Robbo and the goal post

Joined
Aug 17, 2015
Posts
13,577
Likes
43,345
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Philadelphia Eagles Liverpool
Moderator #51
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.
I agree with you - what I am saying is that if what you say is true and the AFL agrees with you (which they basically said as much on Saturday after the game) then they shouldn't have the rule to begin with. Or fix the ruling to include paying the free only for impactful infractions. But I reckon if he had made the distance the free still wouldn't have been paid although it should've.

I just get frustrated that the AFL likes to pick and choose what is right and wrong despite having a rulebook there to refer back to. It's not only what happened here, but other touchy calls like holding the ball, rushed behinds and deliberate out of bounds. The rules are there and some of them don't make much (common) sense, so naturally the umpires don't pay some of them because of that, and then the AFL backs the decision despite their own law book saying the opposite.

As per the interpretation of the current goal post rule a free should've been paid - which I agree is laughable - but then it just shows how backwards some of the laws of the game are and they should be addressed.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Baldur

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 23, 2010
Posts
17,371
Likes
11,246
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
St Kilda
#53
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.
And Robbo was being a fool about it on AFL360. Carrying on about people saying they agreed that Rampe needed to be fined but arguing that the fine was excessive. Somehow in the twisted little pea that Robbo calls a brain this position was hypocritical & worthy of him getting steamed up about it. I think he is actually incapable of understanding that complaining about excessive punishment is not excusing the crime.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2015
Posts
13,577
Likes
43,345
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Philadelphia Eagles Liverpool
Moderator #54
And Robbo was being a fool about it on AFL360. Carrying on about people saying they agreed that Rampe needed to be fined but arguing that the fine was excessive. Somehow in the twisted little pea that Robbo calls a brain this position was hypocritical & worthy of him getting steamed up about it. I think he is actually incapable of understanding that complaining about excessive punishment is not excusing the crime.
He was saying that Rampe should suck it up and accept the fine. He didn't argue FOR it being excessive.
 
Joined
Sep 5, 2010
Posts
1,075
Likes
3,240
Location
Japan
AFL Club
St Kilda
#56
Oh man, seeing Essendon still carrying on like pork chops about this....I didn't give a damn about it when it happened but the distraction it has caused the bombers has made the whole thing worthwhile.
Hopefully they lose this weekend's game as a direct result of all the carry-on. Wishful thinking, I know.
 

StFly

Space to Rent
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Posts
14,165
Likes
6,065
Location
Sunbury
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Sunbury Lions
#57
As per the interpretation of the current goal post rule a free should've been paid - which I agree is laughable - but then it just shows how backwards some of the laws of the game are and they should be addressed.
Precisely. Rules are amended in the off season, we are not in the off season however, and partway through the season in which the 2019 rules should be enforced where able to be enforced in the spirit of fair play.

We do not know if Rampes actions on the post affected Myers, as no one had bothered to ask.
Similarly we do not know if his response would be factual if asked.

We do know when an individual climbs a post, it wobbles.
We do know this is not allowed in the current season, in the current iteration of the rules.
We do know this rule is not a rule governed by opinion, it is emphatic: if the post is shaken intentionally -> free kick is paid.
We do know Rampe climbed intentionally.

It's open & closed, as Myers was having a shot on goal at the time. Free from the top of the square dead in front. What the kick did from that point is entirely irrelevant as it is governed under the scope of the illegal action.

If you pick and choose what rules you engage in a match, the matches are not played in a fair fashion because there is no communication what rules are valid for the seasonal matches. The inference is they all are.

Then apply the bloody things. I mean, if Jake Stringer can recognise it, why is it suddenly rocket science if it needs to be applied or not?
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2015
Posts
13,577
Likes
43,345
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Philadelphia Eagles Liverpool
Moderator #58
Precisely. Rules are amended in the off season, we are not in the off season however, and partway through the season in which the 2019 rules should be enforced where able to be enforced in the spirit of fair play.

