Jump to content

An anomaly of the Rules

Jumping Jack Clennett
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: Hawthorn

      There was a time during the current Melbourne cycle that goes back to before the premiership when the club was the toughest to beat in the fourth quarter. The Demons were not only hard to beat at any time but it was virtually impossible to get the better them when scores were close at three quarter time. It was only three or four years ago but they were fit, strong and resilient in body and mind. Sadly, those days are over. This has been the case since the club fell off its pedestal about 12 months ago after it beat Geelong and then lost to Carlton. In both instances, Melbourne put together strong, stirring final quarters, one that resulted in victory, the other, in defeat. Since then, the drop off has been dramatic to the point where it can neither pull off victory in close matches, nor can it even go down in defeat  gallantly.

        • Clap
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Footscray

      At twenty-four minutes into the third term of the game between the Casey Demons and Footscray VFL at Whitten Oval, the visitors were coasting. They were winning all over the ground, had the ascendancy in the ruck battles and held a 26 point lead on a day perfect for football. What could go wrong? Everything. The Bulldogs moved into overdrive in the last five minutes of the term and booted three straight goals to reduce the margin to a highly retrievable eight points at the last break. Bouyed by that effort, their confidence was on a high level during the interval and they ran all over the despondent Demons and kicked another five goals to lead by a comfortable margin of four goals deep into the final term before Paddy Cross kicked a couple of too late goals for a despondent Casey. A testament to their lack of pressure in the latter stages of the game was the fact that Footscray’s last ten scoring shots were nine goals and one rushed behind. Things might have been different for the Demons who went into the game after last week’s bye with 12 AFL listed players. Blake Howes was held over for the AFL game but two others, Jack Billings and Taj Woewodin (not officially listed as injured) were also missing and they could have been handy at the end. Another mystery of the current VFL system.

        • Thanks
      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Brisbane

      The Demons head back out on the road in Round 10 when they travel to Queensland to take on the reigning Premiers and the top of the table Lions who look very formidable. Can the Dees cause a massive upset? Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 123 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: Hawthorn

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 12th May @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we dissect the Demons loss to the Hawks. 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. If you would like to leave us a voicemail please call 03 9016 3666 and don't worry no body answers so you don't have to talk to a human.

        • Clap
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 51 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: Hawthorn

      Wayward kicking for goal, dump kicks inside 50 and some baffling umpiring all contributed to the Dees not getting out to an an early lead that may have impacted the result. At the end of the day the Demons were just not good enough and let the Hawks run away with their first win against the Demons in 7 years.

        • Clap
        • Love
        • Like
      • 354 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • VOTES: Hawthorn

      After 3 fantastic week Max Gawn has a massive lead in the Demonland Player of the Year award from Jake Bowey, Christian Petracca, Kade Chandler and Ed Langdon who round out the Top Five. Your votes please. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1.

        • Thanks
      • 34 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland
    View All