Jump to content

An anomaly of the Rules

Jumping Jack Clennett
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

Posted

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?

  • Quote
    • Like 9
     
    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.

  • Quote
    •  

    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.

  • Quote

    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 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Love 1

    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)

  • Quote

    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.

  • Quote
    • Love 1
    • Haha 2

    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
     
    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

  • Quote

    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.  

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    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?

  • Quote
    • Author
    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.

  • Quote

    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.

  • Quote

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

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    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.

  • Quote

    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.

  • Quote
    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    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!!!!

  • Quote
    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Haha 1

    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.

  • Quote
    • Haha 1

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • REPORT: Port Adelaide

      Of course, it’s not the backline, you might argue and you would probably be right. It’s the boot studder (do they still have them?), the midfield, the recruiting staff, the forward line, the kicking coach, the Board, the interchange bench, the supporters, the folk at Casey, the head coach and the club psychologist  It’s all of them and all of us for having expectations that were sufficiently high to have believed three weeks ago that a restoration of the Melbourne team to a position where we might still be in contention for a finals berth when the time for the midseason bye arrived. Now let’s look at what happened over the period of time since Melbourne overwhelmed the Sydney Swans at the MCG in late May when it kicked 8.2 to 5.3 in the final quarter (and that was after scoring 3.8 to two straight goals in the second term). 

        • Clap
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 2 replies
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Essendon

      Casey’s unbeaten run was extended for at least another fortnight after the Demons overran a persistent Essendon line up by 29 points at ETU Stadium in Port Melbourne last night. After conceding the first goal of the evening, Casey went on a scoring spree from about ten minutes in, with five unanswered majors with its fleet of midsized runners headed by the much improved Paddy Cross who kicked two in quick succession and livewire Ricky Mentha who also kicked an early goal. Leading the charge was recruit of the year, Riley Bonner while Bailey Laurie continued his impressive vein of form. With Tom Campbell missing from the lineup, Will Verrall stepped up to the plate demonstrating his improvement under the veteran ruckman’s tutelage. The Demons were looking comfortable for much of the second quarter and held a 25-point lead until the Bombers struck back with two goals in the shadows of half time. On the other side of the main break their revival continued with first three goals of the half. Harry Sharp, who had been quiet scrambled in the Demons’ first score of the third term to bring the margin back to a single point at the 17 minute mark and the game became an arm-wrestle for the remainder of the quarter and into the final moments of the last.

        • Clap
      • 0 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Gold Coast

      The Demons have the Bye next week but then are on the road once again when they come up against the Gold Coast Suns on the Gold Coast in what could be a last ditch effort to salvage their season. Who comes in and who comes out?

        • Thanks
      • 98 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: Port Adelaide

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 16th June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we dissect the Dees disappointing loss to the Power.
      Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
      Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

        • Thanks
      • 31 replies
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: Port Adelaide

      The Demons simply did not take their opportunities when they presented themselves and ultimately when down by 25 points effectively ending their finals chances. Goal kicking practice during the Bye?

        • Haha
        • Thanks
      • 252 replies
      Demonland

    • VOTES: Port Adelaide

      Max Gawn has an insurmountable lead in the Demonland Player of the Year ahead of Jake Bowey, Christian Petracca, Clayton Oliver and Kozzy Pickett. Your votes please; 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1.

        • Thanks
      • 32 replies
      Demonland
    View All