We do not know if Rampes actions on the post affected Myers, as no one had bothered to ask.
Similarly we do not know if his response would be factual if asked.

We do know when an individual climbs a post, it wobbles.
We do know this is not allowed in the current season, in the current iteration of the rules.
We do know this rule is not a rule governed by opinion, it is emphatic: if the post is shaken intentionally -> free kick is paid.
We do know Rampe climbed intentionally.

It's open & closed, as Myers was having a shot on goal at the time. Free from the top of the square dead in front. What the kick did from that point is entirely irrelevant as it is governed under the scope of the illegal action.

If you pick and choose what rules you engage in a match, the matches are not played in a fair fashion because there is no communication what rules are valid for the seasonal matches. The inference is they all are.

Then apply the bloody things. I mean, if Jake Stringer can recognise it, why is it suddenly rocket science if it needs to be applied or not?
Bingo...can't have it both ways. There's no common sense law in the rule book. Free is there, pay it. If a free is there but it seems unjust, don't have the rule. Simple I reckon!
 

plugger66

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Posts
14,902
Likes
22,330
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Ormond AFC
#59
Bingo...can't have it both ways. There's no common sense law in the rule book. Free is there, pay it. If a free is there but it seems unjust, don't have the rule. Simple I reckon!
So you want no warning for the man on mark if he accidentally goes over? I’m an umpire in a much lower comp and if every decision was paid exactly by the book I guarantee you there would be 100 frees in game if not more. You need to have a feel of the game and the best rule isn’t in the rule book and that is common sense.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2015
Posts
13,577
Likes
43,345
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Philadelphia Eagles Liverpool
Moderator #60
So you want no warning for the man on mark if he accidentally goes over? I’m an umpire in a much lower comp and if every decision was paid exactly by the book I guarantee you there would be 100 frees in game if not more. You need to have a feel of the game and the best rule isn’t in the rule book and that is common sense.
Should've heard Nick Riewoldt during the week. If the free is there, you pay it. If you want to have warnings and common sense laws, put them in the rule book. It's very simple.
 

plugger66

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Posts
14,902
Likes
22,330
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Ormond AFC
#61
Should've heard Nick Riewoldt during the week. If the free is there, you pay it. If you want to have warnings and common sense laws, put them in the rule book. It's very simple.
I love nick but it is only his opinion. Others have said it was a sensible decision. My point stands. Do you want everyone who accidentally goes over the mark to get 50. Do you want every single technical free paid even if that means over 100 frees in a game? I certainly don’t. Common sense is a sensible way to umpire even if it is sometimes against the rule book. 35 years of doing it has made me have that opinion.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Aug 17, 2015
Posts
13,577
Likes
43,345
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Philadelphia Eagles Liverpool
Moderator #62
I love nick but it is only his opinion. Others have said it was a sensible decision. My point stands. Do you want everyone who accidentally goes over the mark to get 50. Do you want every single technical free paid even if that means over 100 frees in a game? I certainly don’t. Common sense is a sensible way to umpire even if it is sometimes against the rule book. 35 years of doing it has made me have that opinion.
Of course it is a sensible way to umpire but unfortunately that's not part of the rule. So either they change the ruling/scrap the ruling or pay it.
 

Strahany

Premiership Player
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Posts
4,291
Likes
5,417
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
#63
Of course it is a sensible way to umpire but unfortunately that's not part of the rule. So either they change the ruling/scrap the ruling or pay it.
Would you rather they apply sensible rulings that contradict the specific wordings in the rulebook, until given a chance to alter said rulebook, or have them govern it literally?
 

