Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 93

Thread: AFL Round 10 weekly discussion thread

  1. #25
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post

    (The ump did say he called play on three times, as you can hear on the video. The third time was virtually simultaneous with Rampe being tackled.)
    I don’t think that’s the case. I reckon the second play on call came as Stringer started the tackle, and the third at the time he completed it.

  2. #26
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Magoo View Post
    I agree that the only conclusion is that some of the fine was attributed to the ridiculous outcry from the melbourne media on the Rampe "pole shaking" issue and whilst they had to back their umpires decision that this was a back door way of punishing Rampe. Its the only explanation.

    Personally I think its simply not on for Daisy to say this and he should have been suspended. I think it was Gerard Whately who pointed out that if the same occurred in most country leagues that it would be an automatic suspension. I fail to see how the AFL does not hold its players to a higher standard. While I dont mind if there is a little bit of banter with an umpire, the moment it becomes disrespectful and questioning their honesty then its a no go and Daisys words go way beyond that.
    I agree with both your points.

    When the AFL sent Daisy straight to the Tribunal I was expecting the AFL Counsel would argue for a suspension. Instead he argued for $7,500, saying he would have argued for $10,000 had Daisy not pleaded guilty. No mention of a suspension.

    Should have been a week (at least).

  3. #27
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717

    AFL Round 10 weekly discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    I don’t think that’s the case. I reckon the second play on call came as Stringer started the tackle, and the third at the time he completed it.
    Might be the case, haven’t re-looked at it. Rampe was unlucky in that Stringer was running close behind him but I think legally so because Stringer was following his man.

  4. #28
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,069
    I read today in the Herald Sun that the AFL is introducing a Rampe Rule and including the words "climbing the post" in the current shaking the post rule. This is what we suspected would happen.

    I also read on Big Footy that Ray Chamberlain was asked in an interview about the Rampe incident and he said it wasn't a free kick because he didn't deliberately shake the post and that the umpire made the right call. I still laugh at the way the media reacted like the world was ending!

    Edit: Just saw that someone posted details of the Chamberlain interview in the Round 8 thread.
    Last edited by Mel_C; 23rd May 2019 at 08:16 PM.

  5. #29
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,381
    Makes you wonder why he copped a fine if he didn't break any rule.

  6. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    Makes you wonder why he copped a fine if he didn't break any rule.
    Same reason we copped a trading ban

  7. #31
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    Makes you wonder why he copped a fine if he didn't break any rule.
    I don’t have a problem with the fine. I assume somewhere in the back of his mind Rampe had the mad idea that if he got some height assistance (by jumping up the post) if the kick for goal came in high he might be able to leap off the pole and touch it.

    Quite mad (as Rampe effectively acknowledged when he said he doesn’t know what he was trying to do). And not in the spirit of the rules (for example, can’t use a rugby lift to try to achieve extra height).

    So no rule was broken = no free kick. But not in spirit of game = fine = warning to all players ‘don’t do this’.

  8. #32
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,381
    Not entirely convinced by the "spirit of the game" argument. Either it was allowed or it wasn't per the rules of the game. My understanding (though without bothering to go and actually read the rules) is that lifting a player up, rugby style, is expressly disallowed. If so, that wouldn't be a good analogy.

    I don't have a problem with them now deciding that it's not something the game wants to see and legislating against it, just in case anyone is mad enough to try it again. I'm just not sure players can be expected to know what is and isn't in the spirit of the game if it's not in the rules.

    (If you now tell me that there isn't a written rule against the rugby-style lift, I retract the above comment in full )

  9. #33
    With Joe Daniher set to miss rest of the season again, I'm starting to think if we'd dodged a bullet with him nominating Essendon as F/S? He seems to be injury proned as Sam Reid & both are inaccurate kicks for goal, however both are very imposing players when they're on song. Would've been interesting having both in the same team but it would've been a rarity with their injury record. We most likely wouldn't have chased Tippett if Joe had nominated us as F/S. No win situation even with the benefit of hindsight!

  10. #34
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    Not entirely convinced by the "spirit of the game" argument. Either it was allowed or it wasn't per the rules of the game. My understanding (though without bothering to go and actually read the rules) is that lifting a player up, rugby style, is expressly disallowed. If so, that wouldn't be a good analogy.

    I don't have a problem with them now deciding that it's not something the game wants to see and legislating against it, just in case anyone is mad enough to try it again. I'm just not sure players can be expected to know what is and isn't in the spirit of the game if it's not in the rules.

    (If you now tell me that there isn't a written rule against the rugby-style lift, I retract the above comment in full )
    Yes, there is a rule against rugby-style lift. That was why I made the comparison.

    Firstly, the introduction to the AFL Laws says:

    ‘It is the spirit and intention of these Laws that a Free Kick shall be awarded to:
    ensure that a Match is played in a fair manner and spirit of true sportsmanship’.

    Law 7.12 (f) says:
    A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who:
    (f) intentionally lifts a Player from the same Team to contest the football.

    I think it is reasonable to assume that 7.12 is there because it is considered that getting external assistance to gain height to contest the ball is not playing the game ‘in a fair manner’.

    (Let’s put aside for the moment that players can jump in the back or kneel on the shoulders of an opposition player to take a speccy. A feature of our game that breaks several other rules.)

    The rules can’t possibly set out every instance of external assistance that might be considered unfair. But I think the unfair lifting rule has established the intent.

    For example, if Dane Rampe had run to the fence, taken a step ladder from a spectator (let’s assume security had allowed this to be smuggled in), erected it on the goal line and stood at the top, would you think that because there is no rule against it:

    1. No free kick should be paid against Rampe; and
    2. Rampe should not be subsequently penalised in some form by the AFL (e.g. by a $1,000 fine)?

  11. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by barry View Post
    A very melbourne-centric view.
    How so?

  12. #36
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    Yes, there is a rule against rugby-style lift. That was why I made the comparison.

    Firstly, the introduction to the AFL Laws says:

    ‘It is the spirit and intention of these Laws that a Free Kick shall be awarded to:
    ensure that a Match is played in a fair manner and spirit of true sportsmanship’.

    Law 7.12 (f) says:
    A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who:
    (f) intentionally lifts a Player from the same Team to contest the football.

    I think it is reasonable to assume that 7.12 is there because it is considered that getting external assistance to gain height to contest the ball is not playing the game ‘in a fair manner’.

    (Let’s put aside for the moment that players can jump in the back or kneel on the shoulders of an opposition player to take a speccy. A feature of our game that breaks several other rules.)

    The rules can’t possibly set out every instance of external assistance that might be considered unfair. But I think the unfair lifting rule has established the intent.

    For example, if Dane Rampe had run to the fence, taken a step ladder from a spectator (let’s assume security had allowed this to be smuggled in), erected it on the goal line and stood at the top, would you think that because there is no rule against it:

    1. No free kick should be paid against Rampe; and
    2. Rampe should not be subsequently penalised in some form by the AFL (e.g. by a $1,000 fine)?
    Your line of reasoning implies, though, that it should have been a free kick against Rampe. The AFL have said it wasn't (ie the umpires didn't make a mistake). It's in that context that I'm struggling to understand why he was subsequently fined.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO