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

[JDavey]

Either do you.

Either take what Rampe's view that it wasn't his intention:

Or take the umpire's view, whose job it is decide it, and didn't pay the free kick.

Both views say it wasn't his intention. A free kick wasn't paid.

Or should free kicks be decided by people sitting at home watching on the TV?

I mean Jimmy Bartel, Stringer and Hooker all picked up on the free in real time. Most neutrals as well as pretty much all the AFL media also agree that the free should've been paid. The team that benefited, and the ass covering team at AFL house are the only people that think it wasn't a free.

And I can 110% that if this was to happen again next week it would be a free without warning.

 

[threesixpio]

I mean Jimmy Bartel, Stringer and Hooker all picked up on the free in real time. Most neutrals as well as pretty much all the AFL media also agree that the free should've been paid. The team that benefited, and the ass covering team at AFL house are the only people that think it wasn't a free.

And I can 110% that if this was to happen again next week it would be a free without warning.

Youse should get Hurley to give it a go

 

[JDavey]

Youse should get Hurley to give it a go

Stringer on the other side and they can race to the top for the lulz

 

[threesixpio]

Stringer on the other side and they can race to the top for the lulz

Australia’s Best Ninja

 

[Dunger]

The post was shaking. The rule says if the post is shaking, it's a free kick. The rule doesn't define the way a post could be shook.

The post was shaking as he was taking the kick and as the ball was in the air. The umps saw it, it should be a free kick.

Umps didn't pay it and it's a non-decision that impacted the result of the game. Essendon should have won by a point.

AFL and umps have made a meal of the issue since then too.

 

[Cold Sober]

Gotta laugh at Rampe apology, he was laughing out is arse.

 

[iameviljez]

Let’s be clear - under the current rules it was not a free kick. The rule states it must be the players intention to shake the post. Not that he shakes the post. Not that he makes an action that results in the post shaking. It must be his sole intention. In most people’s view, Rampe’s intention was to climb the post. Not shake it.

Yeah, that's how I read that rule as well - that the verb "to shake" implied holding it and pushing it from side to side, not a consequence of any other action.

Nobody has actually looked at any footage of the bloody post to see if it actually shakes.

100% that it *should* be a free kick for *climbing* the post, but it isn't, because there's no rule against that IIRC.

TL;DR: Rampe's action was against the spirit of the game, but there's no rule against it.

 

[StillAtLarge]

The highlight for me was the Essendon fan who rang up sen complaining that the (non) decision had killed his multibet

 

[BarneyBent]

The post was shaking. The rule says if the post is shaking, it's a free kick. The rule doesn't define the way a post could be shook.

The post was shaking as he was taking the kick and as the ball was in the air. The umps saw it, it should be a free kick.

Umps didn't pay it and it's a non-decision that impacted the result of the game. Essendon should have won by a point.

AFL and umps have made a meal of the issue since then too.

The rule says no such thing. The rules clearly state the player must intentionally shake the post.

The question here is whether “intent” is satisfied. In the umpire’s view, it was reasonable that Rampe was not intending to shake the post, it was incidental to his climbing the post. That is a reasonable interpretation. It would also be a reasonable interpretation that climbing the post can be reasonably expected to shake the post, to the extent that intent to climb the post also satisfies intent to shake the post.

It’s a grey area, an edge case that wasn’t envisioned in the writing of the rules. The umpire gave Rampe the benefit of the doubt.

All that said, there probably should be a rule against climbing the post, or a revision to the wording that includes deliberate actions that may reasonably be expected to shake the post. But as it stands that wording is not there.

 

[rumply]

Did he intend to climb the post? Yes. If it follows that the post shakes, which it clearly did prior & post the kick, then it's a free kick as Rampe's 'intention' caused the post to shake. 50m every day of the week, to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

Umpires know this, AFL knows this but as per usual they refuse to admit to mistakes & continue to treat the fan base as imbeciles. It's wearing thin...

 

[J_Moore]

1035 posts in 4 days

 

[WilloTree]

99.9999% would have kicked it

Clive Waterhouse is the .0001 ?

 

[Stopher]

1035 posts in 4 days

Did Rampe shake them all?

 

[boncer34]

Jesus Essendon fans are an insufferable bunch.

Interesting line to open a post full of insufferable dribble.

