Dane Rampe made headlines for all the wrong reasons on Friday night, controversially climbing the goal post after the siren in Sydney’s five-point win over Essendon.
With David Myers lining up for a match-winning goal at the time, Bombers fans felt they’d been robbed.
What was the right call? Should John Worsfold’s men be celebrating a win? Or did common sense prevail?
Roar AFL Expert Marnie Cohen weighed in on the Game of Codes podcast to make sense of what’s been one of the most bizarre talking points to sweep the football world in recent memory.
Listen to the debate:
The five-point loss to the Swans was the Bombers’ third in a row, leaving the club in a precarious position at 13th on the ladder with a record of 3-5.
The letter of the law makes it pretty clear Essendon should have received a free kick on the goal line, but Gillon McLachlan and the umpiring department controversially gave the non-call a tick, with the AFL CEO calling it “practical umpiring.”
However, the AFL appeared to either change its mind or suffer a communication breakdown by issuing Rampe a “please explain” for the incident, with Mark Robinson reporting the Swans co-captain “has been effectively charged with conduct unbecoming for climbing the goal post”.
Visit our Game of Codes hub to catch the full episode and be sure to subscribe and review on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts or wherever else you’re listening.
DTM
Guest
How do you (or more importantly, the umpire) know that he climbed the post just because he felt like it and not with the intention of shaking it? Truth is, the umpire didn't know at the time and made a judgement call - as they have to do constantly throughout a game. No one can accurately assess someone else's intention within a second or two 100% of the time, however AFL umpires are expected to do this on a regular basis - and understandably they often appear to get it wrong. In my view, Rampe climbed the post either with the intention of shaking it or trying to get to a higher point to spoil the kick - both explanations would cause a free kick. I have the benefit of time and no pressure or scrutiny - the umpire did not. He made a mistake. The rule is not well written but that's another issue.
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
We just have to agree to disagree Richie. Nothing will convince me he broke any rule as he never intentionally shook the post. Change the wording so players can't climb the post and be done with it. Move on!
RT
Roar Rookie
Based on your pedantic interpretation of the use of the word intentional, contrary to what the AFL has said, what nearly every commentator has said, what Reiwoldt and Troloar said on 360 last night and what everyone has always understood.
Mungbean74
Roar Rookie
I think the umpires handled it well. Told him to stop as soon as he saw it, and I reckon if it had of gone the distance and if the ball went close to hitting the post, the umpires would have referred it with one another. Common sense prevailed. Play on!
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
Yes Richie and the umpire would have been wrong.
RT
Roar Rookie
If he ignored the umpire the umpire would have blown the whistle. Simple as that.
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
Richie, the rule is there to stop a player shaking the post for advantage like Dustin Fletcher does below. This is the intent of the rule. https://www.essendonfc.com.au/video/2013-08-01/fletchs-flashback-16-presented-by-bosch-hot-water-and-heating The rule does not claim climbing the post as an infringement and it should. He launches onto the padding, gains a metre in height and the post shakes a little for a second and then stops. If he ignored the incorrect umpire ordering him down and stayed there as the kick comes and it’s not shaking, he broke no current AFL rule.
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
The intention word was introduced to allow for incidental or accidental shaking of the post. His climbing action resulted in accidental shaking of the post. The rule is badly worded and needs changing. It's not Rampe's fault the wording is bad and needs changing.
RT
Roar Rookie
But Rampe made deliberate contact. Peter you are relying on linguistics rather than common sense and the intention of the rule on this one. The umpire basically admitted it was a free by warning him. The umpire knows the intent of the rule, but messed it up.
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
Of course you are allowed to rock the post. Full backs do it frequently with accidental contact.
Likey Miller
Guest
I see it as deliberate, because anyone jumping up the goal post is going to shake the post. It is clearly a foreseeable consequence of his actions. I thought that umpire got it wrong and he should have penalised Rampe immediately. A warning is just not appropriate. Most players would be confused I would think. I don't support Essendon, but Myers should have been kicking from the goal square.
mick douglass
Guest
To all those people that say he didn't deliberately do it. So what happens If he accidentally stepped over into the centre square at the bounce. Does he get told he's a naughty boy and we'll let it go this time???? Yea Nah. Umpires cost this game. The umpire should apologize and not accept payment for this match
anon
Roar Pro
I don't think the AFL rule book has an automatism clause. He intentionally jumped on the post which caused it to shake. If you grab at a post and it shakes, then you did it intentionally. Your interpretation of the rule means that any player is free to shake the post as long as they jump on it first. That's absurd. The word intentionally is in there so that a free kick isn't awarded against a player who happens to shake the post by crashing into it accidentally.
James Robinson
Roar Rookie
So how is it that umpires are comfortable making deliberate out of bounds decisions. This is also based on intent but how often do we see a blatant attempt to get the ball out not punished because players 'disguised it well' but a good kick takes a bad bounce and goes out and the umpire gives a free.
Stirling Coates
Editor
His intent does matter because, unlike the majority of the laws, the rulebook implicitly specifies intentionally shaking the goal post is illegal.
Nolzie
Roar Rookie
They may amend the wording of the rule but at this stage it has not been. It should have been a free kick as Rampe intentionally climbed the post which in turn caused the post to sway/shake. He may not have intended to but we can never know for certain because neither you nor I can read Rampe's mind as to his intentions
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
Of course, but it won't happen. They will amend the rule wording. I wish Langdon climbed the post and touched Dom Sheed's shot for goal in the 2018 GF because there is no rule to have stopped him climbing it. He would have needed to be up about 5 metres of course which would have been a fair climbing effort in footy boots.
Nolzie
Roar Rookie
How about this then Peter? Wording of the rule stays the same, Collingwood are taking a kick to win the match, a player climbs the post which results in the ‘swaying’ and the ball hits the post.. Collingwood loses said game because the player didn’t intentionally shake the post. Do you still subscribe to it not being a free kick?
anon
Roar Pro
He shook the post. You're not allowed to rock the post. His intent doesn't matter. He shook the post. Players don't intend to be a few centimetres over the mark, but that doesn't stop them from being pinged for 50 metres.
RT
Roar Rookie
Poor choice of words by me then. Read what I said without that sentence. Shaking the post was an intentional act by vitue of what he was intentionally doing, regardless if the purpose of doing it. It is not the same as unintentionally shaking a post during a marking contest or similar when you have unintentionally made contact with the post.