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

[stevoswan]

Spineless Swans:

Rampe not to appeal sanction - sydneyswans.com.au

I'm a little disappointed in that too. I suppose they don't want to 'poke the bear' but when does one finally draw a line in the sand?

[Blood Fever]

I'm a little disappointed in that too. I suppose they don't want to 'poke the bear' but when does one finally draw a line in the sand?

Many of the AFL decisions wouldn't survive legal challenges but the vindictiveness that would provoke would be enormous. Sticks in the throat.

[chalbilto]

Many of the AFL decisions wouldn't survive legal challenges but the vindictiveness that would provoke would be enormous. Sticks in the throat.

You are right, but there must be a point when you have to make a stand on principal, otherwise you keep getting stepped upon. I'd rather the club would "come out swinging" and earn some respect.

[MattW]

I wonder if it's actually for benefit of Dane's mental health. A week in the media spotlight would be taxing.

[Matty10]

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

They got clarification yesterday. Hocking said the non-free kick was the correct decision as the rule states that the shaking of the post needs to be an intentional act, and they ruled that Rampe did not intend to shake the post, only climb it (which was a reportable offence).

Gerard Whateley went off his nut about it last night - I didn’t understand why.

When everyone kept arguing that it was a free kick, and then cited the law against shaking the post, it didn’t make sense to me.

[KSAS]

They got clarification yesterday. Hocking said the non-free kick was the correct decision as the rule states that the shaking of the post needs to be an intentional act, and they ruled that Rampe did not intend to shake the post, only climb it (which was a reportable offence).

Gerard Whateley went off his nut about it last night - I didn’t understand why.

When everyone kept arguing that it was a free kick, and then cited the law against shaking the post, it didn’t make sense to me.

Yeah, pathetic how Whateley did an about face & blew up like Robbo last night. I bet he wouldn've done so if it was Harry Taylor & Geelong in same scenario. His defence of Gary Ablett's forearm strikes to players heads in successive weeks is biased & laughable. He looked uncomfortable when Dunstall & Brereton were forthright that he should've been suspended.

[Hotpotato]

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"

This is an astonishing story about Arthur Hando...
a Swans player.

[Doctor J.]

They got clarification yesterday. Hocking said the non-free kick was the correct decision as the rule states that the shaking of the post needs to be an intentional act, and they ruled that Rampe did not intend to shake the post, only climb it (which was a reportable offence).

Gerard Whateley went off his nut about it last night - I didn’t understand why.

When everyone kept arguing that it was a free kick, and then cited the law against shaking the post, it didn’t make sense to me.

Whateley is a total knob. (there, got that ad hominen attack out of the way)

What those who scream "free kick!", "AFL stuff up!", "We Wuz Robbed!", etc. fail to understand is that outcome does not equate to intent.

The rule clearly says "intentionally shakes a goal or behind post", and this is the point in the rule where the umpires apply their interpretation. If the word intentionally isn't there then every incident of a player causing a post to shake must be paid a free kick. In the Rampe case the umpires have said that yes he climbed the post but it wasn't his intention to shake it. (if you disagree with this you are only disagreeing with an umpires decision, happens every day)

So Whateley going off his nut last night with "The post shook, what else was his intention" has dismissed the umpires interpretation and has foolishly equated outcome with intent ie the post shook therefore he must have meant to shake it.

Sure the umpire could have ruled he intended to shake the post and that decision, whilst we as Swans fans would have screamed foul, would have also been correct. Good old interpretation.

[Blood Fever]

Whateley is a total knob. (there, got that ad hominen attack out of the way)

What those who scream "free kick!", "AFL stuff up!", "We Wuz Robbed!", etc. fail to understand is that outcome does not equate to intent.

The rule clearly says "intentionally shakes a goal or behind post", and this is the point in the rule where the umpires apply their interpretation. If the word intentionally isn't there then every incident of a player causing a post to shake must be paid a free kick. In the Rampe case the umpires have said that yes he climbed the post but it wasn't his intention to shake it. (if you disagree with this you are only disagreeing with an umpires decision, happens every day)

So Whateley going off his nut last night with "The post shook, what else was his intention" has dismissed the umpires interpretation and has foolishly equated outcome with intent ie the post shook therefore he must have meant to shake it.

Sure the umpire could have ruled he intended to shake the post and that decision, whilst we as Swans fans would have screamed foul, would have also been correct. Good old interpretation.

Whateley and Robinson should get a life. I'm into the footy but seriously.

[Swanny40519]

I used to watch 360 all the time because I enjoyed Whateley baiting Robbo and trying to put him down gently. I mean Robbo leads with his chin all the time.

But now I am off the show as Whateley went way over the top with his spray at Rampe,Swans, AFL, Umpires and whoever he could think of.

