Robbo and the goal post

plugger66

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Posts
14,902
Likes
22,330
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Ormond AFC
#26
The rules say it's a free kick. Therefore a free kick should have been paid. The AFL have dug a massive hole for themselves.
He jumped on the post to try and touch the ball. If he wanted to deliberately wobble it he didn’t need to jump on the post. All i know if or was paid it would have ten times bigger than not paying it. Nearly everyone would have said the umpire should have showed common sense.not sure there is massive hole. No one will care apart Essendon supporters next week. People get over things very quickly.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

austinnn

Veteran GOP
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Posts
4,546
Likes
13,067
Location
France
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Liverpool FC, Bristol City FC
#27
Normally I don't worry about stuff like this but I'll admit it got under my skin this week.

I'm all for Rampe bring creative with distractions but messing with the goal post in any way is not on and should have been punished during the game - however I don't know if there's enough precedent to award a 50m pen.

Swans very lucky there, and Essendon get to feel like victims which must be a novelty for them.

I'm more annoyed about GAJ and Fyfe being unjustifiably cleared of dangerous play, unjustifiable except that they are AFL Icons, that is. Should have both copped weeks and the fact they didn't makes the administration look like a shambolic cowboy outfit. Inexcusable.
 

Pakenhamsaint

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 5, 2011
Posts
29,118
Likes
16,933
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Melb. Stars
#28
He jumped on the post to try and touch the ball. If he wanted to deliberately wobble it he didn’t need to jump on the post. All i know if or was paid it would have ten times bigger than not paying it. Nearly everyone would have said the umpire should have showed common sense.not sure there is massive hole. No one will care apart Essendon supporters next week. People get over things very quickly.
Jumping on the post is more than likely going to make it shake.
 

plugger66

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Posts
14,902
Likes
22,330
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Ormond AFC
#29
Normally I don't worry about stuff like this but I'll admit it got under my skin this week.

I'm all for Rampe bring creative with distractions but messing with the goal post in any way is not on and should have been punished during the game - however I don't know if there's enough precedent to award a 50m pen.

Swans very lucky there, and Essendon get to feel like victims which must be a novelty for them.

I'm more annoyed about GAJ and Fyfe being unjustifiably cleared of dangerous play, unjustifiable except that they are AFL Icons, that is. Should have both copped weeks and the fact they didn't makes the administration look like a shambolic cowboy outfit. Inexcusable.
Not enough force.
 

plugger66

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Posts
14,902
Likes
22,330
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Ormond AFC
#30
Jumping on the post is more than likely going to make it shake.
Yes but if he stupid enough to do it does that make smart enough to realise that. I have no doubt he did it to touch the ball not shake the post. Jumping on the post needs to be made a free kick.
 

Pakenhamsaint

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 5, 2011
Posts
29,118
Likes
16,933
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Melb. Stars
#32
Yes but if he stupid enough to do it does that make smart enough to realise that. I have no doubt he did it to touch the ball not shake the post. Jumping on the post needs to be made a free kick.
It more than likely will be put into the rule book now. You'd think not jumping on the post is common sense for it not to be legislated against.:think:
 

StFly

Space to Rent
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Posts
14,165
Likes
6,065
Location
Sunbury
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Sunbury Lions
#35
Complete and total rewrite of the rule book.

It has been shown time and time again that interpretation breeds confusion, not only with fans but with players, club staff and gameday services. That there is even talk of an "umpire bench" further highlights an inadequate nature of their ability to sustain ability during a game.

We also know they do not like opposition to convention, as evidenced by GT's time as coach, connotations of Whispers and fines handed out to negative questions on the department.

Words get bandied around about "common sense" in application, but there is none, the entire book is nonsensical garbage as it stands in the here and now and interpretation is the rule of law.

The rule specifically states intent to shake the posts, this itself is interpretative as one can intend to manipulate the post in ways that allow it shake, without having the intent to actually shake it.

