Sydney Swans co-captain Dane Rampe has been fined a total of $11,000 – $6000 of which is suspended – for two controversial incidents in his side’s dramatic five-point win over Essendon on Friday night.
The most notable incident was undoubtedly his bizarre decision to climb the goal post while Essendon’s David Myers was lining up for a speculative match-winning shot after the siren from well beyond 50 metres.
AFL laws stipulate that a player who intentionally shakes the goal post will be penalised, allowing the shot-taker to have a free kick from the centre of the goal line, but umpire Andre Gianfagna elected to order Rampe off the post instead of blowing the whistle in one of the most controversial decisions of the season.
Had the umpire penalised the Swans, Essendon would have almost certainly won the match with Myers’ free kick.
Intentionally shaking the goal post is a reportable offence and, despite the Match Review Officer electing not to cite Rampe under that law, the AFL has issued the defender a suspended $1000 fine.
But it’s an incident involving umpire Jacob Mollison earlier in the game that has incurred the greater wrath from AFL house, with Rampe fined a whopping $10,000 for his offensive comments to the official, with half of that sum funded for the remainder of his career.
After taking a mark inside defensive 50, Rampe was unaware that he’d been called to play on and gave away a holding the ball free kick after being tackled by Jake Stringer. During his argument with Mollison over the call, Rampe said: “you talk like a little girl.”
It’s not the first time Rampe has made headlines for umpire interactions. Last season, after Hawthorn coach Alastair Clarkson reportedly met with CEO Gillon McLachlan over supposedly illegal blocking tactics employed by Swans defenders, Rampe asked umpire Nick Foot if he’d had a coffee with Clarkson too after he was penalised the next week.
AFL football operations manager Steve Hocking said in a statement that “Dane is well aware the derogatory nature of his remarks are completely unacceptable and have no place in our game.”
Rampe previously apologised for both incidents in a video posted to Swans social media accounts last night, while coach John Longmire revealed at a press conference yesterday that Rampe was unaware of the rules against shaking the goal post.
DTM
Guest
"The act of climbing a post might cause it to shake, but that’s not Rampe’s intent … his intent appears more likely ..." How do you know it wasn't Rampe's intent to shake the goal post or what his intent was? It doesn't matter what he says now - the question is "did he jump on the goal post with the intention of shaking it?" As I explained previously, the umpires have to make this judgement (within a second or two) as to whether it was a deliberate act or not to shake the post - the same as they have to make other assessments as to whether players do other things deliberately or not. If the umpire in question came out and said "it was my assessment at the time that he wasn't trying to shake the post therefore I did not award a free kick" that should be the end of it. I think we can all agree, the wording of the rule is poor. PS Essendon did not deserve to get the points (even though I tipped them)
michael RVC
Roar Pro
Fair enoug. I didn’t see both sides of that.
Stirling Coates
Editor
Just the reporting the news mate. I've gone on record on several comment threads throughout the site claiming the umpires got it right in not calling the free kick.
Pumping Dougie
Roar Guru
Totally agree Christo. Most of the media seem to be missing this point. The rule was introduced because a couple of players tried vigorously shaking the post in the hope of the wobbling the post into the path of the ball's trajectory ... hence the word 'intentional in the rule. The act of climbing a post might cause it to shake, but that's not Rampe's intent ... his intent appears more likely to be to gain sufficient altitude to get a hand on the ball before it crosses the line. For Tim Watson and others to claim it is unarguably a free just defies logic - it's NEVER happened before so how can people interpret ambiguous wording of the law so confidently, particularly when 'intent' must be apparent? Essendon lost the game fair and square. Rampe's non-explanation didn't help his line of defense though, so maybe he deserves a fine just for being a dill.
michael RVC
Roar Pro
Stirling, a poor effort taking a convenient side of the argument. Rampe did not infringe the rules, no free kick. Fines? A mechanism for appeasement of nit picking whingers. Rampe’s act silly? Yes. Rampe’s response to the ump after the tackle stupid? Yes. Rampe’s case for a bad umpiring decision? 100%. Should have been 50m in favour of the Swans as the Essendon player had infringed on the protected zone rule. Had it gone that way, no goal to Essendon.
Christo the Daddyo
Roar Rookie
Can't INTENTIONALLY shake a goal post. I'm staggered anyone could look at that footage and argue Rampe was intentionally shaking the post. No problem with the other issue.
Wayne
Roar Guru
Can't shake a goal post -> That is very specifically a rule Can't show disrespect to an Umpire or Official -> Also very much a rule
Christo the Daddyo
Roar Rookie
I still don't understand what specific rule Rampe actually broke? Last time I checked there wasn't anything in the rule book about being weird...