George
Premium Platinum
St Kilda - Marcus Windhager Player Sponsor 2023
St Kilda - Marcus Windhager Player Sponsor 2022
St Kilda - James Frawley Player Sponsor 2021
Saints Pledge Contributor
St Kilda - Doulton Langlands Player Sponsor 2020
St Kilda - Nathan Freeman Player Sponsor 2018
St Kilda - Robbie Young Player Sponsor 2019
Reimagine Moorabbin
- Aug 17, 2015
- 45,306
- 127,287
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Phi Eagles & Phillies, Liverpool, PAO FC
I agree with you - what I am saying is that if what you say is true and the AFL agrees with you (which they basically said as much on Saturday after the game) then they shouldn't have the rule to begin with. Or fix the ruling to include paying the free only for impactful infractions. But I reckon if he had made the distance the free still wouldn't have been paid although it should've.Interpretation on non-issues is applied throughout the AFL, though.
For example, (and correct me if I’m wrong), but the official rule still states that a period hasn’t officially finished until the umpire has signalled as much; the siren is purely an indicator to the umpire to make the call.
However, all players stop playing on the siren, and do not wait for this umpire’s call. There was even one of our games this year (perhaps against Hawthorn?) when the opposition player kicked the ball through for a goal right after the siren, but before the umpire officially signalled the end of the period. By the rulebook, that goal should’ve stood, but we all know that the ‘spirit’ of that rule is to empower the umpires such that some form of technical fault won’t prematurely end a quarter, or end one too late (inb4 sirengate fiasco).
Rules are in place for specific reasons. The reason for banning shaking the goalpost is to prevent affecting a score, and this incident did not even remotely threaten to affect a score.
I fully agree with your sentiment of “a rule’s a rule” for impactful infractions, but this was not one of them.
Beyond football, there are dozens of laws worldwide, our country included, that are archaic but still enforceable. Hell, there are even ones not that archaic, like swearing in public, which are not always enforced; imagine if every police officer stopped to fine everyone that swore. The intention is to prevent belligerent and genuinely disruptive behaviour - not to pull up everyone that says a “no no” word, and they enforce it as such.
I just get frustrated that the AFL likes to pick and choose what is right and wrong despite having a rulebook there to refer back to. It's not only what happened here, but other touchy calls like holding the ball, rushed behinds and deliberate out of bounds. The rules are there and some of them don't make much (common) sense, so naturally the umpires don't pay some of them because of that, and then the AFL backs the decision despite their own law book saying the opposite.
As per the interpretation of the current goal post rule a free should've been paid - which I agree is laughable - but then it just shows how backwards some of the laws of the game are and they should be addressed.