In this situation for example, if Rampe never attempted to climb the post, it never would have been shaken.

His action, and his alone, caused the post to shake due to his intent to climb it, by proxy his intent was to allow the byproduct of his movements shaking the inanimate object due to the transferrance of momentum.

Yet we go from;

Preventiative action (get down)
WTF? (majority of people)
It's fine (Gil- immediate response, AFL Comission)
It's kinda sorta OK (AFL Comission)
Nothing to see here (MRP)
Tell us WTF Rampe (AFL Comission)
Rampe fined (AFL Comission)

It's the blind leading the blind, if they dunno what's going on and change tunes how in the bluest of hells is everyone else supposed to follow along or correctly apply things?

Based on an average 2.5hr effort a day by those applying the rules?

Remove interpretation, remove dancing, remove custodians of all that is good and just in tighty whities.

If a ball is kicked, if the ball travels untouched # metres, and is caught on the full. It is a mark.

Not

"if in the eyes of a peep not in a jumper the ball travels #meters and is assumed to be kicked, and caught, then it is a mark"

Because guess what? Rulebook actually does not say the distance traveled has to be horizontal.

14.1 DEFINITION
A Mark is taken if, in the opinion of the field Umpire, a Player catches
or takes control of the football:
(a) within the Playing Surface;
(b) after it has been Kicked by another Player a distance of at least
15 metres
; and
(c) which has not touched the ground or been touched by another
Player during the period from when the football was Kicked
until it was caught or controlled by the Player
.

Every, single umpire who has called "play on" to a skyball that has traveled 15m or more skywards; is wrong in application.

But right, because in the rulebook, as above, their opinion governs a mark and overrides everything.

The ball is within the playing surface.
The ball travels 15m.
The ball has not been touched, by another player or ground.
The ball is controlled by a player.

If say
I were umpiring in this example, all criteria fits within a 3D confines of a sphere, mark.
If AFL umpires were umpiring, all criteria fits within a 3D confines of a sphere, play on.

In both applications as it stands, both of us, within the letter of the law, is correct.

******** my opinion, ******** their opinion;


14.1 DEFINITION
A Mark is taken if, a Player catches
or takes control of the football:
(a) within the Playing Surface;
(b) after it has been Kicked by another Player a distance of at least
15 metres
; and
(c) which has not touched the ground or been touched by another
Player during the period from when the football was Kicked
until it was caught or controlled by the Player
.

Hey presto, now the AFL umpires are wrong and you have a clear and concise ruling.

Remove the goddamn confusion of guessing opinions, as opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one and most of the times everyone's seen quite a few of them.
 

gringo2011

Premium Gold
Joined
Nov 12, 2011
Posts
22,633
Likes
47,824
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
#36
It's in the rules so it's a free kick. The umpires aren't interested in common sense when they pay 100m penalties.

Then Gil comes out and says it's correct because he is too scared or any repercussions if he admitted to a mistake.

In my opinion, the umpire got it wrong and didn't follow the rules of the game due to the fact the game was over and he didn't want his decision to determine the game.

I didn't watch it but it sounds like the ball wasn't disrupted by it. It wasn't going through for a goal. I remember in the case of Stewie Leowe doing it, someone kicked at goal and he pushed the post so that it swayed and moved the point side to cheat. The rule is there so players don't do that IMO. Not if someone does a dick head act and climbs on a post like rat up a drainpipe that has no bearing on the ball going through for a behind instead of a goal.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Feb 6, 2003
Posts
14,408
Likes
8,788
Location
Brisbane Qld
AFL Club
St Kilda
Thread starter Moderator #37
I wonder how the people whose opinion is "The rules say it's a free kick, therefore a free kick should have been paid." would feel about St Kilda receiving 3 free kicks in the first half against WCE.

To be honest - I don't want every transgression punished by a free kick. I want free kicks paid to protect the players, I want cheating punished (like throwing the ball or shepherding out opponents in a marking contest) and I want the facets of good play rewarded (like a great tackle), and I want the umpiring to enhance the flow of the match. Paying every possible free would ruin the flow of the match and allow flooding further ruining the spectacle.