Gee if the umpire had picked up the blatant throw by Heppell that gave them the goal and be 5 points down, none of this crap would have happened - or maybe a smaller version of it.

[MattW]

They got clarification yesterday. Hocking said the non-free kick was the correct decision as the rule states that the shaking of the post needs to be an intentional act, and they ruled that Rampe did not intend to shake the post, only climb it (which was a reportable offence).

Gerard Whateley went off his nut about it last night - I didn’t understand why.

When everyone kept arguing that it was a free kick, and then cited the law against shaking the post, it didn’t make sense to me.

Me neither. Whateley's credibility has fallen away working in commercial media.

[Blood Fever]

Me neither. Whateley's credibility has fallen away working in commercial media.

Sold his soul to the devil

[bloodspirit]

Re: "intention"

There is a difference between intending an act and intending its outcome. Sometimes, especially when it comes to the AFL Laws, if you intend an act and the outcome is to be expected or foreseeable, you are considered to have intended the result irrespective of whether you actually even thought about it. In the case of Dane and the pole-shaking, I think it's grey and vague what the law means. As it happens, I don't think Dane did in fact intend to shake the post at all. Like stevo, I definitely think he was trying to position himself to spring and touch the ball before it went through if he could. Clearly he didn't know the rule (nor did I) and his action was, anyway, a big brainfart driven, as he said, by his passion for the game. I think it was a common sense outcome although I have some sympathy for outraged Bombers fans.

RE: "talking like a little girl"

This is a much more complicated and interesting issue. I think the reason Rampe got a fine was largely a sop to the Bombers who were outraged about losing a close match and the 'missed' free kick for the pole climbing. That said it IS regrettable that Rampe compared the umpire to a 'girl' perjoratively. While, on the one hand, I think it's great that the AFL has intervened and said this is not ok, I don't like that they have made an individual player a scapegoat - although perhaps this was inevitable. Also, the penalty was entirely disproportionate to the 'crime'. Until this season I doubt you would have got in trouble for making this comment at all. That you can now, is positive progress. That Dane said it doesn't so much make me think less of him than of the culture that we are living in. I doubt he's considered the effect of using the word 'girl' in this way at all before and, to his credit, I think he has now and he has apologised.

My final comment on this topic is taken from a friend. He pointed out to me that an important element has been entirely overlooked in the debate about the 'talk like a girl' comment: not only does using 'girl' perjoratively or as a term of abuse demean women, it also makes it less ok for men to express their more feminine sides. My friend had school time experiences of being called a 'girl' and it has inhibited him from feeling free to engage in behaviours that are less than 'manly'. I think this is an excellent point and I haven't seen it made elsewhere.

[liz]

My final comment on this topic is taken from a friend. He pointed out to me that an important element has been entirely overlooked in the debate about the 'talk like a girl' comment: not only does using 'girl' perjoratively or as a term of abuse demean women, it also makes it less ok for men to express their more feminine sides. My friend had school time experiences of being called a 'girl' and it has inhibited him from feeling free to engage in behaviours that are less than 'manly'. I think this is an excellent point and I haven't seen it made elsewhere.

As a woman (in case you hadn't guessed) I actually thought the element of demeaning women was somewhat overplayed in this instance. The comment came in the context of Rampe complaining he hadn't heard the play on call. It's a fact that girls have higher pitched and softer voices than burly umpires. I didn't see it as derogatory to make that observation. Having a high or soft voice is neither a good thing nor a bad thing. It just is. I did think it was a bit petulant towards the umpire, though, and not necessary. He has a bit of form in this department - remember the "coffee with Gil" comment he made last season. I know we laughed at the time, but it showed disrespect towards the umpire.

Half the issue is having the umpires miked up. I am sure umpires have been on the receiving end of far more abusive comments in the past, and to an extent they need to have thick skins and understand players get frustrated. But players now have to understand that anything they say will be heard by anyone watching the game on TV.

[chalbilto]

As a woman (in case you hadn't guessed) I actually thought the element of demeaning women was somewhat overplayed in this instance. The comment came in the context of Rampe complaining he hadn't heard the play on call. It's a fact that girls have higher pitched and softer voices than burly umpires. I didn't see it as derogatory to make that observation. Having a high or soft voice is neither a good thing nor a bad thing. It just is. I did think it was a bit petulant towards the umpire, though, and not necessary. He has a bit of form in this department - remember the "coffee with Gil" comment he made last season. I know we laughed at the time, but it showed disrespect towards the umpire.

Half the issue is having the umpires miked up. I am sure umpires have been on the receiving end of far more abusive comments in the past, and to an extent they need to have thick skins and understand players get frustrated. But players now have to understand that anything they say will be heard by anyone watching the game on TV.

You are 100% correct. Not only microphones but they have to be aware of comments made on social media.