Review R17: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly vs. Melbourne Demons

[CrowBloke]

As has been pointed out repeatedly, holding onto the goal post does not result in a free kick.

For a free kick to be paid the player has to be intentionally shaking, climbing or otherwise interfering with the goal post. None of this applies to McVee. He was just jumping to get to the ball, and the goal post got in his way.

Mate, he jumped up and held onto the goal post.
Did you not see the replays or the still-frame I posted?
It wasn't a case of him running into the goal post or "... got in his way".

With respect, let's agree to disagree? There's been pages on this and we're not going to change our minds.

 

[Vader]

Mate, he jumped up and held onto the goal post.
Did you not see the replays or the still-frame I posted?
It wasn't a case of him running into the goal post or "... got in his way".

With respect, let's agree to disagree? There's been pages on this and we're not going to change our minds.

The best you can argue is that he was climbing the goal post, which he clearly wasn't. It simply wasn't possible for him to be climbing it, given the time between the ball coming off Keays' boot and crossing the line. Intentionally climbing the goal post is basically only possible when attempting to defend a set shot.

Just holding onto the goal post is not enough to create a free kick. The rule has been repeatedly quoted:

Unless Law 18.12.3 applies, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player or Official who intentionally shakes, climbs or otherwise interferes with a goal or behind post (either before or after a Player has disposed of the football).

There is nothing in the rule which mentions hanging onto or touching the goal post. There is nothing to disagree with here - it's in black & white, written down in Laws of Australian Football 2025, which you can download from the AFL website.

If McVee had managed to touch the ball before it crossed the back of the goal line, then it would have been a behind.

 

[Vader]

CrowBloke which part of Law 18.12.1 do you think McVee broke?

Was he intentionally shaking the goal post?
Was he intentionally climbing the goal post?
Was he intentionally interfering with the goal post?

Note that holding onto the goal post and touching the goal post are not offenses which result in a free kick.

 

[GreyCrow]

There is nothing in the rule which mentions hanging onto or touching the goal post.

Unless Law 18.12.3 applies, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player or Official who intentionally shakes, climbs or otherwise interferes with a goal or behind post (either before or after a Player has disposed of the football).

There is nothing to disagree with here - it's in black & white,

Yes it is and he intentionally used the post to assist his momentum

It states interfering - it doesnt state - hanging on

You choose to interpret one way and CB interprets the meaning of interference in its clearest sense

But you do you

 

[Pea Nut]

CrowBloke which part of Law 18.12.1 do you think McVee broke?

Was he intentionally shaking the goal post?
Was he intentionally climbing the goal post?
Was he intentionally interfering with the goal post?

Note that holding onto the goal post and touching the goal post are not offenses which result in a free kick.

He uses the post to get the leverage to get anywhere near touching it. If the post wasn’t there, he wouldn’t have got anywhere near touching the footy as it would have been out of reach if he had run and jumped at the ball.

 

[Coopers]

He uses the post to get the leverage to get anywhere near touching it. If the post wasn’t there, he wouldn’t have got anywhere near touching the footy as it would have been out of reach if he had run and jumped at the ball.

The point of the rule isn't to stop that, it's to stop stuff that isn't in the spirit fo the game - douchebaggery like interfering/shaking the post, and or doing wierdo shit like launching yourself up into the air.

There's no way anyone's going to analyze what he did and make it a free kick. Because if you did that then you go down some weirdo rabbit hole where any interaction with the post could conceivably be considered advantageous and you end up with players not being able to touch it at all.

 

[FR0GGY]

The point of the rule isn't to stop that, it's to stop stuff that isn't in the spirit fo the game - douchebaggery like interfering/shaking the post, and or doing wierdo shit like launching yourself up into the air.

There's no way anyone's going to analyze what he did and make it a free kick. Because if you did that then you go down some weirdo rabbit hole where any interaction with the post could conceivably be considered advantageous and you end up with players not being able to touch it at all.

Why would they try and do that you reckon?
To help touch the ball, same as Mcvee

 

[Vader]

He uses the post to get the leverage to get anywhere near touching it. If the post wasn’t there, he wouldn’t have got anywhere near touching the footy as it would have been out of reach if he had run and jumped at the ball.

I'd argue the exact opposite. Without the post in the way he gets to the ball easily.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

But did the dog touch the post...