So my take on the Rampe goal post incident - it didn't affect the opposition either negatively or positively - the ball simply never made the distance.

I reckon what the umpire has done (warn Rampe and have the AFL deal with any fallout later) was the right thing.

Essendon didn't deserve the victory based on the Rampe action - because that action didn't harm a player nor did it ruin the flow of the match.

That said - there a lot of rules "laws of the game" that seem to be optional for umpires and this is part of the problem (that and interpretation of intent).
 

Diehard Saint

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 17, 2016
Posts
6,589
Likes
20,239
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
#38
Whilst we are at it can they publish a list of players that are allowed as much time as they want to dispose of the ball when tackled? Perhaps put them in a different colour jumper so we know they have special privileges. Perhaps blue and white hoops for starters.
Good work afl, keep it up!
Or to put it in another way, if it had been Gary Ablett shaking the goalpost, the goalpost would have been sanctioned.

Much like Carlisle’s head bumping Fyfe’s knee. ( yep, I have a long memory)

And just by the way, how was Ablett’s “miracle goal” better than Savage or JB’s for goal of the week?
 

George

Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2015
Posts
13,577
Likes
43,345
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Philadelphia Eagles Liverpool
Moderator #39
He jumped on the post to try and touch the ball. If he wanted to deliberately wobble it he didn’t need to jump on the post. All i know if or was paid it would have ten times bigger than not paying it. Nearly everyone would have said the umpire should have showed common sense.not sure there is massive hole. No one will care apart Essendon supporters next week. People get over things very quickly.
So did he think that by jumping on the post it wouldn't wobble?

Come on...it doesn't matter how he did it, he did it.
 

Quixote

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Posts
6,430
Likes
9,751
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
#40
For those who missed it, Mark Robinson (AFL 360) made a very big deal of the Dane Rampe goal post incident. After the final siren, David Myers had a kick for goal from outside 50. His kick fell short and the match ended. Curiously Dane Rampe tried to climb the goal post as a distraction to the kicker. An umpire came and told him to get off the goal post and he did.

Robinson was firm that the AFL “failed the game” by not awarding a free kick to the Bombers, which would have very likely seen Myers receive a 50 m penalty, kick the goal and thus win the game. Robinson was livid that it didn't happen - but the whole goal post incident had no bearing on the kick that fell short by 10 m or so and was off line for a goal - his kick was never going to score - yet he wanted a goal from it?

On AFL 360 on Monday night, Robinson and Gerard Whateley debated the AFL’s handling of the incident, with Whateley not against a free kick, but concerned that the furore would have been “ten-fold” if it had been paid.

What do you think?
I think Slobbo is a brain-fried one-eyed plonker.
 

plugger66

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Posts
14,902
Likes
22,330
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Ormond AFC
#41
So did he think that by jumping on the post it wouldn't wobble?

Come on...it doesn't matter how he did it, he did it.
Anyone silly enough to jump on the post isn’t thinking what the result of that will be. It says deliberately move the post. I doubt he was even worried about it moving. He was for some strange reason thinking he could touch it. Still say there is ten times the reaction if it was paid than showing common sense and telling him to get off.
 

plugger66

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Posts
14,902
Likes
22,330
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Ormond AFC
#42
Or to put it in another way, if it had been Gary Ablett shaking the goalpost, the goalpost would have been sanctioned.

Much like Carlisle’s head bumping Fyfe’s knee. ( yep, I have a long memory)

And just by the way, how was Ablett’s “miracle goal” better than Savage or JB’s for goal of the week?
Isn’t that done by the public. If so blame our supporters not the result.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2015
Posts
13,577
Likes
43,345
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Philadelphia Eagles Liverpool
Moderator #43
Anyone silly enough to jump on the post isn’t thinking what the result of that will be. It says deliberately move the post. I doubt he was even worried about it moving. He was for some strange reason thinking he could touch it. Still say there is ten times the reaction if it was paid than showing common sense and telling him to get off.
Are you just taking a contrary view for the sake of it? I don't know anybody who thinks that jumping on a goal post will not cause it to move.

