#AFL Round 8 Swans vs Dons Fri 10-May at SCG #AFLSwansDons @sydneyswans

[dejavoodoo44]

If he wants to stay out of trouble with the AFL he just needs to start elbowing opposition players in the head instead.

Of course, if he elbowed somebody in the head, and then the head shook the post; then he'd be Luke Hodge.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

It can be read here....
The very strange history of the goalpost shaker: Sorry Dane, you're not the first - AFL.com.au

Thanks for spotting this story, absolutely loved it. "Just exuberance of spirits" - what a lovely way of putting it.

[KSAS]

It just won't go away. EFC still whinging why free kick wasn't paid against Rampe and have officially approached the AFL. Yes the umpire could've paid the free kick but there are many free kicks which are paid/not paid in a game. This was just one. We could easily make case on the dodgy free kicks EFC got in front of goal and the Heppell throw that wasn't paid which resulted in their last goal.

I bet had free kick against Rampe been paid there would've been even bigger controversy in the media about it, with the old "you wouldn't want to decide a Grand Final like that" card brought out.

My understanding of the goal post shaking rule (there isn't any evidence that it was Rampe's intention anyway), that it's intended for when a player has a shot for goal and misses as a result. Not when player is out of scoring range and ball drops 10 metres short. Umpire/AFL called it correctly the incident had no bearing on Myers kick. Robbo & Woosha want EFC to get 4 points based on technicality rather than reality!

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-seek-answers-from-afl-over-lack-of-free-kick-against-rampe-20190516-p51nwe.html

[Blue Sun]

It just won't go away. EFC still whinging why free kick wasn't paid against Rampe and have officially approached the AFL. Yes the umpire could've paid the free kick but there are many free kicks which are paid/not paid in a game. This was just one. We could easily make case on the dodgy free kicks EFC got in front of goal and the Heppell throw that wasn't paid which resulted in their last goal.

I bet had free kick against Rampe been paid there would've been even bigger controversy in the media about it, with the old "you wouldn't want to decide a Grand Final like that" card brought out.

My understanding of the goal post shaking rule (there isn't any evidence that it was Rampe's intention anyway), that it's intended for when a player has a shot for goal and misses as a result. Not when player is out of scoring range and ball drops 10 metres short. Umpire/AFL called it correctly the incident had no bearing on Myers kick. Robbo & Woosha want EFC to get 4 points based on technicality rather than reality!



https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/...16-p51nwe.html

Exactly, how about the blatant Heppell throw that directly led to the shot on goal after the siren? Why aren't Sydney seeking a please explain for that?

[Mauzza]

And now this from David King -

AFL 2019: David King reveals Essendon’s last ditch ‘bench bolter’ tactics against Swans

[Matty10]

There was also an interesting discussion led by David King on AFL360 last night where they highlighted the fact that at the last centre bounce of the game Essendon played one less player in their defence. They were waiting on the sidelines until the ball was bounced and then streamed into space unmanned.

King was suggesting that this was intentional and a clever tactic to use as they were behind and it didn't matter if the Swans had the extra man in their forward line as Essendon needed to score. The discussion then led to whether this was within the rules, within the spirit of the rules and whether it was intentional. Most considered that it was against the rules and the spirit of six-six-six setup.

[Blue Sun]

And now this from David King -

AFL 2019: David King reveals Essendon’s last ditch ‘bench bolter’ tactics against Swans

Eh, that's fine in my book. It didn't break any rule, maybe bent the rule a little. Still fine, though.

[KSAS]

Eh, that's fine in my book. It didn't break any rule, maybe bent the rule a little. Still fine, though.

It will be another classic case of AFL introducing another rule because of result of a newly introduced rule (i.e. must start with 18 on the ground), if this or similar tactics becomes a trend.

[neilfws]

It just won't go away. EFC still whinging why free kick wasn't paid against Rampe and have officially approached the AFL.

It will not die, and almost a week now!

Surely it all hinges on the wording of rule 17.11 - intentionally shakes. Did Rampe shake the post deliberately, with the intention of distracting the goal kicker or interfering with the flight of the ball?

He says not, the umpire said not, it is Gil and the AFL who have muddied the waters with the "probably should have been a free" and fine.

[neilfws]

Apparently Rampe is the seventh VFL/AFL player to be sanctioned for "shaking or climbing" a goalpost. Interestingly the first was also a Swan, Arthur Hando and his story is simply quite amazing

What a great story! Thanks for posting.

By "brought to our attention" I think the AFL mean "we saw it on Twitter"

Robert Allen on Twitter: "Fun Fact: the first VFL player reported for deliberately shaking a goal post was - ironically - a Swans player, Arthur Hando, in 1924"

[chalbilto]

One things for sure that Rampe will be a marked man. The umpires will not give him the benefit of any 50 - 50 calls. They will closely monitor his tone and any questioning of decisions, but of course the AFL and the umpiring department will deny this.
With regards Essendon at the last centre bounce of the game playing one less player in their defence, even though it is not breaking the rules, goes against the AFL wanting a 6, 6, 6 starting position. I would assume that they will have to come out and say if this new tactic will be ok.

[Markwebbos]

Spineless Swans:

Rampe not to appeal sanction - sydneyswans.com.au

[MattW]

It will not die, and almost a week now!

Surely it all hinges on the wording of rule 17.11 - intentionally shakes. Did Rampe shake the post deliberately, with the intention of distracting the goal kicker or interfering with the flight of the ball?

He says not, the umpire said not, it is Gil and the AFL who have muddied the waters with the "probably should have been a free" and fine.

Yes, that part of the rule has been overlooked in much of the discussion.

Check out @petryan’s Tweet: peter ryan on Twitter: "Reality is with the word "intentionally" in the rule regarding shaking posts, if ump had penalised Swans when Rampe on goalpost a letter of explanation, potentially legal, might be heading the AFL's way from Sydney to argue against decision."

[Sandridge]

It just won't go away. EFC still whinging why free kick wasn't paid against Rampe and have officially approached the AFL. Yes the umpire could've paid the free kick but there are many free kicks which are paid/not paid in a game. This was just one. We could easily make case on the dodgy free kicks EFC got in front of goal and the Heppell throw that wasn't paid which resulted in their last goal.

I bet had free kick against Rampe been paid there would've been even bigger controversy in the media about it, with the old "you wouldn't want to decide a Grand Final like that" card brought out.

My understanding of the goal post shaking rule (there isn't any evidence that it was Rampe's intention anyway), that it's intended for when a player has a shot for goal and misses as a result. Not when player is out of scoring range and ball drops 10 metres short. Umpire/AFL called it correctly the incident had no bearing on Myers kick. Robbo & Woosha want EFC to get 4 points based on technicality rather than reality!



https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/...16-p51nwe.html

They're asking for clarifications/explanations after one free kick didn't go their way?

What would they have done if they'd copped the treatment we got in the 2016 GF?

[stevoswan]

.....and it still rolls on further. Dons now 'seeking clarification'.....

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-05-16/dons-write-to-afl-seeking-formal-clarity-on-rampe-incident

The AFL should just stick to their original line and not always cave in to local outrage.....they never learn. Incompetent.