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

[coldlunch]

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'd imagine it's because a player can easily bump and shake a goal post when jostling on the line, which you could reasonably interpret as accidental.
there is no reasonable excuse for leaping up when no one is around, though, obviously

 

[Sammymoite]

If his goal was to simply shake the post he would of stayed on the ground and push/pulled it or rammed it with his shoulder. He was clearly trying to get extra height to touch the ball through, which is why he jumped up and stayed still in that spot.

The rule is ambiguous and the umpire interpreted it in a fair way, you're wrong, move on.

That’ll do me. Bed time for you I think mate.

Although thank you for being Dane’s personal ventriloquist.

 

[Upgrayedd]

You know it is going to be a big story when a thread starts at 11:54pm and by 1:34am it already has almost 8 pages of content.

Surely its not just upset Essendon fans projecting the failures of their club on something else?

Surely not?

 

[Dancing Dougy]

100% should have been a free

 

[Do the Dew]

I could be wrong (and haven't read the rule book), but I thought that you weren't allowed to use the post to assist in spoiling the ball from a shot at goal.

Similar to not being able to climb on teammates backs human pyramid style to stop a shot at goal.

Sydney played better overall and deserved to win, however, the rule 7.__ is clear and it should have been a 50/shot from the goal line to Essendon. Very interested to hear the AFL/umpires spin on this. They obviously won't come out and say they made a mistake because then there'll be a shitshow to try and overturn the result. They also can't effectively argue against the decision to not pay a free, cause it clearly deserved one. Over to you Gil.

 

[vaughany]

Is there much precedent for goal post shaking incidents?

I remember Fletcher got fined once but apparently Spider Everitt or Doc Wheildon may have done something as well back in the day?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[vaughany]

You know it is going to be a big story when a thread starts at 11:54pm and by 1:34am it already has almost 8 pages of content.

Haha good call. Will probably fill half the content of the Saturday radio shows and the Sunday morning TV panel shows.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[FrakturedHalo]

I think it was his “intent” to obtain an unfair advantage by climbing the goalpost to spoil the kick, otherwise he would’ve just stayed on the ground on the goal line in the pack to try and touch it before it went over the line like everyone else does and has for the past however many years. People trying to argue intent about whether Rampe clearly doesn’t understand there are such things as gravity and the laws of physics and wasn’t trying to shake the post whilst climbing it are irrelevant and disingenuous, the fact is the bloke didn’t get up there by accident

 

[Red Black and Blue]

The rule is ambiguous, Rampe's intentions were not....

How is that hard for you to grasp?

That rule is the furthest thing from ambiguous. It’s too literal and doesn’t have scope for interpretation.

 

[vaughany]

Does anyone have footage of a Kardinia Park game from way back in 1988?

Apparently Wayne Henwood from Sydney shook the post when Robert Scott from Geelong had a shot after the siren.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Sammymoite]

If his goal was to simply shake the post he would of stayed on the ground and push/pulled it or rammed it with his shoulder. He was clearly trying to get extra height to touch the ball through, which is why he jumped up and stayed still in that spot.

The rule is ambiguous and the umpire interpreted it in a fair way, you're wrong, move on.

^^ what Fraktured said above. Had a mare here my friend.

 

[Mister B]

It's a ****ing outrage. Should have been a free kick. Can't believe Essendon have been robbed of the win and the start of their run towards their inevitable premiership. The only thing I could think of that would be worse would be if an umpire called play on twice and then paid dropping the ball against a player who didn't hear it, and then later in the game blew his whistle three times for a free kick only to watch the opposition boot the ball away and said it wasn't 50 because he probably didn't hear. Thank **** that didn't happen and result in two goals to the team whose supporters are now whinging like a 2 year old who had their toy taken.

 

[dergert]

Great.... This will dominate headlines on AFL programs this week. Whateley will be insufferable.

 

[Sammymoite]

It's a ******* outrage. Should have been a free kick. Can't believe Essendon have been robbed of the win and the start of their run towards their inevitable premiership. The only thing I could think of that would be worse would be if an umpire called play on twice and then paid dropping the ball against a player who didn't hear it, and then later in the game blew his whistle three times for a free kick only to watch the opposition boot the ball away and said it wasn't 50 because he probably didn't hear. Thank **** that didn't happen and result in two goals to the team whose supporters are now whinging like a 2 year old who had their toy taken.

Weird flex but ok

 

[coldlunch]

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

 

[Arkangel]

I would argue that the act of climbing was done with intent and the shaking of the post wasn't a secondary effect at all as it was part of the act of climbing.

And most people would probably agree with you. Legally though, one would have to establish that Rampe's intended goal was to shake the post (rather than, e.g., to spoil a ball that was being kicked toward goal)---it wouldn't be sufficient to simply establish that he was aware that the post would shake as a result of his climbing it. So, I think the question becomes, "are the umpires supposed to use a legal or a lay definition of intentionality?"

 

[coldlunch]

And most people would probably agree with you. Legally though, one would have to establish that Rampe's intended goal was to shake the post (rather than, e.g., to spoil a ball that was being kicked toward goal)---it wouldn't be sufficient to simply establish that he was aware that the post would shake as a result of his climbing it. So, I think the question becomes, "are the umpires supposed to use a legal or a lay definition of intentionality?"

if the legal definition applied, there would never be any deliberate out of bounds calls

 

[Filthy Sanchez]

I’ve spoken to an AFL field umpire (like a year back) who has told me that philosophically the AFL umpires don’t want to intervene in the game and have technical rules impose on the match.

That’s why after the siren goes you’ll have an umpire reminding players you can’t run off your line etc.

In this case is it fair to say the umpire “educated” Rampe in the moment and didn’t want the game decided that way?

Are fans philosophically okay with the umpires’ logic, or is it time we took a letter-of-the-law approach and stopped having umpires “coach” players?

 

[Twist_of_Lemon]

Dane Rampe did not have sexual relations with that goal post.

 

[Arkangel]

if the legal definition applied, there would never be any deliberate out of bounds calls

Isn't the rule now "insufficient intent to keep it in" or something, rather than actually requiring the player deliberately put the ball out of bounds?

 

[RUNVS]

Dane Rampe did not have sexual relations with that goal post.

Yes he did, and that goal post liked it.

 

[coldlunch]

Isn't the rule now "insufficient intent to keep it in" or something, rather than actually requiring the player deliberately put the ball out of bounds?

yep, but you're still judging intent

 

[Substance]

I feel like the longer this thread goes on, the more embarrassing it will be for essendon fans.

 

[Lsta062]

It was the correct decision not to pay a free kick. A free kick should be paid if he was deliberately shaking the post. Dane Rampe had no intention of shaking the post, his intention was to get higher in order to possible spoil a kick nearing that post at the goal line.

Essendon tears are delicious though.

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.

Something that is considered intentional would be an intentional action that leads to the shaking of the goalposts. Rampe intentionally climbed the goalpost, which then shook it. The shaking of the posts occurred through a deliberate action in an attempt to affect the player who was kicking for goal in my opinion.

Something that would be unintentional is if a player trips and then hits the goalpost on his way down, shaking the goalpost upon contact.

There is a clear distinction between these scenarios and the rule does state that a free kick is awarded at the centre of the goal line if the shaking is done intentionally, which I believe was the case with Rampe.

 

[Arkangel]

yep, but you're still judging intent

Are you? I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that it may be more analogous to recklessness or negligence, which don't require intent.