Umpire showing common sense and telling him to get off isn't in the rule book. Can't have it both ways. Either pay the free as per the rule or don't have the rule at all.
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2003
Posts
14,408
Likes
8,788
Location
Brisbane Qld
AFL Club
St Kilda
Thread starter Moderator #45
Did they check him for drugs? Rampe was NQR.
He also told the umpire that "you talk like a little girl" when he failed to hear the umpire who had called play on and allowed Rampe to be tackled unexpectedly, earlier in the match.

Rampe slapped with fines for umpire comments, scaling goalpost
Riley Beveridge
May 14, 2019 3:06PM
SYDNEY co-captain Dane Rampe has been fined for his controversial comments towards umpire Jacob Mollison during Friday night's narrow win over Essendon.

Rampe has been fined $10,000 by the AFL after telling Mollison he "talks like a little girl", having conceded a holding the ball free kick during the second quarter.

The AFL confirmed that $5000 of that fine will be suspended for the entirety of his career.

Rampe has also been hit with a fully suspended $1000 fine from the League for scaling the goalpost while Essendon's David Myers took a kick for goal after the siren to win the game.

The kick fell short, with Sydney holding on for a five-point win.

No free kick was paid by umpire Andre Gianfagna, despite seeing Rampe climb the post.

Rampe publicly apologised for the two incidents on Monday afternoon, having earlier been issued with a 'please explain' letter by the AFL


Seems like a prime candidate for a "random" drug test given his erratic behaviour this day.
 

mightymalaka

What we have here is a failure to communicate!
Joined
May 7, 2018
Posts
4,620
Likes
14,121
Location
Road to Nowhere
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Manchester United
#46
He also told the umpire that "you talk like a little girl" when he failed to hear the umpire who had called play on and allowed Rampe to be tackled unexpectedly, earlier in the match.

Rampe slapped with fines for umpire comments, scaling goalpost
Riley Beveridge
May 14, 2019 3:06PM
SYDNEY co-captain Dane Rampe has been fined for his controversial comments towards umpire Jacob Mollison during Friday night's narrow win over Essendon.

Rampe has been fined $10,000 by the AFL after telling Mollison he "talks like a little girl", having conceded a holding the ball free kick during the second quarter.

The AFL confirmed that $5000 of that fine will be suspended for the entirety of his career.

Rampe has also been hit with a fully suspended $1000 fine from the League for scaling the goalpost while Essendon's David Myers took a kick for goal after the siren to win the game.

The kick fell short, with Sydney holding on for a five-point win.

No free kick was paid by umpire Andre Gianfagna, despite seeing Rampe climb the post.

Rampe publicly apologised for the two incidents on Monday afternoon, having earlier been issued with a 'please explain' letter by the AFL

Seems like a prime candidate for a "random" drug test given his erratic behaviour this day.
The 5 grand for his little girl comment is excessive but very much of the times!
They conduct themselves very much like a political party these days do the AFL! ( Lacking leadership, populist and reactionary )

The post climbing though was bizarre to say the least, and his lucky the umps in this case wisely chose common sense!
Seeing they rarely choose that option and prefer to conduct themselves like little Nanny State wowsers that have a desperate need to be noticed!
Much like most rigid rule loving do gooders!
 

plugger66

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Posts
14,902
Likes
22,330
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Ormond AFC
#48
Are you just taking a contrary view for the sake of it? I don't know anybody who thinks that jumping on a goal post will not cause it to move.

