If we are a serious club we MUST protest Rampe post climb


#502

Your understanding is, as usual, incorrect. That was added as a rule after it was revealed in the mid-Nineties that Fark Carlton was seriously considering having this as a tactic.

As I previously noted, the AFL acting on that but not thinking of other ways to “be taller” is indicative of the quality of their rule writers (and by that I mean those who write/amend the actual Laws of the Games, rather than the many thought bubblers).

(Not saying it’s easy — I’ve spent much time doing this for boomerang throwing events and it’s very hard to write concise AND thorough — but they’ve left huge holes that you can drive a Scania through.)


#503

Show me the by-law or it’s legal, Boomerang Boy.


#504

You can intentionally bump someone and unintentionally hit them in the head and its a free kick everyday of the week.

He intentionally climbed the post and unintentionally shook the post, should be a free kick everyday of the week.

The result is the same, regardless of the intention.

I don’t know why we are arguing this with another Essendon supporter. As if we’re not infuriated enough already.

Just ■■■■■■■ accept it BSD!


#505

I have visions of BSD turning up to play a suburban footy game saddled on a giraffe, shouting ‘Where’s the rule? Show me the rule!’


#506

On this I agree completely, … and therefore is not against the actual rule.


#507

15.11.1.c in the 2018 rules

A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player or a Team where the field Umpire is of the opinion that:
© a Player has lifted a Player or climbed on the shoulders of a Player from the same Team. This Free Kick shall be taken by a Player from the opposing Team where the infringement occurred or where the football is at the time of the infringement, whichever is the greater penalty against the offending Team;


#508


#509

That’s rigged.


#510

:laughing:


#511

Noooow I get it! Thanks @hambo


#512

Did you choose to take a pragmatic approach when you decided not to release the ban-hammer on that one?


#513

“GET DOWN!”

“I can’t hear your little Girly voice”

Fkn LOL.


#514

What a shame. The Union style lift would be ace at boundary throw-ins.


#515

Does that mean you can unintentionally knock someone out and theres no case to answer?

He shook the post. On purpose. its a free. They got it wrong. I have no idea why there is so much conversation, its 100% black and white


#516

Genius. By holding both posts, they wont shake. Therefore no free kick.


#517

Exactly right.

The media sometimes call out individual decisions like this as being absurd, or criticise individual issues like the Melbourne tanking investigation etc etc.

However they never seem to recognise that these are not problems in and of themselves - they are simply symptoms of the much larger problem, which you’ve articulated very well above.

The game is being run not poorly, but corruptly. Not corruptly as in favouring certain teams, I mean run in a way as to further the commercial/financial interests of those at AFL House. And it’s been this way for 20+ years now - I see the starting point as being the Fitzroy/North/Brisbane ducks and drakes in the mid 90s.

The clubs and the football populace needs to call this out for what it is and change it ASAP. Otherwise it’s now almost certain that we’ll will pass the point of no return and lose our game forever (if we’re not there already).


#518

The AFL should build structures at the back of each of the goal post starting from the bottom of the fence to about 4 meters up each post, they shall call them RAMPS. This will enable the Defenders up the post without shacking them… No Free Play On…


#519

I’m sure the organic chemists here will be amused by the naphthalene analog you’ve drawn.


#520

It was my major at Uni :grin:


#521

What other ■■■■■■■ reason would he have for climbing the post other than causing it to move? FMD.