Missed free kick after siren: changes result of tonight’s game

Remove this Banner Ad

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Thebisc

Senior List
Jun 13, 2015
212
286
AFL Club
Essendon
we were sh*t and deserved to lose...but for anyone who says this is a weird rule and shouldn’t be paid I’d argue that a bloke who gets a 50m pen then barrages into another bloke and gets a further 50m pen, well that is also a weird rule and shouldn’t be paid...good rules we have😂
 

Bunk Moreland

Hall of Famer
Sep 22, 2011
33,074
66,032
Your girlfriend's dreams
AFL Club
Essendon
15.9 FREE KICKS – SHAKING GOAL POST OR BEHIND POST

15.9.1 Awarding Free Kick

Unless Law 15.9.3 applies, 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):

15.9.2 Taking Free Kick

The following shall apply to a Free Kick awarded under Law 15.9.1:

(a) if a Free Kick is awarded against a Player or Official of the
defending Team and a Goal is not scored, the Player from the attacking Team who was about to or who has Kicked for Goal, shall take the Free Kick at the centre of the Goal Line;

https://aflvic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/AFL-Laws-of-the-Game-2018.pdf
 

nylexbandit

Club Legend
Mar 17, 2009
2,328
1,531
AFL Club
Essendon
Lol that would’ve been disgusting if they paid that and it decided the game (bad rule). Then again they got a goal from that ridiculous double 50 rule so maybe it would’ve been a form of justice
 

Rabman

Club Legend
Nov 22, 2016
1,924
2,462
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
North Adelaide, Arsenal, Inter.
The umpire noticed it ran 20 meters just to tell him to get down.
 

Pklz

Club Legend
Jun 29, 2004
1,633
1,809
Victoria
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Carlton
It was the correct decision not to pay a free kick. A free kick should be paid if he was deliberately shaking the post. Dane Rampe had no intention of shaking the post, his intention was to get higher in order to possible spoil a kick nearing that post at the goal line.

Essendon tears are delicious though.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bunk Moreland

Hall of Famer
Sep 22, 2011
33,074
66,032
Your girlfriend's dreams
AFL Club
Essendon
we were **** and deserved to lose...but for anyone who says this is a weird rule and shouldn’t be paid I’d argue that a bloke who gets a 50m pen then barrages into another bloke and gets a further 50m pen, well that is also a weird rule and shouldn’t be paid...good rules we have😂
Who cares about deserving to lose? That’s just a subjective measure. I’m happy to take a win we don’t deserve.
 

Freoforever86

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 30, 2013
7,529
8,430
AFL Club
Fremantle
It was the correct decision not to pay a free kick. A free kick should be paid if he was deliberately shaking the post. Dane Rampe had no intention of shaking the post, his intention was to get higher in order to possible spoil a kick nearing that post at the goal line.

Essendon tears are delicious though.
Your reasoning there is ridiculously flawed. Didn’t intend to shake it but he did
 

Jobe Watson

Brownlow Medalist
Jun 12, 2009
14,622
19,787
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
Whether the rule is dumb or not, the fact is that it is a rule. You can't shake the goal post before a player takes their kick. Rampe clearly shakes the goal post. Free kick from the top of the square. Essendon win.

When Jake ****ing Stringer has a better handle on the rules than the umpires, we have a problem.
 

Coaster2012

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 10, 2012
7,093
8,509
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Manchester City, Lakers
It was the correct decision not to pay a free kick. A free kick should be paid if he was deliberately shaking the post. Dane Rampe had no intention of shaking the post, his intention was to get higher in order to possible spoil a kick nearing that post at the goal line.

Essendon tears are delicious though.
Huh? Seriously? His intention was just to climb like a monkey up the goal post? Did you watch the footage? In what world is his pushing up movement not going to shake the post?
 

Substance

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 6, 2012
7,900
12,034
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Lol at the posters saying it shouldn't be paid. Its the freaking rule. Should have been a free for the bombers in front of goal for a certain goal.
The rule involves intentions. If the umpire determines that Rampe was only trying to climb the post, not intentionally shake it, then they cannot award a free kick.
 

Top Bottom