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

[its free real estate]

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.

So if someone tackles someone and it slips high it shouldn’t be a free?

Don’t see you winning 2016 if that was the interpretation. Toby McLean for one wouldn’t get a single free.

 

[Orange Agent]

Anyway, don't think it was a free to Essendon. He was trying to climb the post, not shake it and did so incidentally. The same way players knocks the post, which happens a couple of times a games. Do we start paying a free kick on the goal line every time that happens? Common sense prevails with this one.

I'm sorry, are suggesting climbing the goal post is just a part of the game?

 

[Substance]

So if someone tackles someone and it slips high it shouldn’t be a free?

Don’t see you winning 2016 if that was the interpretation. Toby McLean for one wouldn’t get a single free.

You seem to be emotionally invested in this, I'm not sure why. I don't actually care anymore

 

[its free real estate]

You seem to be emotionally invested in this, I'm not sure why. I don't actually care anymore

I’m don’t care much other than Sydney getting away with cheating again.

I don’t think umpires pay enough frees full stop. Basically the only free they pay with any regularity are those that have a modern basis: contact below the knees and high tackles.

Every other rule is effectively dead.

 

[Mercy Seat]

I'm sorry, are suggesting climbing the goal post is just a part of the game?

There's no rule about climbing is there?

It's obviously not in the spirit, so getting called down is the right call.

 

[carnthedons]

The right decision was made imo. As I said it would be an outrage if Essendon won the game due to that when they didn't really have a chance of getting the shot anyway.

If it was during the game then it would probably be a different situation and perhaps be called a free.

That’s the thing though, you’re suggesting the interpretation should be based on the point in the game and other factors rather than the pure action. How can we possibly get something resembling consistency if you apply that sort of logic.

 

[blue harvest]

What Gil says is irrelevant.

The rules don’t say that a free kick shall be awarded if Gil approved.

Do you know what Gil said?

"I'll wait and see what the umpiring department and footy department says, but for me it seemed pretty practical umpiring," McLachlan told SEN on Saturday.

 

[Back One Out]

LOL!

The relevant rule is: if Hawfies or any powerhouse Tasmanian or Victorian team are discontent they should convene a coffee meeting with the CEO of the AFL. Must be coach or high ranking ex CEO or the like. They must supply both the brown paper bag the box of tissues to soak up all sooky lah lahs and then the AFL will decide if there is sufficient discharge of tears and howling whines , in said tissues the umpires ought be instructed to make special interpretation.
It's called the Clarko/ Rampe &Grundy interpretation... look it up! Its in the rules and you know it!

Yep. It's the easiest job in the AFL: key defender for the Sydney Swans. Any hack can apply. You can hold. You can scrag. You can tunnel. You can chop arms. You can shepherd for your teammates in marking contests. You can climb the goal posts. The umpires won't penalise you. And it doesn't matter how ordinary you are, play your cards right and the AFL will make you an All Australian. (I forgot to mention Ted Richards before)

 

[Back One Out]

8. that no alcohol, glass, cans, firearms, weapons, fireworks or other items deemed or considered dangerous may be brought into the Venue;

The ump would probably say "Hey! Cut that out, Rampe! I don't wanna hear any more firecrackers" and then Gillon would probably praise the umpire for using common sense

 

[Orange Agent]

There's no rule about climbing is there?

It's obviously not in the spirit, so getting called down is the right call.

Common sense to me is I don't wanna see this, so if that means it's a free kick then so be it.

 

[Orange Agent]

There's no rule about climbing is there?

It's obviously not in the spirit, so getting called down is the right call.

Common sense to me is I don't wanna see this, so if that means it's a free kick then so be it.

 

[Back One Out]

There's no rule about climbing is there?

It's obviously not in the spirit, so getting called down is the right call.

You forgot the part where he visibly shook the goal post

 

[damochandler]

You forgot the part where he visibly shook the goal post

When he first jumped onto the goalpost

 

[Mercy Seat]

You forgot the part where he visibly shook the goal post

Intentionally is different to incidentally. His intent was for something else (launching himself to the ball) and incidentally shook the post. It's a massive difference. The rule clearly states "intentionally".

 

[Back One Out]

When he first jumped onto the goalpost

Yeah, he jumped up into the post and started climbing

And the post was shaking.

Nobody else within 10 metres. Just Rampe and the shaking goal post.

I can't believe this even being debated.

It's right up there with Barry Hall's so-called "in the play" whack in Matt Maguire's guts in the 2005 Prelim when the ball was 100m away. Hall winded him with a punch behind play and snuck away to kick a goal. Umpires missed that one too. Another famous missed free kick. The MRP was onto it and gave Big Bad Bazza 1 week. Open and shut case. Until the tribunal agreed with Sydney that 100m off the ball was the same as "in play", therefore a reprimand/fine was sufficient. The football world shook their heads and laughed at the "Bloods culture"

 

[Back One Out]

Intentionally is different to incidentally. His intent was for something else (launching himself to the ball) and incidentally shook the post. It's a massive difference. The rule clearly states "intentionally".

How do you know this?

You're just guessing. You don't know what he was trying to do.

All we can do is judge the player by his actions. i.e. That he intentionally jumped up into the post and shook it.

 

[Mercy Seat]

How do you know this?

You're just guessing. You don't know what he was trying to do.

All we can do is judge the player by his actions. i.e. That he intentionally jumped up into the post and shook it.

C'mon man.

 

[threesixpio]

‘Ken robbed

 

[Back One Out]

C'mon man.

Yep... This is the same defence which Dan Hannebery used on multiple occasions to escape suspension after recklessly bumping opponents in the head when they had their head down over the ball.

He fronted the tribunal and said "C'mon man" and the tribunal agreed and said "Case dismisssed!"

 

[blue harvest]

The very same year the "ducking is a players prior opportunity" rule came in, a central umpire could be heard over the microphone late in a very tight Prelim final telling players who were remonstrating for a holding the ball free kick after the player tried to duck through a tackle that "ducking is not prior opportunity!". It was amazing to hear.

So yeah, there's a fair chance the umpires don't know the rule.

I remember this and it was actually the fans that got it wrong, the umps did know the rule. The rule change was leading/driving with the head counts as prior but fans got it mixed up with the ducking rule which was just that you don't get a free for high contact if you duck. Fans/Bigfooty still get this wrong.

 

[Mercy Seat]

Yep... This is the same defence which Dan Hannebery used on multiple occasions to escape suspension after recklessly bumping opponents in the head when they had their head down over the ball.

He fronted the tribunal and said "C'mon man" and the tribunal agreed and said "Case dismisssed!"

I can’t believe you’re even debating this man. Clear as day, and I’m glad common sense prevailed.

 

[onebillsdrive]

Intentionally is different to incidentally. His intent was for something else (launching himself to the ball) and incidentally shook the post. It's a massive difference. The rule clearly states "intentionally".

Seen a lot of ridiculous posts on BF but this is number one.

 

[roacheee]

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.

he didn't climb the post by accident did he
the intentional action of climbing the post caused it to shake
qed...he shook the post

 

[Halftimehero]

I found it rather ironic that the phrase “common sense” has been used to describe this incident by the chief of the AFL, a grown man climbing a goal post in a football match seems a long way from “common sense” if you ask me.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Common sense umpiring which ignores the rules, is not umpiring.

Gil is heading into Andy D territory.