Discussion 2019 General AFL Discussion

[triggering bro]

Climbing the goal post causes it to shake. It doesn't take a genius to know that.
Rampe intentionally chose to do something which causes the post to shake, which is against the rules of the game.
Free kick should have been paid.

That’s not how legislation & rules are interpreted. Your argument would be picked apart & thrown out.

How do you know what is going through Rampe’s head to determine he was climbing the goal post with the “intention” to cause it to shake. You don’t so that argument is moot.

I agree he “intentionally” climbed the post. That’s not the argument. The rule doesn’t state anything about climbing a goal post & as earlier said you cannot determine what is going through Rampe’s head. I think we all know his intention was to try & spoil the ball at a higher point.

 

[triggering bro]

Technically the umpire has correct interpretation in many instances due to their opinion changing the actual law so the argument would be had either way, it's applied correctly in this place since as you stated, intention is to climb and shaking is an obvious byproduct of.

But it further highlights that the rules are rather **** and nonsensical in application when it comes to direct score involvements. There is seemingly an effort to dismissively highlight and lessen that in application, game results would be flipped after the fact in review.

Agree. Easy fix is to put in “not to climb the goal post” or include the conduct of negligent. What he did was negligent & caused the goal post to shake. Simple.

 

[gringo2011]

The strategy was sound, but they backed our recruiters, and or recruiters were rubbish.
The other thing was , that in hindsight , the drafts in those years were rubbish.

2014. Not sure why picking Paddy was a debacle, at the time it was pretty much expected that if he didn't go number 1 , it would be 2 or3.
Go back and look at the threads if you don't believe me, and the only other choice apparently was Petracca.
McKenzie was the pick right after Goddard. ( Goddard was considered a slider at the time, we were all very happy to get him ).
Sinclair has done OK for a Rookie.

I went back over them a while back, plenty of love for 2MP as well. Brian Speaking was all over De Goey. Consensus was Petracca then when it looked like taking Paddy he started getting a few over to him based on the logic of getting a tall forward.

 

[gringo2011]

I’m just going to leave this here for those who think Essendon should’ve received a free kick on the goal line:

Under AFL rule 17.11, a free kick shall be awarded against a player or official who intentionally shakes a goal or behind post (either before or after a player has disposed of the football).

The only time I can remember it being paid was in the 90s at Waverley with Stewie Leowe. I think it was controversial then.

 

[StFly]

Agree. Easy fix is to put in “not to climb the goal post” or include the conduct of negligent. What he did was negligent & caused the goal post to shake. Simple.

Just changing the wording to include manipulation, as you can still technically form a human shield in the square if you really wanted to, and if you "brace" with the goal posts to build it you have an effective human net. Cheerlead stack the AFL after the siren kick.

Since the AFL love their catch all interpretative clauses, you then addendum to goal posts, behind posts and physical interaction of (climb, kick, punch, headbutt, change inertia from static to imparting momentum).

 

[triggering bro]

The only time I can remember it being paid was in the 90s at Waverley with Stewie Leowe. I think it was controversial then.

Dustin Fletcher intentionally shook the goal post in about 2000 & a free was paid. He also copped a fine. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Rampe cop some obscure fine as well.

 

[triggering bro]

Just changing the wording to include manipulation, as you can still technically form a human shield in the square if you really wanted to, and if you "brace" with the goal posts to build it you have an effective human net. Cheerlead stack the AFL after the siren kick.

Since the AFL love their catch all interpretative clauses, you then addendum to goal posts, behind posts and physical interaction of (climb, kick, punch, headbutt, change inertia from static to imparting momentum).

I’m surprised that cheer leader stack hasn’t been tried. That’s fantastic.

 

[StFly]

I’m surprised that cheer leader stack hasn’t been tried. That’s fantastic.

I know right? I'm thinking guy 60m out, Marshall in the square, instead of being blocked trying to run and jump, get 17 other blokes, build a tent, launch Lonie at the ball and have the rest catch him. Pack forms either way.

Would be hilarious.

 

[BrutThough]

That’s not how legislation & rules are interpreted. Your argument would be picked apart & thrown out.

How do you know what is going through Rampe’s head to determine he was climbing the goal post with the “intention” to cause it to shake. You don’t so that argument is moot.

No argument that he “intentionally” climbed the post. That’s not the argument. The rule doesn’t state anything about climbing a goal post & as earlier said you can not determine what is going through Rampe’s head. I think we all know his intention was to try & spoil the ball at a higher point.

You also need to take into account all the foreseen consequences of an action are to some extent intentional.
He knew when he forcibly propelled his body onto the post that it was going to shake. He intentionally did an action which was going to cause the post to shake so you cant claim it was an unforeseen consequence of his action.

 

[gringo2011]

I’m surprised that cheer leader stack hasn’t been tried. That’s fantastic.

I have wondered why they don't do that rugby lift to sit a player up higher before as well. I assume there is no rule to say you can't lift a player up to get a hand to the ball.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I went back over them a while back, plenty of love for 2MP as well. Brian Speaking was all over De Goey. Consensus was Petracca then when it looked like taking Paddy he started getting a few over to him based on the logic of getting a tall forward.

