Kurt Tippett kicked two goals last night. (Aussie ABC News)
It seems that this sentence is ‘one-complement pattern with monotransitive verb (Angela Downing’s term). Can we call ‘two goals’ the resultative complement?
Based on an hour or so of reading, everything I've seen about resultative complement has to do with Chinese. The resultative complements are words that are attached to activity verbs to indicate completion or both completion and comprehension.
The first point is that resultative complements are tacked onto "activity" verbs (run, swim, read, write, etc.) all of which can be intransitive. Kick is generally transitive and implies an event rather than an activity: one kicks something such as goals.
The second point is that resultative complements appear to solve the problem of showing whether an activity is complete or not. In Chinese, "I read a book" (past tense of read) does not mean that I finished reading as it does in English. To do that, I have to attach the resultative complement "kan": "I read-kan a book", if I may. That would mean I read and finished a book. (Similarly, attaching "dong" instead of "kan" would mean that I read, finished and understood a book.)
Given this information, I find a distinction between a direct object and a resultative complement in grammar, whether the direct object is a "one-complement of a monotransitive verb" or not.
Resultative phrases look like this:
He was knocked unconscious. (resultative complement)
I kicked the door open. (resultative adjunct)
In each example, the phrase in bold shows the result of the action expressed by the predicate:
These are both types of secondary predicates. They're called "secondary" because the clause already has a primary predicate, headed by knocked in the first example and kicked in the second.
We can tell unconscious is a resultative complement because it can't be omitted:
He was knocked unconscious.
*He was knocked.
That is, it's a complement because it's needed to complete the construction.
And in the second example, open is a resultative adjunct, something optional we can add to the clause to show the result of the action. We can remove it without a problem:
I kicked the door open.
I kicked the door.
So hopefully by now you know what a resultative complement is. It's a type of secondary predicate, a phrase that appears after the main predicate and predicates on either the subject or object, showing the resulting state that subject or object is in.
Your example doesn't have any of this stuff. It just has a direct object:
Kurt Tippett kicked two goals last night.
Two goals is the thing that was kicked. It doesn't express any kind of resulting state, and it doesn't predicate on the subject Kurt Tippett. When you kick a door open, the door is open. But when Kirt Tippett kicks two goals, he isn't two goals; it's just what he kicked. It's true that a direct object is a kind of complement, but it's not a resultative complement.
(I've simplified the complement–adjunct distinction here a little. See the discussion in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language p.219 for some discussion of how you might distinguish the two.)