Diehard Saint

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 17, 2016
Posts
6,589
Likes
20,239
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
#64
I love nick but it is only his opinion. Others have said it was a sensible decision. My point stands. Do you want everyone who accidentally goes over the mark to get 50. Do you want every single technical free paid even if that means over 100 frees in a game? I certainly don’t. Common sense is a sensible way to umpire even if it is sometimes against the rule book. 35 years of doing it has made me have that opinion.
The problem with sensible decisions / common sense decisions is that it’s in the eye of the beholder ( or ump) and therefore just causes more grey areas than there already are. And what is sensible for one ump may not be for another.

Climbing on/ shaking a goal post is a lot clearer a decision...you can or you can’t. Accidentally going over the mark should be an area where one warning is allowed to be given.

Can you drop the ball when tackled or is it incorrect disposal? Was the ball kicked deliberately out of bounds or not? There’s too much guesswork.

Obviously I accept your view because I haven’t ever umpired a game, but something has to be done to prevent the frustration we see when two umps adjudicate similar incidents in different ways.

In reality, rules need to be simplified to in order to narrow the boundaries of interpretations.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2015
Posts
13,577
Likes
43,345
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Philadelphia Eagles Liverpool
Moderator #65
Would you rather they apply sensible rulings that contradict the specific wordings in the rulebook, until given a chance to alter said rulebook, or have them govern it literally?
Depends on which rule we are talking about. In this instance I would've liked it governed as per the rule book. It's clear cut. He either wobbled the goal post or he didn't, and by climbing it obviously it's going to move. Therefore I think a free should've been paid. However with decisions that aren't so clear cut, such as over stepping the mark, deliberate out of bounds, holding the ball, and rushed behinds - I would say it's probably best the umpires are allowed to give the player/team one warning before then penalising them the next time it happens.

On the topic of free kicks I also think push in the back is a contentious one, and should probably be made a lot clearer by the AFL. IMO it should only be CLEAR hands in the back to result in a free. And there should be free kicks given for staging/diving as well. Not only for in the back, but for head high contact.

The problem with sensible decisions / common sense decisions is that it’s in the eye of the beholder ( or ump) and therefore just causes more grey areas than there already are. And what is sensible for one ump may not be for another.

Climbing on/ shaking a goal post is a lot clearer a decision...you can or you can’t. Accidentally going over the mark should be an area where one warning is allowed to be given.

Can you drop the ball when tackled or is it incorrect disposal? Was the ball kicked deliberately out of bounds or not? There’s too much guesswork.

Obviously I accept your view because I haven’t ever umpired a game, but something has to be done to prevent the frustration we see when two umps adjudicate similar incidents in different ways.

In reality, rules need to be simplified to in order to narrow the boundaries of interpretations.
Exactly right. Once it becomes subjective then it'll get even messier. Rules need to be clearer. No if's or but's. Umpires should be full-time anyway, it's a disservice to the game that they are part timers.
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2003
Posts
14,408
Likes
8,788
Location
Brisbane Qld
AFL Club
St Kilda
Thread starter Moderator #66
Essendon spoke to AFL football operations manager Steve Hocking on Monday and Tuesday, but after Rampe was slapped with a suspended $1000 fine for the incident that saw no free kick paid, felt compelled to send a written communication to the AFL.

The AFL have apparently replied, but I could not find a record of that reply either on the AFL site or Essendon's official website (I had to wash afterwards) but I did hear Robbo and Gerard emotionally responding to the AFL's response. Apparently the AFL indicated that what was done was the correct response. Gerard Whateley took offence at this, claiming that the AFL are just treating us (fans/public) like fools nows. His opinion has changed based on this - he now believes that Robbo was right all along and that it should have been a free kick.

I can see where he is coming from. The AFL have let us down. The "laws of the game" were assumed to be hard and fast rules, not fuzzy things left to the interpretation of individual officials. That they are now lying to us has solidified Gerard's view. I still think that the intention of Rampe was one of distraction (like what you usually see when someone has a kick after the siren, we know they can't play on and run over the mark so the player on the mark will often run sideways or lean over, others might join in behind him etc.). I think Rampe might have been doing something like that, although there may have been the fleeting thought that if the ball made it that far he might be able to touch it (?).

