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

[CaptainHowdy87]

Eh....he wasn't shaking the post or attempting to get up higher to spoil, it was just a bizarre way of trying to cause a distraction.

23 pages of discussion on this? FMD....

 

[Jobe Watson]

To reach a kick that only just makes the distance.

What exactly was Rampe going to do? Climbing the post gives him about a metre either side of the post in which to stick a hand out and disrupt the ball. If his intention was to try to block the ball on the line he would've been better off standing and jumping for it. Climbing the post gave him an extra half a metre of height (if that) while sacrificing the freedom to move and jump anywhere along the line.

Fact is he deliberately shook the post multiple times and the umpire allowed him to do it. AFL signing off on this is a joke, but not surprising. Look for this rule to be quietly re-written and any future attempt to do this will result in an automatic free kick.

 

[footyfan1978]

He was trying to reach the magic far away tree mate. How you thought it was anything else, is nuts.

 

[cznsnowy91]

Goodness me, I just saw this today.
How is that not a free kick? WTF was Rampe thinking anyway - that he was gonna leap from the post and touch the ball? And not get a free kick against. Lunacy.

Would have been hilarious to see him leap from the post and save the goal after monkey climbing up. It looks ridiculous and against the rules.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Someone threw a mars bar, it got stuck on top of the padding, he was after that

 

[CFC2010]

Love this thread.

Umpires = Cheats

Essendope = Karma

 

[Olian]

If you pull out one free kick from the game and reverse it should you not pull others out?

 

[ZingerB]

Be careful what you all wish for. In the only sensible thing I have heard Mclaughlin say, he compared calling Rampe down to the warnings players get to move back on the mark. You want to demand this as a free, then anytime a player creeps the mark it's 50, no warning. Any time a player back answers an umpire its 50, no warning. Any time a player is held while trying to get up after taking a mark or getting a free kick it's 50, no warning.

Last night alone, we saw an example where a free kick was paid for HTB against Rampe with the umpire telling him he should have heard. Not even a quarter later, an Essendon player kicks the ball away after a free kick was paid against them after the umpire blows the whistle three times. Both of these plays resulted in Essendon goals. Perhaps we can highlight these and the clear double standard that was applied last night.

Fair post. Paying a match winning goal in a situation that didn't affect the play at all is just ****ing dumb. We are always asking for common sense from the umpires like not paying in the back when the player collapses their legs because 'its technically in the back'. The amount of games we have had thieved from us in the last 5 years and we get told you shouldn't need to rely on umpires by these Victorian ****wits. But when the free kick count is 21:21 and they didn't receive a free kick in a situation that probably hasn't been paid in 20+ years, that had zero impact on the play, and all of a sudden the umpiring is a problem.

 

[Milanista28]

How about Rampe's sexist bullying of the umpire.

 

[Thebisc]

Nah, not surprised at all that they ticked off the decision.

Had the umpire paid the FK, they would have ticked that off, as well.

That's how it works and that's why the review says that umps get 95%+ of decisions correct.

I said the same after Anzac Day. Basically the rules are all so grey they can never be wrong

 

[Boxhead_31]

Nah, just cancels out the goal on the quarter-time siren not being paid as it should.

 

[Corpuscles]

How do you know that?

In my opinion, it's highly likely that Rampe deliberately tried to shake the post by climbing it.

Why else would you do it?

Meyer was a very long way out. Rampe could get a better view of exactly how far. He is a really geeenyus and a rocket surgeon and was using trigonometry to calculate exactly how far out . Just assess the angle of declination and match to the opposite side (goal post extra height to eye) and then calculate the unreachable by drop punt kick (everyone except Buddy Franklin distance!)

If he wanted to shake it he would have got more leverage using legs and shoulders at ground level, he knew that much, he his way smarter than the average player and often has to advise the umpires about the correct rules anyway!!!!

 

[Lsta062]

Nah, just cancels out the goal on the quarter-time siren not being paid as it should.

That goal was kicked after the siren

 

[Ice-Wolf]

He doesn't intentionally shake it either so room for interpretation sadly. A rule that needs a re-write

Yeah probably need to add "a player may not climb the goal/point posts" would also bring it into line with the intention of the not holding another teammate up rules.

But as the rules are written now he didn't break them.

 

[its free real estate]

People are confusing the deliberate action(climbing the post) to the side effect(the post shaking).

With the ambiguity here, I feel a warning is the just course of action and I expect the AFL to add a new rule about deliberately climbing the post.

Nonsense

 

[Halftimehero]

Nah, just cancels out the goal on the quarter-time siren not being paid as it should.

The siren had clearly gone, even the commentators who were openly barracking for Sydney conceded that once they had seen the replay.

 

[Boxhead_31]

That goal was kicked after the siren

Only matters when umpire calls play dead and his whistle was after the kick

 

[Lsta062]

Only matters when umpire calls play dead and his whistle was after the kick

Then what’s the point of the siren?

 

[Moquo]

We've truly lost the plot in our game if reading minds is an essential skill for umpiring.

That's the essence of the deliberate out of bounds rule, though.

 

[The King!]

No, the action having clear rules stipulating against the said action make it a free. Lol

It’s no different to any other rule and again which you don’t seem to get the rule isn’t clear

It’s about intention

Move on

 

[Spuddigger]

Whether the rule is dumb or not, the fact is that it is a rule. You can't shake the goal post before a player takes their kick. Rampe clearly shakes the goal post. Free kick from the top of the square. Essendon win.

When Jake ****ing Stringer has a better handle on the rules than the umpires, we have a problem.

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.

??????

 

[Cripptonite]

I dislike Essendon more than most but they were absolutely robbed there. How the AFL can come out "justify" the non-call by calling it practical? Or that the umpires told him to get down is sufficient enough? When did it become the umpire's role to warn someone before they give away a free kick? Just come out and say they got it wrong, everyone already knows it. The umpires are getting more incompetent and therefore decisive each season.

Was the call to penalise Jim Stynes for running through the mark practical? Maybe they should have told him to clear out of the way first.

 

[Substance]

Nonsense

Blame the AFL. Nothing in there about monkeying around on the post from what I can see.

If only he climbed it without shaking it! He would have been fine.

 

[yodellinhank]

Shame that this is dominating discussion. I thought the game was umpired exceptionally last night.

Exceptional still works

 

[Spuddigger]

Just saw the Rampe goalpost incident

Free kick every day of the week

Absolute lunacy

Can you imagine Horse to the player if it was payed? IDIOCY!