Discussion Robbo and the goal post

[Kildonan]

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?

 

[kernelT]

It's okay, the AFL have offered to make it back to the bombers by giving them every marque fixture and every second friday night next year… oh wait they already have that.

Seriously though, I think if the umpire has a chance to tell the player to stop what they are doing without effecting the play at all then that is pretty sensible umpiring… then again players are incumbent to learn the rules, so maybe should be penalized for stupidity in instances like the rampe one.

One of the most frustrating things I find about this game is the interpretive application of the rules, week to week, umpire to umpire on the same ground. It's a very hard game to adjudicate, but free kicks like that Kennedy holding one on Saturday could be paid every single marking contest if you applied the same stringency. The occasional plucking is what spoils games of footy for me, incorrect disposal or holding the ball another frustrating one.

Robbo shouldn't bother commenting on anything Essendon related, he just comes across like the mother of a murderer in denial.

 

[kernelT]

Oh and thank god we didn't land David Myers when we were chasing him a few years ago, I can't believe Essendon keep playing him.

 

[Mindtraveller]

After watching, I don't mind it. Was a sensible decision on the night as it fell 10m short, and fining Rampe for being stupid later.

Would've been different if it was closer.

 

[Mindtraveller]

We had an umpire in one of our close games, decide to throw the ball up instead of bouncing it. This is the same type of call imo

 

[Cornish]

Free kick every day of the week for mine.

 

[TheEnsign]

Free kick every day of the week for mine.

Same here. I hate Gil's 'context of the game' explanation because that also excuses **** like the Doggies non-stop throwing the ball in the 2016 finals series and getting away with it.

It was an epic brain fade by Rampe and didn't deserve a warning imo.

 

[mightymalaka]

I think that Worsfold's take on it was pretty spot on!
It's in the rule book so therefore technically it's a free, but Whateley has a point!

The problem in my view, is that umps now have the option of deciding for themselves when a free is appropriate
because the AFL and rules committee have introduced so much grey in our game!

 

[bergholt]

I don't understand how anyone can have a strong opinion on this. The media are just talking about it because otherwise they'd have nothing to say. If I didn't know better I'd think that the AFL had asked Rampe to do it just to create a story.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Rampe apologised ( not a good one ) but that's not what a "please explain" is all about.
WTF was going on between his ears?

 

[George]

Should've been a free kick. Rules are there for a reason. If people think it shouldn't be a free then get rid of the rule. Whateley on 360 last night said you can't have it both ways - I agree.

Too much grey area in the game, and the fact the umpires are all part time doesn't help either. It's the one area of the sport that the administration has let the game down in.

 

[TheJackal]

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.

 

[Strahany]

Normally, I’m against any kind of grey-area in our sport, as this is the biggest problem when it comes to umpiring. I’ve even gone as far to say we either need more umpires/allow boundary umpires to adjudicate since many incorrect decisions are due to not seeing the infringement (or partially seeing what happened) due to the density of players around the ball. I’ve also even suggested that removing ball ups from tackles will significantly help with umpiring fairness (i.e if you’re caught with the ball, then it’s a free kick, irrespective of prior opportunity, and all disposals other than throws are allowed; including dropping the ball - this keeps the game moving).

However, despite suggesting I’d go to those extremes to eliminate the grey area, I’m happy with this decision.
The purpose of this rule is to stop players from genuinely impacting the game via shaking the post. I would suggest the reason why such a clause is not included in the rule is due to the fact it’s been untouched since its inception; no one ever does this, so it hasn’t had the need to be updated.

If we truly care about black and white rulings, then we’d advocate for instant 50 metre penalties for someone overstepping the Mark, rather than getting a warning. If a player oversteps and impedes the opposition, then it’s a 50. If they overstep but have no impact on the contest, then they’re given a warning. This Rampe decision is like the latter; he was told to stop, so he did, and it didn’t impact the contest.

Free Kick’s are in place for 2 reasons:
1) For retribution in the event of an infringement (e.g push in the back, high tackle etc)
2) To discourage physically hurting your opponent (e.g striking the opposition).

What Rampe did meets neither of those categories.

On top of that, I’d like to point out the redundancy in focusing on this free kick. If people care about a “truly fair” result, then they’d not only look at this free kick, but avoid the rest of the game for undeserved/incorrect frees, and frees which were missed, and then rallying the overall impact. But, alas, no one is.

 

[plugger66]

Did he deliberately shake the post or did it accidentally shake because he jumped on it? Either way common sense just to tell him to get off. No proof the umpire saw it shake. More worried what was going through his head.

 

[Pardon me]

Not a free. Common sense prevailed. And that’s about the only nice thing I’ll say in regards to umpiring

 

[StCicatriz]

free kick, he wobbled the post, deliberately through his action which was to stop the goal

 

[Sir Skid]

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 wonder what Robbo's stance would have been if his beloved Bombers were on the opposite side of that incident.

 

[sauce_head]

Same here. I hate Gil's 'context of the game' explanation because that also excuses **** like the Doggies non-stop throwing the ball in the 2016 finals series and getting away with it.

It was an epic brain fade by Rampe and didn't deserve a warning imo.

I really like the warning system. Like when razor ray stops play to warn a playercnot to do whatever he did in the back line or he would reverse the free next time. It goes to show that sometimes you get a second chance, except for when you don’t and the little turd wants to smear himself on a game and calling a feee that is with momentum makes him feel good.

That sort of impartial adjudication is exactly what the game requires, variation dependent on what the umpire “feels”. Perhaps an umpire runner could hold up colored cards to advise which umpires feel what at any given time in order to promote certainty to the olayers, coaches and spectators and allow adjustment of behavior accordingly and whether or not they feel inclined to give a warning for an infringement.

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!

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

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.

 

[St Kilda Death]

Robbo obvious bomber fan.

In game, free kick.
After siren, from inside 50, hits post, free kick.
Attempting a hail Mary from 60, na.
Forget about it.

 

[Elvis Winmar]

Head: Clear free kick to the Bombers. Incorrect call by the umpires

Heart: Not paying the free kick cost the Bombers the game. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. Correct call by the umpires

 

[St Kilda Death]

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.

You've obviously never watched a saints game.
Cause not only do they not pay em when they're there, they give em away when they aren't.

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

You've obviously never watched a saints game.
Cause not only do they not pay em when they're there, they give em away when they aren't.

They do that because:

It's in the sprit and intention of the thing!

 

[CALL ME SNAKE]

If it was any other team besides Essendon id be saying " The AFL is a joke and it should have been a free kick in the goal square".

But it was Essendon so...........

 

[SaintsSeptember]

If it was any other team besides Essendon id be saying " The AFL is a joke and it should have been a free kick in the goal square".

But it was Essendon so...........

Yep...Essendon have karma owing to them...lots and lots..