I reiterate that the kick did not even make the distance. The Unintended wobbling of the goalpost was minimal and had no bearing on the outcome of the match except as a curiosity. That Essendon think they missed out on the points is just icing on the cake for me.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2015
Posts
13,577
Likes
43,345
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Philadelphia Eagles Liverpool
Moderator #67
Essendon spoke to AFL football operations manager Steve Hocking on Monday and Tuesday, but after Rampe was slapped with a suspended $1000 fine for the incident that saw no free kick paid, felt compelled to send a written communication to the AFL.

The AFL have apparently replied, but I could not find a record of that reply either on the AFL site or Essendon's official website (I had to wash afterwards) but I did hear Robbo and Gerard emotionally responding to the AFL's response. Apparently the AFL indicated that what was done was the correct response. Gerard Whateley took offence at this, claiming that the AFL are just treating us (fans/public) like fools nows. His opinion has changed based on this - he now believes that Robbo was right all along and that it should have been a free kick.

I can see where he is coming from. The AFL have let us down. The "laws of the game" were assumed to be hard and fast rules, not fuzzy things left to the interpretation of individual officials. That they are now lying to us has solidified Gerard's view. I still think that the intention of Rampe was one of distraction (like what you usually see when someone has a kick after the siren, we know they can't play on and run over the mark so the player on the mark will often run sideways or lean over, others might join in behind him etc.). I think Rampe might have been doing something like that, although there may have been the fleeting thought that if the ball made it that far he might be able to touch it (?).

I reiterate that the kick did not even make the distance. The Unintended wobbling of the goalpost was minimal and had no bearing on the outcome of the match except as a curiosity. That Essendon think they missed out on the points is just icing on the cake for me.
Agree with you on all of that except the last part. If memory serves me correctly, the rule states you can't move the post before, after, or during a kick for goal. Whether or not it has an impact on the game is irrelevant IMO.

But yes...the AFL like to pick and choose what is alright and what isn't. No wonder the umpires cop so much criticism.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2015
Posts
13,577
Likes
43,345
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Philadelphia Eagles Liverpool
Moderator #68
Here's the rule just FYI.

17.11.1
A free kick shall be awarded against a player or an official who intentionally shakes a goal or behind post (either before or after a player has disposed of the football).

So basically at any point during a game. I just re-watched the segment on 360, Whateley is spot on!
 

st_trav_ofWA

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 17, 2015
Posts
3,751
Likes
10,397
AFL Club
St Kilda
#69
i agree with P66 we do want the umps to hve the power of giving a warning without paying the free for the technical fault of the rules but i do think its dependant on how far the player pushes it as to where the warning becomes redundant .. for example a player being two steps over the mark isnt changing the outcome so the ump telling the player to take two steps back is fine in my opinon. a defender giving niggle to the forward being told to cut it out is fine in my opinion but if the action impacts the result it needs to be paid so a high tackle and the player getting warned is not on .. with the rampe thing it didnt impact the result of the kick as it was well before the kick if he had done it when the ball was in the air then i guess you could pay it but before the kick is taken common sence would be tell the bloke to not be an idiot ..
 
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Posts
36,272
Likes
21,775
Location
Narre Warren North
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
.
#70
AFL is hard to umpire.
There are far to many rules where the Umpire needs to assess whether something was on purpose, estimate distances, intentions.
Intentional out on the full with an oval ball FFS!!!.
So the umpires get to use a bit of discretion, because you can't get all the judgement calls right.

Now the goal post shaking rule "needs" to have the intentional clause, because players can be pushed or whatever into it. So when an umpire see's a dumbass climbing the post his only judgement is "is he doing that on purpose ".

Obvious answer YES ... Free kick awarded.

I hate Essendon, and i'm glad it happened to them, but they should have got the free.
Set shots obviously aren't very easy, and just seeing a dick on a goalpost could cause a "wtf" lightbulb over your head at the time you're taking that kick.

