- Banned
- #876
So if the afl send rampe a letter saying "why did you break the rules of the game", does that mean Essendon can send the afl a letter saying "why did you cost us the game by not applying the rules you are now admitting were broken"
Missed free kick after siren: changes result of tonight’s game
- Thread starter Bunk Moreland
- Start date
- Tagged users None
ItsGameTime
Cancelled
- Jan 29, 2013
- 4,520
- 2,659
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Ridiculous.
1. Rampe tells umpire he talks like a girl. Disgusting comment.
2. Rampe climbs goal post. Should have been a free kick which would have resulted in a 50 metre penalty and a certain goal.
1. Rampe tells umpire he talks like a girl. Disgusting comment.
2. Rampe climbs goal post. Should have been a free kick which would have resulted in a 50 metre penalty and a certain goal.
The Falcon Strike
Hall of Famer
It was a clear free kick that was overlooked by the umpire
IMO - that is cut and dried
But it isn't fair to say that one decision was the sole arbiter of victory and loss.. There are many contentious calls in every game that go in part to the result.
Admittedly - one after the siren has no butterfly effect aftewards.
IMO - that is cut and dried
But it isn't fair to say that one decision was the sole arbiter of victory and loss.. There are many contentious calls in every game that go in part to the result.
Admittedly - one after the siren has no butterfly effect aftewards.
You're all over the shop now.
The AFL did have an issue with it, that's why the ump told him to get down and the AFL issued a please explain. The ump probably had several issues
- it could be dangerous
- it's a bit unfair to try and climb up and touch the ball
- it could block the goal line cameras
- it might cause the post to shake even though it wasn't the intention
- it could be considered cheating
People are getting mixed up with what Gil said. That was just Gil's personal opinion that it was a practical decision, it wasn't the official all clear we don't have an issue. He said it's for the umpiring/footy department to decide.
Last edited:
They admit errors, they did in our game against Bulldogs. Betting is based on the official outcome, so if the AFL says this is the result then that's how the bet is paid, people accept this when they place the bet.
The umpires are right whatever the decision. If they paid a free they would be right as the post shook. They didn't pay one and they're right because the vibe was right. I wouldn't say Myers choked. He had to kick the ball 65 to 70 metres to score a goal. A difficult feat for anyone.
Bigdaz68
Rookie
Ha ha nice try. High tackles and pushes in the back do not have the word intentional in the rule. The problem with the rule is it specifically states that you must intentionally shake the post and the umpire correctly interpreted that he was trying to climb the post to get higher up not intentionally shaking it.
this is correct
Fair enough to say we would have won had they called it.
But we didn't lose the game because of the umps. we were poor. Sydney ran harder all night and we didn't have the presence of mind to withstand any of it.
Loss is on us, not the umps.
Though it leaves a poor taste in the mouth when it's cleared as umpiring in the spirit of the game.
WTF does that even mean? And what other laws do we get to break in the spirit of the game?
just admit it was wrong not to call it.
Have they recently put some in up at the SCG? Because the week before, there was none used in one of the goal line reviews.
- Mar 2, 2015
- 19,065
- 34,280
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
What a idiotic take.
Whether or not the ball hits the post is irrelevant. The rule states that players must not shake the post. Full stop.
- It's still a fifty metre penalty if a player steps forward over the mark. It doesn't matter whether or not he touches the ball which has just been kicked, or even if the ball hasn't been kicked.
- It's still a free kick if a 5th player steps inside the centre square just prior to the bounce. It doesn't matter if he quickly realises his mistake and steps back outside the square and doesn't impact the play.
- Free kicks for 19 men on the field were also awarded the moment a player stepped onto the field. It didn't matter whether or not he touched the ball or an opposition player.
But it doesn't state that, this is the whole premise of the argument. It states that you must not intentionally shake the post.
The Falcon Strike
Hall of Famer
The AFL have a massive fear over this - I actually think it engenders respect - not take away from it
Part of being a professional is accountability to mistakes.