 

[BarneyBent]

Did he intend to climb the post? Yes. If it follows that the post shakes, which it clearly did prior & post the kick, then it's a free kick as Rampe's 'intention' caused the post to shake. 50m every day of the week, to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

Umpires know this, AFL knows this but as per usual they refuse to admit to mistakes & continue to treat the fan base as imbeciles. It's wearing thin...

That’s 100% not true. It only follows if you take the more generous interpretation of “intent”.

If I am speeding and kill someone, I’m not charged with murder, I’m charged with manslaughter and get a much lower sentence than if I deliberately ran someone down. I deliberately sped, but I did not deliberately kill. My intention to speed resulted in a death, but the death itself was not my intent.

Similar thing applies here, except there’s no “manslaughter” equivalent to shaking a post so the rules are grey and could be interpreted either way.

To suggest that it’s ludicrous to not pay the free kick is itself just bizarre. It’s clear as day the interpretation the umpires have taken, they look for players who shake the post, not climb it. You may disagree with it but it is 100% compatible with the rules as they are written.

The AFL should definitely release a statement saying that “the umpires will from now on adjudicate any intentional interference with the post that causes the post to shake, incidental or otherwise, as an intentional shaking of the post”, and then at season’s end amens the wording of the rules to refer to “intentional interference with the post that causes the post to shake”.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

The rule says no such thing. The rules clearly state the player must intentionally shake the post.

The question here is whether “intent” is satisfied. In the umpire’s view, it was reasonable that Rampe was not intending to shake the post, it was incidental to his climbing the post. That is a reasonable interpretation. It would also be a reasonable interpretation that climbing the post can be reasonably expected to shake the post, to the extent that intent to climb the post also satisfies intent to shake the post.

It’s a grey area, an edge case that wasn’t envisioned in the writing of the rules. The umpire gave Rampe the benefit of the doubt.

All that said, there probably should be a rule against climbing the post, or a revision to the wording that includes deliberate actions that may reasonably be expected to shake the post. But as it stands that wording is not there.

so what exactly was his intent of climbing a goal post?

was there a half eaten sausage roll on the padding he was trying to collect?

Or are you insinuating he was going to climb the post and then leap to the other post to touch the ball?

******* lol

 

[Ari]

Umpire just didn't have the balls to call it. Had no issue calling a 50 metre on Dev Smith when he got in the way of a bloke running for a 50 metre penalty. No issue with another guy climbing a freaking post while Dave Myers is trying to kick the game winning goal. And before you say it was a long shot, it actually landed in the middle of the goal square so it wasn't as unlikely as you think.

Oh, and Rampe climbing the post didn't change the result or effect anything right? So, if Dave Myers is running in and see's a bloke scaling the goal post.... you don't think it's a little possible that could put him off, maybe? Who knows.

All done, all dusted. Essendon beaten by the umpires on Anzac Day and now against Sydney. Could be sitting equal third, but instead probably season over. Ultimately though, their own fault. If you need to rely on the umpire doing the right thing then you're already dead. You need to destroy the 25 opponents out there on the day and nothing less is good enough.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

That’s 100% not true. It only follows if you take the more generous interpretation of “intent”.

If I am speeding and kill someone, I’m not charged with murder, I’m charged with manslaughter and get a much lower sentence than if I deliberately ran someone down. I deliberately sped, but I did not deliberately kill. My intention to speed resulted in a death, but the death itself was not my intent.

Similar thing applies here, except there’s no “manslaughter” equivalent to shaking a post so the rules are grey and could be interpreted either way.

To suggest that it’s ludicrous to not pay the free kick is itself just bizarre. It’s clear as day the interpretation the umpires have taken, they look for players who shake the post, not climb it. You may disagree with it but it is 100% compatible with the rules as they are written.

The AFL should definitely release a statement saying that “the umpires will from now on adjudicate any intentional interference with the post that causes the post to shake, incidental or otherwise, as an intentional shaking of the post”, and then at season’s end amens the wording of the rules to refer to “intentional interference with the post that causes the post to shake”.

no

you would argue your intent was not to cause murder but based on the facts presented i am sure a jury would convict you of murder.

Rampe jumped on a goal post which shook it. Id love for one of you blokes to actually explain why he did it? because rampe himself couldn't he simply said it was a brain fart. He also said he didnt know it was a free kick, which would suggest he did indeed try to shake the post on purpose.

If myers ball had hit the post rampe was shaking it sure as s**t would have been given a free.

This is a simple case of the umpire not having the balls to call it because it would change the result of the game. No other reason. Had it been in the 1st quarter youd be sure as s**t certain it would be a free kick.