If its not a free , change the rule. But the less rules left to the discretion of the umpires the better, and they should be openly discouraged from making interpretations and judgement calls when the case is obvious.

1: Is he shaking the post? Yes!!! Intentional? Yes!!! Free kick.
2: Is he shaking the post? Well he's climbing it, the top seems to be wobbling it a little bit...is it affecting the game, well Myers seems to be coping all right.. he was never going to make the distance anyway ....was he?
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2015
Posts
13,577
Likes
43,345
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Philadelphia Eagles Liverpool
Moderator #71
AFL is hard to umpire.
There are far to many rules where the Umpire needs to assess whether something was on purpose, estimate distances, intentions.
Intentional out on the full with an oval ball FFS!!!.
So the umpires get to use a bit of discretion, because you can't get all the judgement calls right.

Now the goal post shaking rule "needs" to have the intentional clause, because players can be pushed or whatever into it. So when an umpire see's a dumbass climbing the post his only judgement is "is he doing that on purpose ".

Obvious answer YES ... Free kick awarded.

I hate Essendon, and i'm glad it happened to them, but they should have got the free.
Set shots obviously aren't very easy, and just seeing a dick on a goalpost could cause a "wtf" lightbulb over your head at the time you're taking that kick.

If its not a free , change the rule. But the less rules left to the discretion of the umpires the better, and they should be openly discouraged from making interpretations and judgement calls when the case is obvious.

1: Is he shaking the post? Yes!!! Intentional? Yes!!! Free kick.
2: Is he shaking the post? Well he's climbing it, the top seems to be wobbling it a little bit...is it affecting the game, well Myers seems to be coping all right.. he was never going to make the distance anyway ....was he?
It's fair game now though. AFL said that action is not a free kick. Obviously doubt it but I'd love to see it happen again. The whole thing is a joke.
 

st_trav_ofWA

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 17, 2015
Posts
3,751
Likes
10,397
AFL Club
St Kilda
#72
is it just me though in our recent history how many rules have been changed or implemented as a reaction to something the Sydney Swans have done ?
from memory :
- the contact below the knees rule came in in reply to Adam Goodes sliding in
- if im not mistaken Tunneling became a thing after Bolton did it the Rooey
- the interchange gate became a thing after the swans had too many players on the ground at one time
and not the goal post climbing ....
swans seem to be the team who push the rules of the game and then the AFL has to react
 

StCicatriz

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 3, 2016
Posts
14,989
Likes
27,625
AFL Club
St Kilda
#73
is it just me though in our recent history how many rules have been changed or implemented as a reaction to something the Sydney Swans have done ?
from memory :
- the contact below the knees rule came in in reply to Adam Goodes sliding in
- if im not mistaken Tunneling became a thing after Bolton did it the Rooey
- the interchange gate became a thing after the swans had too many players on the ground at one time
and not the goal post climbing ....
swans seem to be the team who push the rules of the game and then the AFL has to react
cola and the buddy deal
 

sauce_head

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Posts
7,052
Likes
3,693
AFL Club
St Kilda
#74
Swans very lucky there, and Essendon get to feel like victims which must be a novelty for them.
Im not sure you have been paying attention to the Essendon psyche. They always feel like victims. Turd still feels like a victim. They are practised at it which is why this minor infraction that was correctly adjudicated within the documented spirit of the laws of the game has so easily been blown out off all proportion. Essendon is the empty can self rattling at maximum noise.
 

sauce_head

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Posts
7,052
Likes
3,693
AFL Club
St Kilda
#75
Loewe got fined back in the late 80's for shaking a post in a game at Mootabbin. No free, IIRC, but i think he copped a $1500 fine for it, which was a massive amount at the time. Someone correct me if that is wrong.
I recall the incident but not the penalty. Shaking a goal post is just as likely to let a tight shot between the posts as result in a point...
 
Top Bottom