Discussion Robbo and the goal post

[Pakenhamsaint]

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.

What's funny is they now expect umpires to have telepathy if it does happen again.

 

[luca77]

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

Yeah Swans, Hawks and anyone Ross Lyon is involved with.
Think rushed behinds, interfering with the man on the mark, constant re-interpretations of holding the ball, 6-6-6, probably lots more.
Can probably add the bombers in for drugs, diving/conning the umpire e.t.c.
We may have helped shape the landscape for suspensions and off-field dilemmas...maybe.

 

[StFly]

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.

Frankly you should hand in your accreditation if you actually have any, this is disgusting and you should be ashamed.

The act of marking a football and all facets of setting the mark and disposing prior, during and after that period is formed after you, as an umpire formed an opinion that it should.

In the act of there being 100, 200, some hyperbolic number of extra frees, would be under that same caveat of you, as an umpire having the opinion that you should.

Therefore you asking others if that is what they want is irrelevant nonsense because that does not affect clause 17, and is a question you as an umpire, should ask yourself; will you form an opinion to pay those free kicks?

You are not required as an umpire, other than to pucker up, put that whistle in and blow for clause 17.

What we are seeing in this however, is that when there is literally an ironclad ruling of Rampe climbing a post intentionally, the post shaking to cause this ruling to be enacted; nothing happened, and there is division and half measures.

It's absurd, and since you're still involved you're technically part of the problem whilst this remains a ruling not requiring your direct opinion.

 

[Sheeza69]

Fyfe is the ultimate protected species!!
His career is littered with being reported up to a dzn times for only a couple of suspensions..
Steve Baker copped 2 weeks for hitting Stevie J's hand whilst this prima donna either raises his elbow or knee at will.. (Accidents just happen like Carlisle copping concussion last year from an "accidental" raised knee from memory..) GTFO

Sorry wrong thread!!

 

[Sheeza69]

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!

George the AFL is riddled with inconsistencies..
Whether it's umpiring, tribunal decision making, the fixture, the game is being poorly managed..
Some of this is due to the Boys Club mentality, & TV Rights..
What the AFL have recently displayed is a complete lack of respect for the average AFL punter!!

 

[George]

George the AFL is riddled with inconsistencies..
Whether it's umpiring, tribunal decision making, the fixture, the game is being poorly managed..
Some of this is due to the Boys Club mentality, & TV Rights..
What the AFL have recently displayed is a complete lack of respect for the average AFL punter!!

Some of it is an absolute joke isn't it...

 

[Crusty Undies]

Don't see why it's such a big deal tbh. Rampe got a pretty decent fine and the kick wasn't even going close...

 

[plugger66]

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.

That’s the thing though. You can climb on a post. No rule against as long as you don’t deliberately shake it. Even that rule isn’t black and white. Just out of interest why a warning for going over the mark. Surely that’s a clear black and white rule. I do agree though should be warning most times. I also still say the umpire did the right thing.

 

[plugger66]

Frankly you should hand in your accreditation if you actually have any, this is disgusting and you should be ashamed.

The act of marking a football and all facets of setting the mark and disposing prior, during and after that period is formed after you, as an umpire formed an opinion that it should.

In the act of there being 100, 200, some hyperbolic number of extra frees, would be under that same caveat of you, as an umpire having the opinion that you should.

Therefore you asking others if that is what they want is irrelevant nonsense because that does not affect clause 17, and is a question you as an umpire, should ask yourself; will you form an opinion to pay those free kicks?

You are not required as an umpire, other than to pucker up, put that whistle in and blow for clause 17.

What we are seeing in this however, is that when there is literally an ironclad ruling of Rampe climbing a post intentionally, the post shaking to cause this ruling to be enacted; nothing happened, and there is division and half measures.

It's absurd, and since you're still involved you're technically part of the problem whilst this remains a ruling not requiring your direct opinion.

Wowee. What rubbish. Hand in my accreditation because of why? I help out my clubs reserves side. You do write some absurd stuff. This maybe winning.

 

[George]

That’s the thing though. You can climb on a post. No rule against as long as you don’t deliberately shake it. Even that rule isn’t black and white. Just out of interest why a warning for going over the mark. Surely that’s a clear black and white rule. I do agree though should be warning most times. I also still say the umpire did the right thing.

That's a worrying view if you are an umpire yourself. You are in the minority on this issue.

At least you agree that there shouldn't be a rule for it.

 

[plugger66]

That's a worrying view if you are an umpire yourself. You are in the minority on this issue.

Not sure how it’s a worrying view. It’s an opinion by a person. Just out of interest do you think players should be warned for going over the mark. I certainly do but it’s not in the rule book.

 

[George]

Not sure how it’s a worrying view. It’s an opinion by a person. Just out of interest do you think players should be warned for going over the mark. I certainly do but it’s not in the rule book.

That'd be what I prefer, yes, but that's irrelevant because as you say it's not in the rule book. Intentionally causing a post to shake during a kick is in the rule book yet it wasn't enforced. Baffling stuff.

 

[LiterallyNobody]

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.

Sorry to bump this but I’ve been thinking all along the umpire is Damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. But as bad as the uproar is for what happened can you even fathom what the uproar would have been if it was paid on the night?

I too think it was handled well. He told him to get down. He got down. Had he not got down, pay the free.

I think the more outrageous thing to happen was the pronunciation of Fantasia’s name that night. ******* basil. Can’t beliebe he’s still around...