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


1984 was a great year as baker was a star will attest


Have you seen how others write here.
I’m in good company.


Animal Farm kept re-writing the rules.


If I had the bucks I would launch a Kerry Packer style world series cricket assault on the AFL. Its high time we had and alternative comp.

The really are total cretins. In the history of Australian Rules they are a mere passing fad of the last 20 years. Insignificant arseholes.


Im just bumping this thread cos I think its hilarious its still front of mind.

Nothin gonna change.


I’ve had more than one dees supporting mate point this out in arguing that it should have been a free to us


17.6.1 Spirit and Intention
The Player who has Possession of the Football will be provided an opportunity
to dispose of the football before rewarding an opponent for a Legal Tackle.
17.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity
(a) Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity,
a Free Kick shall be awarded if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of
the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.
(b) Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity,
the field Umpire shall throw up the football when a Player, in the act of
applying a Legal Tackle, holds the football to the body of the Player
being tackled or the football is otherwise pinned to the ground.
17.6.3 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity,
a Free Kick shall be awarded if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of
the football when Legally Tackled.
For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose
of the football when:
(a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football;
(b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the
Player’s possession.
17.6.4 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: No Genuine Attempt
Where a Player is in Possession of the Football and is able but does not genuinely
attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled, a Free Kick
shall be awarded.
17.6.5 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Diving on Top of the Football
A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who dives on top of or drags
the football underneath their body and fails to immediately knock clear
or Correctly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.

Is that spirit and intention stuff in earlier versions? It seems to basically say give them time to dispose as opposed to they are required to dispose immediately which it says a few lines down. Internally inconsistent much?


I cannot believe people have the energy and angst to continue to pursue this. It’s just a nothing-boing, non-event. Did not even remotely impact the game.


Yeah sure, well except for changing the result


Huh? It 100% impacted the result.


the floor is lava.


Except it didn’t though.

EDIT: I mean it should have according to the rule - but didn’t actually because of the adjudication - just like 50 other misinterpretations of rules that occur in every game every week.


I think that one explains why 36 players stopped playing on ANZAC Day.



If anyone really feels like doing some comparisons.


“Laws of Australian Football 2011”

Was going to post excerpts but I think it’s from a different game. Different era anyway.


It’s like when Melbourne didn’t tank but still got fined. They like cash… but don’t have any morals/ethics


“suspended” “climbing”

They are just taking the ■■■■ surely.


Can you please explain what shake means then? How is it defined? Because as far as I am concerned any act, that is any act that causes the post to shake is a shake. It matters not whether it is climbing the post or farting on it. If it moves because you have acted against it in some manner, then you have shaken it. The only determining factor is intent. Unless you wish to argue that Rampe had no intention to climb the post but rather just miraculously found himself a metre and a half off the ground, then your argument is specious. A player contesting the ball can knock the post and it may shake, but their intent is clearly to contest the ball therefore no free kick. Rampe clearly intentionally climbed the post therefore clearly a free kick.


How exactly is his intention clear? Do you think he was simply trying to get a better view? His intention was to make contact with the post & the post moving was the inevitable result of that just as certain as if a player bumps the post it doesn’t matter if they claim it moving wasn’t intended.


I started comparing just the table of contents between the 2018 and 2019 Laws of the Game , and it’s too blooody hard as it’s not just new/removed stuff but splitting and merging sections and re-numbering and re-ordering and fark you, that’s why.

The rules relating to shaking the goal or behind post are unchanged (apart from re-numbering).

Each section of the rules relating to frees now has a “Spirit and Intention” statement.

I went to my favourite Scania hole, and they’ve fixed it!!! No longer does the below exist:

A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who: (e) touches the football after the boundary Umpire has signalled that the football is Out of Bounds, except for a Player who has carried the football over the Boundary Line under this Law 15.7.1 or a Player awarded a Free Kick under these Laws

Have you ever seen a player who did not personally take the ball over the line be penalised for giving the ball to the ump? This rule was dumb, unnecessary, and completely ignored. Credit to them for removing it.