Sydney Swans consider appealing Dane Rampe’s $10,000 fine

Sydney Swans will consider appealing the extreme nature of Dane Rampe’s $10,000 fine for abusing an umpire with a “little girl” sledge.

Sydney is considering an appeal of Dane Rampe’s $10,000 “little girl” fine, as the Swans seethe over the extreme nature of the AFL’s penalty for umpire abuse.

Swans chief executive Tom Harley confirmed club powerbrokers are weighing up whether to head to the tribunal and mount a high profile challenge based on the fine being “manifestly excessive”.

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE SUPERFOOTY PODCAST

Sydney are adamant that the AFL’s stunning decision to throw the book at Rampe for his derogatory comment to an umpire he accused of talking “like a little girl” during last Friday’s win over Essendon was inconsistent with the game’s response to similar incidents.

Harley also refused to rule out challenging the $1000 fully suspended fine for Rampe jumping on the goalpost, however, he made it clear examining the fairness of the “little girl” sanction was the club’s No. 1 priority.

Sydney defender Dane Rampe argues with an umpire during Sydney’s victory over Essendon. Picture: Phil Hillyard.

Privately, Sydney feel Rampe’s on-video apology for his disrespectful sledge to the umpire should have been given more credence, particularly given Richmond’s Dustin Martin escaped with a lesser fine for imitating illicit drug use earlier this year, this despite his apology being limited to a one-line tweet.

MID-SEASON DRAFT: THE PLAYERS YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD OF

DANGERFIELD: RAMPE FINE WAS ‘EXCESSIVE’

ULTIMATE GUIDE: WHAT YOUR CLUB NEEDS IN MID-SEASON DRAFT

The AFL Players Association boss also declared the AFL’s stance over umpire abuse and gender-biased language as over the top, and would likely join forces with the Swans in the event of an appeal.

The Swans have 14 days to decide whether they will appeal, but it’s likely a decision will be made within the next 48 hours.

Under AFL rules, the grounds of appeal are limited to:

● The decision involved an error of law;

● The decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable person in the position of the decision maker could have come to that decision; or

● The sanction imposed was either manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate.

Should Sydney head to the tribunal it’s understood their appeal would be based on the penalty being “manifestly excessive”, and legal representatives would carefully build a dossier of previous examples of umpire and on-field abuse and how they have been handled.

Dane Rampe climbs the goalpost as Essendon’s David Myers takes a shot for goal.

Harley said the Rampe fine had failed the No. 1 test.

“As a club we think the fine itself was excessive. And when you are working your way through these things consistency is the most important part,” Harley told Gerard Whateley on SEN Radio.

“Obviously that all happened (the handing down of charges) last night so we’ll have further discussions internally as how we respond to that. We’re certainly not absolving any responsibility for the actions of Dane but our first instinct is we thought the fine was excessive.

“ … There have been other cases where players have been pulled up for misconduct and certainly haven’t been fined to the same level.

“There is an opportunity to respond clearly and there are avenues to appeal. We’re not jumping to conclusions on what path we go down but we’ll certainly have an internal discussion about that.”

Sydney coach John Longmire and Dane Rampe celebrate Friday’s win against Essendon. Picture: Phil Hillyard.

The AFLPA says it is concerned by the AFL’s response.

“The AFLPA is concerned about the sanctions handed down to Dane Rampe,” said union boss Paul Marsh.

“With respect to the sanction relating to comments directed at an umpire, while not condoning these comments, they happened in the spur of the moment, Dane was clearly contrite, issued a genuine apology and has an exemplary disciplinary record.

“The size of the fine is excessive given these factors. In our view this was an opportunity for education rather than heavy sanctions.

“The sanction for climbing the goalpost is puzzling given the AFL’s position that this action was not even worthy of a free kick during the game.”