** and didn't go the torp, keep those salty tears flowing.

 

[HotSausage69]

I want to know Dane Rampe's thought process when he did this. What a funny guy. He probably wanted to win too.

 

[MrKK]

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.

I assume the deliberate part was written in to excuse players accidentally running into or being pushed into a post, not to allow them to climb it.

 

[Red Bull]

I hope so. One of the only VIC sides to never receive a priority pick. Unlike Hawthorn, Collingwood, Richmond and Carlton.

Your club still has a license.
You owe the AFL everything ...