An anomaly of the Rules

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,780]

I reckon the penalty of reversing a free kick for an indiscretion  is too severe. It's really like 2 free kicks in one. The side loses the distance they were going to achieve PLUS the other side gets the benefit of a kick.

It's often given for very minor offences, and can change a game ,...e.g.  Carlton's lucky win against Freo.

A more logical penalty would be to just ball it up.  That would be equivalent to the normal penalty for a rule infraction...i.e. one free kick( in this case , loss of a free kick).

What do other Demonlanders think?

[Demonland 71,653]

2 minutes ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

I reckon the penalty of reversing a free kick for an indiscretion  is too severe. It's really like 2 free kicks in one. The side loses the distance they were going to achieve PLUS the other side gets the benefit of a kick.

It's often given for very minor offences, and can change a game ,...e.g.  Carlton's lucky win against Freo.

A more logical penalty would be to just ball it up.  That would be equivalent to the normal penalty for a rule infraction...i.e. one free kick( in this case , loss of a free kick).

What do other Demonlanders think?

I can see situations where this would be fair but sometimes that silly indiscretion deserves the harsh penalty.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,780]

Sometimes.....but usually not.

[tiers 2,829]

Having a free kick reversed is penalty enough.  An 80-100m territory (now that territory is spoken about as a real thing) loss is far too much.

[sue 9,099]

A reversal is more than a double penalty these days because all the defenders have  probably rushed forward and will be out of defensive position 

[daisycutter 29,606]

2 hours ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

I reckon the penalty of reversing a free kick for an indiscretion  is too severe. It's really like 2 free kicks in one. The side loses the distance they were going to achieve PLUS the other side gets the benefit of a kick.

It's often given for very minor offences, and can change a game ,...e.g.  Carlton's lucky win against Freo.

A more logical penalty would be to just ball it up.  That would be equivalent to the normal penalty for a rule infraction...i.e. one free kick( in this case , loss of a free kick).

What do other Demonlanders think?

i've maintained this for 50 years

in fact i seem to remember it may have been his way when i was a kid (or maybe i imagined it)

it's definitely a double penalty (in fact a 100m penalty)

[Biffen 12,940]

I'd like to discipline the umpires.

There is a way to do it perfected by Franco during the Spanish Civil War.

It involves a fair hearing followed by a swift decision and justice.

[titan_uranus 24,983]

In the NFL if there are two penalties on the play they often cancel themselves out, so if we went down the same sort of road here then the result should be a ball up.

However, in situations like vandenBerg's against Adelaide, you have a football-related free kick (the holding the ball call in our favour) followed by a non-football-related free kick (vandenBerg's push). I have no real issue with reversing the free because one team did something non-football-related, and it just so happened to be second in time.

[FritschyBusiness 1,478]

5 hours ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

I reckon the penalty of reversing a free kick for an indiscretion  is too severe. It's really like 2 free kicks in one. The side loses the distance they were going to achieve PLUS the other side gets the benefit of a kick.

It's often given for very minor offences, and can change a game ,...e.g.  Carlton's lucky win against Freo.

A more logical penalty would be to just ball it up.  That would be equivalent to the normal penalty for a rule infraction...i.e. one free kick( in this case , loss of a free kick).

What do other Demonlanders think?

The Carlton free kick against Freo was 100% there. You can't dump a player after a kick no matter what.

They want to stomp out players hitting each other (unless they are named tom lynch) so kids don't do it at junior level.

Just wish they would do this stuff from the start of the season rather than changing "interpretations" mid way through the season

[Fanatique Demon 2,642]

I agree with the original post by JJC.

Here's a rule the umpires need to police better...

punching the ball put of bounds is allowed in a marking contest. Otherwise not. The key word is CONTEST. 

However I have seen players who aren't in a contest, could have attempted the mark themselves, but instead just punched the ball out of bounds. The umpires call for a ball-in. If there is no contest, it should be a penalty for deliberate out of bounds.  