 

[Ari]

Hi Ari. Long time mate.

You have answered everything there. As the rule stands there are 2 options for the umpire. a. Believe what he saw and that Rampe was climbing the post to get a height advantage etc, or b, believe what he saw and that Rampe was climbing the post to shake it. As the rule stands, one is a free kick and one isn't.

This is one of the issues in using legalese in defining rules of sport. It is asking the umpire to determine someones intention in the spur of the moment. If the wording was "A free kick will be awarded against an opposition player that causes a goal post to shake unless .......(this is where they list the things that are allowed like in genuine marking contest, spoiling, contact is incidental etc etc or a catch all phrase like "football act.").

If the wording was plain and not ambiguous then the ump could have blown his whistle, moved Myers to the goal square, Myers kicks the goal, Essendon wins, Sydneys number 1 pick is closer to reality and one of my draftstars teams has an extra 6 points.

Hey Cap Kelly! Long time indeed.

And sure enough to what I said yesterday, Rampe has come out on a Twitter video and said that at no time was his intention to shake the post. So the AFL can close this one up nicely and all is safe and well.

That said, just remember from now on no one is allowed to scale the post again ever. But if they do, it's not really a free kick.

 

[Ari]

I’m surprised Bombers fans are being so litigious about this





Not really

Bombers are used to court rooms.

 

[rumply]

That’s 100% not true. It only follows if you take the more generous interpretation of “intent”.

If I am speeding and kill someone, I’m not charged with murder, I’m charged with manslaughter and get a much lower sentence than if I deliberately ran someone down. I deliberately sped, but I did not deliberately kill. My intention to speed resulted in a death, but the death itself was not my intent.

Similar thing applies here, except there’s no “manslaughter” equivalent to shaking a post so the rules are grey and could be interpreted either way.

To suggest that it’s ludicrous to not pay the free kick is itself just bizarre. It’s clear as day the interpretation the umpires have taken, they look for players who shake the post, not climb it. You may disagree with it but it is 100% compatible with the rules as they are written.

The AFL should definitely release a statement saying that “the umpires will from now on adjudicate any intentional interference with the post that causes the post to shake, incidental or otherwise, as an intentional shaking of the post”, and then at season’s end amens the wording of the rules to refer to “intentional interference with the post that causes the post to shake”.

You are simply wrong - he climbed a ******* post & the post shook as it always will if you climb it, there is no one without the other here. If you speed you won't always kill so the comparison is ridiculous. His intent was to climb & in doing so the post will ALWAYS shake. Free kick 100% of the time & a financial penalty for being a moron wouldn't go astray either.

 

[threesixpio]

Bombers are used to court rooms.

No s**t

 

[Ari]

Let's face it, if we were 7 points ahead at that stage, and the same thing happened, it'd be an interesting and amusing talking point. But since it could change a game result, people are suddenly rules-lawyers and declaring the end of the game as we know it.

People just need to let it go. It didn't affect the game.

ABSOLUTE bollocks! Essendon have now had 2 games out of 3 potentially effected by poor umpiring.

Nice that you think all is ok and we just move on. You got the 4 points right? And a newly found King Kong in the Sydney fraternity.

If it was a 7 point margin you are right, it would be talked of for sure and analysed but would be nowhere near as big an issue. That because it would not have effected the outcome of the game. Well, it was points and the fact is that an umpire did not have the balls to make a hard call in front of a Sydney crowd which would effect the outcome of the game.

That is the only fact. And if that is not correct, then why the hell was Rampe found in trouble by the AFL?

 

[Ari]

The AFL are a joke. The response should simply have been the logical “It was the wrong call, it should’ve been a free kick and report for shaking the post. We haven’t educated umpires or players well enough on this rule and we will be this week to ensure everybody knows it.”

The end.

But they just. can’t. do it.

Wr..... wr..... wr..... wrong.

They can't do it for numerous reasons. One being that people would have lost money on that result. One bloke lost a hefty multi-bet on it. Do those people then sue the AFL?

 

[Ari]

Myers couldn't kick the distance. If he had, you'd have won.

Crying about a missed "70m" free kick after the siren because your team wasn't good enough to win the game any other way is a bit pathetic.

Myers kick landed in the middle of the goal square. It wasn't as far off as you think.

Oh, and if Myers comes out now and says he saw Rampe and thought 'wtf is he doing' and it put him off on his run up and he changed from a barrel to a drop punt because of it. Then?