Umpire showing common sense and telling him to get off isn't in the rule book. Can't have it both ways. Either pay the free as per the rule or don't have the rule at all.
Just out of interest do you know anyone who ha jumped on a post during a game. I’m saying if you are that stupid you don’t think about it wobbling.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2015
Posts
13,577
Likes
43,345
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Philadelphia Eagles Liverpool
Moderator #49
Just out of interest do you know anyone who ha jumped on a post during a game. I’m saying if you are that stupid you don’t think about it wobbling.
That's your own fault then...the rule is that you cannot move the post before or during a kick for goal...it doesn't matter how you do it...if you think climbing a goal post wont make the post shake then you probably need to learn a bit about physics. Not you specifically, just saying people in general. And if you aren't thinking about it, it doesn't matter. Post moves, free kick.

You're effectively saying he shouldn't be penalised for being stupid. I'm saying it is AFL rule. And if the umpires used common sense and deemed it fair, then what is the rule there for. You can't have a rule and not enforce it. Either have the rule and enforce it or don't have the rule at all.

My issue is moreso the amount of uncertainty within the AFL rulebook than the actual action itself. Yes I'm glad the umpire used some common sense, but the AFL have a rule in place and the umpire didn't adhere to it. I would prefer they remove the rule altogether, along with a bunch of other rules that have a hundred different interpretations.

I would've loved to see the free kick paid, and the AFL come out and try and justify it. It just shows the huge inconsistencies in the game. Because what's happened now is that the umpire didn't pay a free kick when it was there, and the AFL backed the decision - so the AFL has gone against one of its own rules. Amusing to say the least!
 

Strahany

Premiership Player
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Posts
4,291
Likes
5,417
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
#50
That's your own fault then...the rule is that you cannot move the post before or during a kick for goal...it doesn't matter how you do it...if you think climbing a goal post wont make the post shake then you probably need to learn a bit about physics. Not you specifically, just saying people in general. And if you aren't thinking about it, it doesn't matter. Post moves, free kick.

You're effectively saying he shouldn't be penalised for being stupid. I'm saying it is AFL rule. And if the umpires used common sense and deemed it fair, then what is the rule there for. You can't have a rule and not enforce it. Either have the rule and enforce it or don't have the rule at all.

My issue is moreso the amount of uncertainty within the AFL rulebook than the actual action itself. Yes I'm glad the umpire used some common sense, but the AFL have a rule in place and the umpire didn't adhere to it. I would prefer they remove the rule altogether, along with a bunch of other rules that have a hundred different interpretations.

I would've loved to see the free kick paid, and the AFL come out and try and justify it. It just shows the huge inconsistencies in the game. Because what's happened now is that the umpire didn't pay a free kick when it was there, and the AFL backed the decision - so the AFL has gone against one of its own rules. Amusing to say the least!
Interpretation on non-issues is applied throughout the AFL, though.

For example, (and correct me if I’m wrong), but the official rule still states that a period hasn’t officially finished until the umpire has signalled as much; the siren is purely an indicator to the umpire to make the call.

However, all players stop playing on the siren, and do not wait for this umpire’s call. There was even one of our games this year (perhaps against Hawthorn?) when the opposition player kicked the ball through for a goal right after the siren, but before the umpire officially signalled the end of the period. By the rulebook, that goal should’ve stood, but we all know that the ‘spirit’ of that rule is to empower the umpires such that some form of technical fault won’t prematurely end a quarter, or end one too late (inb4 sirengate fiasco).

Rules are in place for specific reasons. The reason for banning shaking the goalpost is to prevent affecting a score, and this incident did not even remotely threaten to affect a score.
I fully agree with your sentiment of “a rule’s a rule” for impactful infractions, but this was not one of them.

Beyond football, there are dozens of laws worldwide, our country included, that are archaic but still enforceable. Hell, there are even ones not that archaic, like swearing in public, which are not always enforced; imagine if every police officer stopped to fine everyone that swore. The intention is to prevent belligerent and genuinely disruptive behaviour - not to pull up everyone that says a “no no” word, and they enforce it as such.
 
Top Bottom