[daisycutter 29,606]

2 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

In the NFL if there are two penalties on the play they often cancel themselves out, so if we went down the same sort of road here then the result should be a ball up.

However, in situations like vandenBerg's against Adelaide, you have a football-related free kick (the holding the ball call in our favour) followed by a non-football-related free kick (vandenBerg's push). I have no real issue with reversing the free because one team did something non-football-related, and it just so happened to be second in time.

what sort of cockamaney logic is that?.......sheesh, do you work for the afl?

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,780]

1 hour ago, FritschyBusiness said:

The Carlton free kick against Freo was 100% there. You can't dump a player after a kick no matter what.

They want to stomp out players hitting each other (unless they are named tom lynch) so kids don't do it at junior level.

Just wish they would do this stuff from the start of the season rather than changing "interpretations" mid way through the season

That wasn’t the point of my O.P.

[Demon_spurs 1,844]

I like the ball up idea....except, will it be enough of a deterrent to stop players doing it ? (i.e. pushing a player after they have won the free), I not sure it would be. Even though it is a huge penalty, as some suggested a double penalty or 100m penalty, maybe if paid more often it would fade out of the game. 

I hate seeing players lean over and arrogantly berate a player they just beaten in a contest, it stinks of bad sportsmanship. Maybe the harsh penalty might eradicate it from our game.

[Choko 493]

I think the game is gladiatorial and the reversal of the Vandenberg kick was just ridiculous. 

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,806]

Gets me that they would reverse a free kick for what Vanders did yet, blokes frequently get pushed in the back by other players towards the fence when it goes over the boundary ...and nothing.  Haven't noticed it so much lately, but a while back it use to happen all the time.

That to me was a real anomaly.

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,806]

12 hours ago, sue said:

A reversal is more than a double penalty these days because all the defenders have  probably rushed forward and will be out of defensive position 

The one against Harmesy early in the North game was an example of that.

Also due to the hashness of the penalty, I think it should only be paid for the more extreme  indiscretions.

That one against Harmesy was soft as butter.

[sue 9,099]

10 hours ago, Demon_spurs said:

....

I hate seeing players lean over and arrogantly berate a player they just beaten in a contest, it stinks of bad sportsmanship. Maybe the harsh penalty might eradicate it from our game.

I agree.  The AFL carries on  about setting an example to young people. Mocking and gloating over a defeated opponent is about as low as you can go.

[58er 6,402]

On 8/19/2020 at 2:18 PM, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

I reckon the penalty of reversing a free kick for an indiscretion  is too severe. It's really like 2 free kicks in one. The side loses the distance they were going to achieve PLUS the other side gets the benefit of a kick.

It's often given for very minor offences, and can change a game ,...e.g.  Carlton's lucky win against Freo.

A more logical penalty would be to just ball it up.  That would be equivalent to the normal penalty for a rule infraction...i.e. one free kick( in this case , loss of a free kick).

What do other Demonlanders think?

AGL don't want ball ups!!!!

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,764]

On 8/19/2020 at 2:18 PM, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

I reckon the penalty of reversing a free kick for an indiscretion  is too severe. It's really like 2 free kicks in one. The side loses the distance they were going to achieve PLUS the other side gets the benefit of a kick.

It's often given for very minor offences, and can change a game ,...e.g.  Carlton's lucky win against Freo.

A more logical penalty would be to just ball it up.  That would be equivalent to the normal penalty for a rule infraction...i.e. one free kick( in this case , loss of a free kick).

What do other Demonlanders think?

Makes complete sense.

[Bitter but optimistic 22,223]

17 minutes ago, Cheesy D. Pun said:

Makes complete sense.

Which ,obviously, ensures that it will not receive even the most cursory consideration by those who decide such matters.

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,764]

4 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

Which ,obviously, ensures that it will not receive even the most cursory consideration by those who decide such matters.

Was going to add this to my original post but decided I'd play Jerry Lewis, knowing full well that Dean Martin would arrive soon enough.

[layzie 33,767]

It would never happen, no matter how good an idea it is.