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

[Halftimehero]

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.

So why did the umpire tell him to get down?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Not if Zac Clarke was kicking it.

It’s 99.99% chance of a goal!

Seriously though, it’s not actually a certain goal. I appreciate that. Sydney have somebody on the mark, so he’d be kicking from a few metres out. It could go off the side of the boot, or into the man on the mark.

 

[nylexbandit]

Actually the reasoning is sound. It needs to be deliberate for it to be a free.

Good point - like all rules in the game enough wriggle room to pay it either way the umpire likes

 

[Trucker Tiger]

The kick would be taken from the centre of the GOAL LINE (not the top of the square)
View attachment 671268
No chance the afl will do anything but i am interested in what their response is.

I hope they sign off on it. I'd like to see players doing it each week.

 

[The King!]

That actually makes it worse. If the umpire just didn’t see it, you’d understand more.

the letter of the law is intention to shake

he intended to get higher to spoil, its splitting hairs but thats technically what it says which leaves it open to umpire interpreting the intention

rampe is a dickhead for climbing the post, but umps warn or give players benefit of the doubt alll over the place

 

[Sentinel]

The kick would be taken from the centre of the GOAL LINE (not the top of the square)
View attachment 671268
No chance the afl will do anything but i am interested in what their response is.

Doesn't matter, even if its a 99.99999% chance it would have resulted in a goal, the missed penalty was not a goal, it was a free kick only.

We don't have things like penalty tries in rugby.

 

[Substance]

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

It already is with regards to deliberate out of bounds.

 

[The King!]

As Rampe scales post...

Umpire: “Dane, are you trying to shake the post or just climbing?”
Rampe: “just climbing, I think”
Umpire: “all good”

he would of said he lost the spreadsheet

 

[Tedeski]

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;

https://aflvic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/AFL-Laws-of-the-Game-2018.pdf

You clearly should have won that game with that Rampe incident & we should still be the bottom team after tonights game because you shouldn't lose to the bottom team, but the bad umpire missed that important free which would have made you the better team than the bottom team who don't know the rules of the game.
Free kick every day of the week.

 

[MightyDons4]

I don't blame the umpires for not calling it though. That free kick probably has not been given in 20 years and the umpires themselves were probably not 100% sure of the exact rule so they were probably terrified of calling it a 50-metre penalty and definitely 100% changing the result of the game only to find out later that they were wrong.

A Sydney fan agrees that a rule should not be paid so that Sydney can win the game. Colour me shocked.

 

[Magma]

dumb rule or not, it's a rule. massive blunder from the umpires.

as for 'purposely' shaking the post, he doesnt accidentally climb it.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

We need to reconvene tomorrow night to take the kick and decide the game. And we need to replicate conditions exactly, so we have those 40k people to track down.

 

[Michaels]

Absolutely robbed.

I wish I could say I'm shocked the umpires have already cleared this but I'm not..

That is a goal line free kick to the letter of the law.

If the umpires dont know the rules dont let them officiate games again until they have it all down pat and understood.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I am not disagreeing with you, but I also think that it is highly likely the umpires themselves were not as aware of the rule and the consequences of the action as they should have been since it has been so long since that free kick was paid. I mean I can't remember it ever being paid, so it must have been a very long time.

Missed it or didn’t know it, it’s major **** up. But it’s just an umpire error, they happen.

 

[RUNVS]

A Sydney fan agrees that a rule should not be paid so that Sydney can win the game. Colour me shocked.

No, I think it should have been paid, but I also understand why the umpires didn't pay it.

 

[DT_35]

WTF was Rampe even thinking? He obviously isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed....

 

[Sammymoite]

Cannot believe people are arguing the intention of shaking it.

You can literally see him pulling on the post trying to make it move

Delusional nuffs

 

[The King!]

No, I think it should have been paid, but I also understand why the umpires didn't pay it.

this

i also think rampe getting pinged for htb when he didnt move shouldnt have been paid for essendon to get a goal

heppell clear throw leading to essendon last goal not paid

poor decisions happen every week

essendon can focus on one odd one because of when it happened and ignore how ordinary they are

two bottom sides played tonight

 

[RUNVS]

WTF was Rampe even thinking? He obviously isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed....

I think you mean the steepest ramp at the skate park.

 

[MightyDons4]

No, I think it should have been paid, but I also understand why the umpires didn't pay it.

This is their job. They should know the rules. If they're too scared to enforce them then find another job.

 

[Banyo Bloods]

I am sure the AFL will tell us later in the week that the post has to shake x amount to be considered for a free kick

I think the out is the word intentionally in the rule and then it will be tweaked to include using the posts to gain an advantage or something similar.

Should have been a free but there is an out for the AFL if they wish to take it.

 

[The King!]

Cannot believe people are arguing the intention of shaking it.

You can literally see him pulling on the post trying to make it move

Delusional nuffs

yeah a fan group arguing over intentions is frustrating isnt it

 

[luthor]

They should return to the SCG on Tuesday night and have Myers take his kick again.

Would still get a bigger crowd than an NRL game

 

[Whiskers]

Them the rules, ump has stuffed up badly.
That interpretation part of the rule is ridiculous, he shook the post by deliberately climbing it.
It’s a free all day, every day. What can you do though? Umpire got it wrong, umpires get things wrong often.
The umpire for not knowing a rule should be made to step down.

 

[Arkangel]

Ha! There's a surprisingly large body of research into the issue of what it means to do something "intentionally". What we have here is a side-effect (the post shaking) of an intended action (climbing up the post). Legally, a person can know something is likely to happen as a side-effect of their intended action, without the side-effect itself being intentional. Things get more interesting when it comes to laypeople's understandings of whether or not side-effects are intentional. There's an interesting phenomenon called the Knobe effect, in which laypeople judge the side-effects of actions to be intentional when they have a negative outcome, but unintentional when they have a positive outcome. In other words, people's intuitions in these sorts of cases are in conflict with the legal and philosophical frameworks that exist around intentionality. It's quite an interesting area.

TLDR version: Legally, Rampe's action would be unlikely to be assessed as intentional, so if the legal interpretation of intentionality implies here, it isn't a free kick. If the lay understanding of intentionality applies, Sydney supporters would probably deem it unintentional and Essendon supporters would probably deem it intentional.