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

[GetDimmaBack]

It’s a shame salty fans don’t give you wins , Essendon might have avoided being a joke for almost 2 decades

Unlike your saltiness over the 2016 GF.

Looks like you've had some success with that...

 

[threesixpio]

I don't know why he needs to clear a hurdle for recklessness though (even though I would suggest he does). It should be enough that he should have known it would shake the post. Thus the reasonable person test should apply.

Anyhow, fun chat

No probs.

 

[Final Siren]

So what seems to of been established by the AFL is if it happens again the umpire has to be telepathic

Unbelievable, isn't it? Here we have a live example of the AFL deliberately choosing the most ambiguous interpretation of a rule possible.

It makes the umps' jobs 10x harder than it needs to be in that situation, but allows the AFL to shovel the blame onto them for any contentious decision.

No wonder the umps are fed up.

 

[wba1977]

So as long as you don’t intentionally shake the post you can climb the post and touch the ball through for a point?

 

[tropicaltiger]

 

[Blueboys11]

Are Essendon still moaning over this...seriously

We continually bemoan when umpires over umpire the game, especially in incidents that have zero impact on play, yet here we are whinging still

 

[The Donners]

It was a missed free kick. There are many in game. But the Talia’s was a deliberate act of cheating by an aggrieved player and wasn’t investigated because no one would have liked the outcome (betting and finals series had progressed) Pushed under the rug. And no so-called ‘cheif football writer’ who’s an apologist for one club, to just go on and on and on about one missed free kick.

It wasn’t a missed free kick. The umpire saw the free kick and made the decision not to pay it, there is a distinction.

 

[The Donners]

Are Essendon still moaning over this...seriously

We continually bemoan when umpires over umpire the game, especially in incidents that have zero impact on play, yet here we are whinging still

a) we have nothing else to talk about as we’re as irrelevant as your mob.
b) very true but not where it comes to picking and choosing what they pay and what they don’t pay i.e. 100m penalty against Stringer and Smith and no 50m against Rampe for abusing an umpire.

 

[Blueboys11]

a) we have nothing else to talk about as we’re as irrelevant as your mob.
b) very true but not where it comes to picking and choosing what they pay and what they don’t pay i.e. 100m penalty against Stringer and Smith and no 50m against Rampe for abusing an umpire.

I feel your pain on the first point

 

[Skeparovic]

Yep. It's the easiest job in the AFL: key defender for the Sydney Swans. Any hack can apply. You can hold. You can scrag. You can tunnel. You can chop arms. You can shepherd for your teammates in marking contests. You can climb the goal posts. The umpires won't penalise you*. And it doesn't matter how ordinary you are, play your cards right and the AFL will make you an All Australian. (I forgot to mention Ted Richards before)

*before Clarko met Gill for coffee. Post the breakfast date Swans defence get pinged by umpires for everything.

 

[kaiserchief13]

If Rampe didn't do it deliberately, what was he trying to do then? Afl are a disgrace and are simply trying to defend the umpire. If the umpire paid it then they would say it was a correct free because he deliberately shaked the post

 

[Stax on the mill]

Are Essendon still moaning over this...seriously

We continually bemoan when umpires over umpire the game, especially in incidents that have zero impact on play, yet here we are whinging still

They're still bleating about Anzac Day, and that was 3 weeks ago. So you've got at least another 2 weeks of them whingeing about last Friday's match ( if you're lucky ).

 

[HirdsTheWord]

They're still bleating about Anzac Day, and that was 3 weeks ago. So you've got at least another 2 weeks of them whingeing about last Friday's match ( if you're lucky ).

speaking of games in which essendon were ****ed by umpires....

 

[threesixpio]

So as long as you don’t intentionally shake the post you can climb the post and touch the ball through for a point?

I reckon if someone did that I’d be pretty impressed

 

[Back One Out]

*before Clarko met Gill for coffee. Post the breakfast date Swans defence get pinged by umpires for everything.

...everything except for shaking the goal post, you mean...

The umpires were very generous in overlooking that infringement and preserving a Swans victory

 

[Skeparovic]

...everything except for shaking the goal post, you mean...

The umpires were very generous in overlooking that infringement and preserving a Swans victory

Agreed it was very fortunate for Swans fans that this particular infringement was overlooked as by the letter of the rules it should have been a free kick on the goal line for Bombers to secure an unlikely win.

Perhaps umpire must have believed Rampe was looking in his secret hiding spot for his post game SCG victory dart. Been a while since Swans won at home.

 

[Andronicus]

But the ump did know the rules, he didn't intentionally shake the post so no free.

“No umpire, I did not intentionally shake the post. I was just giving it a hard bump to intentionally intimidate my opponent. I did this repeatedly until you told me to stop. My intention was to intimidate him, not to shake the post. Any movement was an unintended consequence.”

 

[Andronicus]

$10,000 for that comment?? Gee that's rough.

It was $1000 for the comment........$10,000 for the goal post. Make no mistake, it was just delivered the other way around so the decision not to penalise the goal post shaking wouldn’t look quite so bad.

 

[Ari]

Yes, all we know is what we see in front of us. And what we see is someone climb a post. It is up to the umpire’s judgement as to whether he intended to shake the post by doing that, or do something else. The umpire judged that he wasn’t, or at least that there wasn’t sufficient evidence. That is a completely reasonable judgement.

So when I climb on the roof of your car to see further down the road if the bus is coming, you're fine that I say my intent was not to scratch s**t out of your paint with my work boots? We cool on that?

 

[Blood red]

So when I climb on the roof of your car to see further down the road if the bus is coming, you're fine that I say my intent was not to scratch **** out of your paint with my work boots? We cool on that?

Mate.
Im a Swans fan...
And agree with you 100%!
The AFL should have simply said that the umpires made the wrong call and left it at that.
Been a bit of a joke really!

 

[BarneyBent]

So when I climb on the roof of your car to see further down the road if the bus is coming, you're fine that I say my intent was not to scratch **** out of your paint with my work boots? We cool on that?

Yep. You’d still be liable for the damage, but you won’t be charged with destruction of property, just told you’re a bloody idiot.

The AFL rules don’t have an equivalent for being liable for the damage but not criminally responsible in the case of shaking the post. It’s a gap that has been revealed and should be filled. But in the absence of clarity, the umpire played it safe and didn’t pay the free at all.

 

[Ari]

No. What will happen is the AFL will send Rampe a letter asking him to explain. They will then call someone at Sydney and ask them to confirm that his intention was not to shake the goal post... right?

So basically, Rampe advises the AFL his intention was to scale the post like an idiot with a ridiculous ideal that he would jump from the post and touch the ball as it sailed through. He will then go on that at no time did he intent to shake the post. As such, the rule of 'intention of shaking the post' comes in to play as he has now states that was not his intention. From there everyone can put this behind them.

I guess this was my post from last Monday before Rampe said anything or the AFL or Essendon did. Who would have thought it would play out that way?

 

[Ari]

He won't. Because if he gets a fine then it proves that there should have been a free kick awarded for said indiscretion and there was not. The AFL would be too scared of Essendon using that fine to the player as precedent to commence legal action in having the game result overturned. Extremely low odds this would happen and Essendon go down that path, but it's not a risk the AFL would take. They may be incompetent, but they're not stupid.

Again, my post from last Monday.

Interesting that the AFL gave Rampe a fine and Essendon enquired about it. Will be good to see whether Essendon take it any further now.

Oh, and I guess they are stupid the AFL. Dancing on a line of 'intention' here could be challenging. But hey, it's probably all old news now anyway.