Just say the ump got it wrong and move on.
That still shot in the OP appears to be from a post camera.
Exactly.
As a supporter you can throw your hands up and move on. But rubs a bit of salt in the wound saying it wasn't in the spirit of the contest so the umps did the right thing.
i.e. the CEO thinks Sydney deserved to win, therefore ump did right. (not a dig at the Swans btw)
chalk it up to another case of Gil being a terrible CEO
gavaniacono
Cancelled
Clearly a free kick. Another to the many the umps missed.
Gil commenting on it and talking about pragmatics as a reason to ignore the rule is the most disturbing part of it. He needs to leave our sport.
Gil commenting on it and talking about pragmatics as a reason to ignore the rule is the most disturbing part of it. He needs to leave our sport.
Sausages
HIGH PRIEST IN THE TEMPLE OF GG/SNSD
- Feb 27, 2007
- 6,397
- 9,189
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Luton Town
It was reported in this article that the Umpires Boss, Hayden Kennedy, had given it the all clear.
As I said elsewhere itt, it's purely an interpretation issue - if that is so, then you question the need to issue a please explain. There's plenty of interpretations which impact a game, or player safety and which receive no such follow-up.
I think the AFL dropped the ball when they publicly ticked off on it and they keep muddying the issue with a please explain.
Ump got it right. We need more pragmatic umps. Its what we all wanted in the past. Umpires with feel for the game.
What did essendon do to deserve a win?
that wasn't really my point.
At a stretch - Ess player had the ball in hand when an infringement, specifically called out in the rules of the game, occurred. And rather than the rule in question being applied and the correct infringement applied, the umpires chose to ignore it, warn the player and allow the game to flow.
If the rules are applied, Myers kicks a goal and they win. Thus deserve it.
Personally i think we deserved the loss and should have lost by more with how we played.
And the umps can miss things, or not call them, and admit a mistake.
My point is, you can't have the CEO saying the rules only apply to the letter of the law when the feel of the game allows for it. If it feels unfair to award penalties, then the umps shouldn't award them.
Agree.
And take Hocking with him.
Actually, you’re all over the shop. You’re making assumptions. When did the AFL or the umpires come out and state any of the points you mentioned? How do you know that’s the reason why the umpire told him to get off?
You’re trying to project your own thought process into the situation when available knowledge states otherwise.
You’re basically telling me not to pay attention to the interpretation of AFL officials and pay attention to your baseless assumptions.
You were saying the AFL had no issue with it whilst listing examples of them showing they had an issue with it - that's the point I was making.
No. What will happen is the AFL will send Rampe a letter asking him to explain. They will then call someone at Sydney and ask them to confirm that his intention was not to shake the goal post... right?
So basically, Rampe advises the AFL his intention was to scale the post like an idiot with a ridiculous ideal that he would jump from the post and touch the ball as it sailed through. He will then go on that at no time did he intent to shake the post. As such, the rule of 'intention of shaking the post' comes in to play as he has now states that was not his intention. From there everyone can put this behind them.
Yeah nah, players do a lot of things dangerous to themselves on the ground and should be considered keeper of themselves.
Unfair and unknown. When is the last time a bloke scaled a post like that? Ever?
Nice angle, and yep I can see it!
There it is!!
And another one right there.
The umpire should not be worrying about the player shaking the post. Or asking the play to stop climbing the post in case it shakes. The rule states that if the umpire deems the player intentionally shakes the post, which you would probably say scaling the post gives intent, then it should be a free kick.
Rules like stepping back a metre from the mark are different. There's no line on the ground. It's an umpire discretion type argument.
Next will we have umpires yelling out to Ablett, mid-tackle, to come at the bloke a little lower so he doesn't give away a free kick? No, we won't. The umpire just watches on and gives a free if it's a high tackle.
But those examples are baseless. Where did you get them from?
Again, it's just assumptions and excuses. If the player shakes the post, you don't warn them. It's a free kick.
Similar threads
