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

[Halftimehero]

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.

The Essendon players knew it, they were appealing before the kick had even been taken, the umpire obviously knew Rampe shouldn’t have been climbing the post, he was telling him to get down.

Reality is, most out there knew it shouldn’t have happened but the umpire didn’t have the pills to pay the free kick given the circumstances.

 

[RUNVS]

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

I think it is a case of half knowing the rule, but not being sure enough to make the call since the call would guarantee a change in result of the game. Had this happened in the second quarter the umpires might have been brave enough to pay it with them being somewhat sure of the rule and the penalty for breaking it.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Fletcher was reported for it in 2001 I think. Was fined.

Same with Doc Wheeldon in 1993 apparently.

Unsure if free kicks were paid.

 

[Scorpus]

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.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

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

It may surprise you to learn that many people are capable of considering or discussing more than one issue.

 

[Banyo Bloods]

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

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

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

 

[Magma]

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

it's hardly a split second decision like those others though. he runs over and tells him to get down.

 

[Lethal]

The umpire noticed it ran 20 meters just to tell him to get down.

I believe the ump said
"get down before someone sees you"

 

[The King!]

It may surprise you to learn that many people are capable of considering or discussion more than one issue.

many are, but read online, many of your fellow supporters are not

 

[Coaster2012]

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.

This.

His intention isn't to shake the pole. But what else is the effect of a 85kg athlete launching himself at a metal pole and aggressively shimmying up it? Either it wasn't his intention, or he failed grade 7 physics.

 

[The King!]

it's hardly a split second decision like those others though. he runs over and tells him to get down.

Yeah and I'll take the win and am not very objective but id hate to see a game decided by that

 

[MightyDons4]

I think it is a case of half knowing the rule, but not being sure enough to make the call since the call would guarantee a change in result of the game. Had this happened in the second quarter the umpires might have been brave enough to pay it with them being somewhat sure of the rule and the penalty for breaking it.

If Jake bloody Stringer was aware of the rule then the umpires should be all over it, end of story.

 

[RUNVS]

Fletcher was reported for it in 2001 I think. Was fined.

Same with Doc Wheeldon in 1993 apparently.

Unsure if free kicks were paid.

If 2001 was the latest example that was 18 years ago. Most of the umpires in the AFL would not have been umpires back then. It is such an obscure rule I would not be surprised if the umpires were not even sure of the exact nature of the rule and especially its penalty.

 

[Sentinel]

Fletcher was reported for it in 2001 I think. Was fined.

Same with Doc Wheeldon in 1993 apparently.

Unsure if free kicks were paid.

In Wheildon's case he did it when his own teammate was taking a shot! (true story)

I think in Fletcher's case his opponent had kicked the goal so no need for a free to be paid regardless.

 

[Banyo Bloods]

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 you could have your eye on the incoming ball and accidently hit the post running with the flight causing it to shake and clipping the ball when it might not have. Pretty tough to expect the AFL to predict a player climbing a post to suddenly find a rule loop hole.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

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.

It’d be in there if a player was pushed into it... or maybe even was running to spoil and looking over his shoulder and hit it.

That’s unintentional, not this, lol.

Don’t listen to some of the pedantic fools here. Umpires, judges, tribunals etc have a job to interpret law. This would be found intentional every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

 

[The King!]

makes up for mcphee being out of bounds in 2007

 

[The King!]

makes up for mcphee being out of bounds in 2007

 

[Kappa]

The rule is written ambiguously - FACT

The umpires applied a common sense application to an ambiguous rule - FACT

Nothing to see here, just Essendon whinging.

 

[Sammymoite]

yeah a fan group arguing over intentions is frustrating isnt it

Nah, umpires ignoring blatant free kicks irks me just a little more.

 

[RUNVS]

It’d be in there if a player was pushed into it... or maybe even was running to spoil and looking over his shoulder and hit it.

That’s unintentional, not this, lol.

Don’t listen to some of the pedantic fools here. Umpires, judges, tribunals etc have a job to interpret law. This would be found intentional every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Judges though have time to check the rules. The umpires could not blow the whistle to stop Essendon taking the shot and say "give us 5 minutes, we need to go check the rulebook"

They had to make an immediate decision.

 

[Socrates2]

If you want a free for that then you shouldn't be playing the game. It should only have been a free if the ball went within a meter of that post.Maybe Myers should of kicked a torpedo instead of winking and laughing.

 

[thedank]

is it even possible to pay a 'new' free after the final siren? surely a 50 can be added to the kicker if infringed but i haven't seen a free paid after any siren.

 

[MightyDons4]

This.

His intention isn't to shake the pole. But what else is the effect of a 85kg athlete launching himself at a metal pole and aggressively shimmying up it? Either it wasn't his intention, or he failed grade 7 physics.

Intention is implied by the fact he willing jumped onto the goalpost. It's not as if he just fell over and hit it, which would obviously be unintentional and no one would be questioning it.

 

[Banyo Bloods]

It’d be in there if a player was pushed into it... or maybe even was running to spoil and looking over his shoulder and hit it.

That’s unintentional, not this, lol.

Don’t listen to some of the pedantic fools here. Umpires, judges, tribunals etc have a job to interpret law. This would be found intentional every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Except when you can interpret there was no intent to shake the post which you can't say was the intent, even though it was the outcome.