In today's times ,I'm sure the AFL would just tick this off without providing any clarity.
Last edited:
-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Rumour Climbin’ posts going forward
- Thread starter Bunk Moreland
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Jul 9, 2010
- 24,163
- 26,536
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
I find it so interesting how the AFL can make scape goats out of anyone... except the umpires.
It's a free. Easy. Admit your fault and let Essendon try and sue like they do all the time. But enforce it from now on.
The way they put their fingers in their ears and try and save face shows how petulant they are. Is there any greater example of arrested development than men in sport? They carry on like little kids, just not wanting to look silly.
It's a free. Easy. Admit your fault and let Essendon try and sue like they do all the time. But enforce it from now on.
The way they put their fingers in their ears and try and save face shows how petulant they are. Is there any greater example of arrested development than men in sport? They carry on like little kids, just not wanting to look silly.
CAN whinge
- Thread starter
- #54
They will never, ever admit a single thing where it can be easily argued the result of a match was directly changed either by officiating error or fixing (tanking).
It’s the gambling factor. They won’t risk results being contested by some slimy lawyer building fame and cash through launching a class action of punters against them.
They are in on the gambling thing. Majorly.
Directly - they earn millions every year through product fees from bookies. Plus BetEasy pay millions more to be “official wagering operator”.
And indirectly - their single biggest piece of revenue is TV. The TV stations pay for it with advertising money, which flows through to the AFL in broadcast rights. Bookies are among the biggest advertisers during sporting events.
Given they make the rules of the sport up as they go, it’s easier just to avoid any s**t with stuff like this - even if it is transparently bullshit.
Mercy Seat
Norm Smith Medallist
Not that surprising. They would have to change the rules for it to be a free kick and from what we know, the AFL don’t like changing rules mid season (as ridiculous as it is that there is no rule for climbing the post).
Proper Gander
Owl whisperer and secret agent
[QUOTE="JezzasOnTheAsphalt, post: 60889811, member: 189076]
Rules are there to be enforced and we are heading down a slippery slope when we start picking and choosing which ones are more important and which ones shouldn't be enforced because they don't matter contextually.[/QUOTE]]
No offence intended but I disagree with the first part of your statement. Rules are not created “to be enforced”. That is a philosophy of arbitrary and pointless control - essentially bureaucracy that doesn’t serve a purpose.
All rules are made essentially to remove or curb a mischief. Any that exist that don’t serve their intended purpose need to be reviewed and ultimately revoked.
Having said that, I agree with your second point which is while they are in place they need to be enforced as stated, not doing so damages integrity of enforcement of every other rule on every other occasion.
Essendon should have been awarded the free. Those were the laws in place when they walked on the field. Now it’s all chaos. Next time and every time I see an umpire award a free I will ask why he wasn’t prepared to assert this new right to discretion which suddenly exists.
Rules are there to be enforced and we are heading down a slippery slope when we start picking and choosing which ones are more important and which ones shouldn't be enforced because they don't matter contextually.[/QUOTE]]
No offence intended but I disagree with the first part of your statement. Rules are not created “to be enforced”. That is a philosophy of arbitrary and pointless control - essentially bureaucracy that doesn’t serve a purpose.
All rules are made essentially to remove or curb a mischief. Any that exist that don’t serve their intended purpose need to be reviewed and ultimately revoked.
Having said that, I agree with your second point which is while they are in place they need to be enforced as stated, not doing so damages integrity of enforcement of every other rule on every other occasion.
Essendon should have been awarded the free. Those were the laws in place when they walked on the field. Now it’s all chaos. Next time and every time I see an umpire award a free I will ask why he wasn’t prepared to assert this new right to discretion which suddenly exists.
Last edited:
Mercy Seat
Norm Smith Medallist
Yes there is a rule for this.
Arctic fox
It's only a game
Gillon has opened up a huge can of worms here.
Arctic fox
It's only a game
So what would have happened if Myers' kick was going through and was touched on the line by Rampe?
1. One point
2. Free kick
3. Nothing. Circus continues.
1. One point
2. Free kick
3. Nothing. Circus continues.
Mercy Seat
Norm Smith Medallist
There’s no rule against it mate, so obviously no free and a circus. Best thing the AFL could have done is to say that there should have been rule in place, there wasn’t and then quickly create one.
- Thread starter
- #61
Like many rules, there’s also the issue of interpretation.
Apparently the umpires largely agreed it was a free kick for interfering with the post. It should have been paid. Ie, the officiating umpire got it wrong.
They’ve now been specifically told to change that interpretation in order to not contradict Friday night. Which was an error.
I believe the umpire would then have deemed it serious enough to pay a free kick, probably for misconduct or some other similar catch all rule.
Assuming OP is accurate then I'm pretty sure they will still pay a free kick if they think the player is intentionally shaking the post, as per the current wording of the rule, it's not open season on post shaking.
'Apparently'?
How many umps were involved in the discussion you previously mentioned?
If they thought it should be a free was that in the general sense or strictly according to the rule? I think it should be a free, but the way the rule is written I think it's not necessarily a free at the moment, it's open to intetpretation, maybe that's what they thought? How do you know the context of their discussion? You say 'largely', that means it wasn't clear cut. Why is it an error if there are umps on both sides? If they choose to go with one interpretation until they change the rule then why is it an error?
You seem to be twisting it all to be an error because the Bombers are your team. I was going for them too on Friday but accepted the umpires call. Umpires have discretion on threshholds for free kicks. They see holding a hundred times a game but dont pay them all. The ump didn't think it crossed the threshold for intentional shaking or the catch all misconduct.
- Thread starter
- #65
Well I wasn’t there. It’s second hand information. Hence “apparently”. Hence it’s on the Rumours board. Hence I attached the “rumours” tag.
I don’t care about last week’s result. It won’t make a difference to our season.
Proper Gander
Owl whisperer and secret agent
In one respect this information sounds dubious - these types of issues are so few and far between. I can’t seriously believe that the AFL would issue a directive for this lightening strike stuff. Nobody is going to climb a pole this year - AFL have already shown that they will get a fine for it.
Umpires/referees are making absolute clangers in all sports, it's not just football. Just today, in ice hockey a player blatantly flicked the puck by hand to a team mate who scored. Everyone saw it, except the referees. It's what keeps me asking the question, what ARE these people looking at? They miss too many obvious free kicks, but then pick out something so obscure you're still not sure about it, even after it has been explained. Everyone knows you can't climb on the goal post, except Rampe and the 3 umpires apparently.
Anything that helps the Sharks, and prevents the Blues playing Gloria is fine by me.
Go Sharks!!!!
Topkent
Confirmed ITK Drafting King
So if Gunston has a kick 70m out after the siren you wouldn't care if someone stood 5m over the mark because it wouldn't effect the game?
Hird Is Scum
Team Captain
- Mar 7, 2015
- 557
- 1,577
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Dallas Cowboys
- Banned
- #69
Yeah it would be covered by this.
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;
But if the player is just standing there with no intention to lift, it's not a free if someone climbs them - according to some.
Hird Is Scum
Team Captain
- Mar 7, 2015
- 557
- 1,577
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Dallas Cowboys
- Banned
- #71
Well technically isn't that what happens anytime someone tries to take a speccie? A free kick isn't paid if someone is climbed on.