I was on the 2MP , couldn't work out why Paddy was such a better choice , without the versatility of ruck height .

 

[ThomasR]

I have wondered why they don't do that rugby lift to sit a player up higher before as well. I assume there is no rule to say you can't lift a player up to get a hand to the ball.

There is actually:

17.12 OTHER A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who:
(f) intentionally lifts a Player from the same Team to contest the football;

 

[gringo2011]

I was on the 2MP , couldn't work out why Paddy was such a better choice , without the versatility of ruck height .

He didn't seem to have the height or even the impact of some of the really good forwards. Even Boyd had actually dominated TAC as a forward. I was on Petracca because I thought he would develop into a mid forward.

 

[NarklesHelmet]

I went back over them a while back, plenty of love for 2MP as well. Brian Speaking was all over De Goey. Consensus was Petracca then when it looked like taking Paddy he started getting a few over to him based on the logic of getting a tall forward.

I agree with this.

We see too much on this forum “we can’t blame our recruiters because player A,B,C was a consensus pick.”

To me that’s the equivalent of when you were a teenager wanting to go out and saying that friend A, B and C were allowed to go somewhere dodgy and your Mum would say “if A,B and C jumped off a cliff would you?”

Our recruiters were/are professionals. It’s their JOB to see beyond “consensus” picks and get the real best player. I always think the real worth of recruiters can be is judged on how they use top picks because the whole board is open.

It’s frustrating our recruiters never had the foresight and courage to pull the trigger on a De Goey, Bont etc.... that’s what makes truly great recruiters and we sure as hell didn’t have them to implement the (admittedly questionable) Pelican strategy.

 

[Enclosed_Animal]

I agree with this.

We see too much on this forum “we can’t blame our recruiters because player A,B,C was a consensus pick.”

To me that’s the equivalent of when you were a teenager wanting to go out and saying that friend A, B and C were allowed to go somewhere dodgy and your Mum would say “if A,B and C jumped off a cliff would you?”

Our recruiters were/are professionals. It’s their JOB to see beyond “consensus” picks and get the real best player. I always think the real worth of recruiters can be is judged on how they use top picks because the whole board is open.

It’s frustrating our recruiters never had the foresight and courage to pull the trigger on a De Goey, Bont etc.... that’s what makes truly great recruiters and we sure as hell didn’t have hem to inplement the (admittedly questionable) Pelican strategy.

Agree and disagree. Given our situation 2011-2015 we had a lot less room to gamble than some other clubs. Its also easier to take a 'bolter' like Oliver, Bont, or a high risk / high reward pick like De Goey, when you are picking 4-10 - rather than 1-3. Look at what we did with King this year. If we were picking 1 or 2 I seriously doubt we take King.

Also on DeGoey specifically, as much as I like the idea of him I am glad we avoided him. Clubs like Collingwood are much much much better at keeping things under wraps than we are. Like it or not, following the Lyon years a players behaviour and reputation off field is something we absolutely had to consider. With our limited resources and lack of strong leaders, players like DeGoey could have been a massive disaster for us off field

 

[StFly]

Blues v Pies actually a decent game.

Too bad a nuke still seems a better alternative considering jumpers and likeability.

 

[BrutThough]

Collingwood playing this bad is concerning. I don't really want them fired up on the rebound next week.

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

Collingwood playing this bad is concerning. I don't really want them fired up on the rebound next week.

The Blues are having a good old crack.

 

[Pardon me]

Collingwood playing this bad is concerning. I don't really want them fired up on the rebound next week.

Exactly my thoughts BT. Although Carlton playing well and keeping the pies silk quiet

 

[austinnn]

Draw! Draw! Draw! Draw!

 

[boncer34]

Lube up for next week. Umpires will be going in deep.

 

[mightymalaka]

Absolute disgrace these cheating thieves! The Blues totally robbed today as the AFL continue their sickening love affair with the filth!

Not to mention last night's farcical decision not to punish Rampe for his completely illegal brainfade!
Cannot remember a season where these wannabe parking officers have decided more results than this one!

 

[gringo2011]

Agree and disagree. Given our situation 2011-2015 we had a lot less room to gamble than some other clubs. Its also easier to take a 'bolter' like Oliver, Bont, or a high risk / high reward pick like De Goey, when you are picking 4-10 - rather than 1-3. Look at what we did with King this year. If we were picking 1 or 2 I seriously doubt we take King.

Also on DeGoey specifically, as much as I like the idea of him I am glad we avoided him. Clubs like Collingwood are much much much better at keeping things under wraps than we are. Like it or not, following the Lyon years a players behaviour and reputation off field is something we absolutely had to consider. With our limited resources and lack of strong leaders, players like DeGoey could have been a massive disaster for us off field

Or would Rooey have kept him straight, Collingwood players like Swan were very loose units, not what you want impressionable kids near.

 

[austinnn]

Ouch Suns, not again.

 

[VDS66]

Without scrolling back a few pages, which opposition player are we melting about this week because didn't draft him?