Jump to content

An anomaly of the Rules

The Panglossian
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

    • PREVIEW: Carlton

      Good evening, Demon fans and welcome back to the Demonland Podcast ... it’s time to discuss this week’s game against the Blues. Will the Demons celebrate Clayton Oliver’s 200th game with a victory? We have a number of callers waiting on line … Leopold Bloom: Carlton and Melbourne are both out of finals contention with six wins and eleven losses, and are undoubtedly the two most underwhelming and disappointing teams of 2025. Both had high expectations at the start of participating and advancing deep into the finals, but instead, they have consistently underperformed and disappointed themselves and their supporters throughout the year. However, I am inclined to give the Demons the benefit of the doubt, as they have made some progress in addressing their issues after a disastrous start. In contrast, the Blues are struggling across the board and do not appear to be making any notable improvements. They are regressing, and a significant loss is looming on Saturday night. Max Gawn in the ruck will be huge and the Demon midfield have a point to prove after lowering their colours in so many close calls.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland

    • REPORT: North Melbourne

      I suppose that I should apologise for the title of this piece, but the temptation to go with it was far too great. The memory of how North Melbourne tore Melbourne apart at the seams earlier in the season and the way in which it set the scene for the club’s demise so early in the piece has been weighing heavily upon all of us. This game was a must-win from the club’s perspective, and the team’s response was overwhelming. The 36 point win over Alastair Clarkson’s Kangaroos at the MCG on Sunday was indeed — roovenge of the highest order!

      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Werribee

      The Casey Demons remain in contention for a VFL finals berth following a comprehensive 76-point victory over the Werribee Tigers at Whitten Oval last night. The caveat to the performance is that the once mighty Tigers have been raided of many key players and are now a shadow of the premiership-winning team from last season. The team suffered a blow before the game when veteran Tom McDonald was withdrawn for senior duty to cover for Steven May who is ill.  However, after conceding the first goal of the game, Casey was dominant from ten minutes in until the very end and despite some early errors and inaccuracy, they managed to warm to the task of dismantling the Tigers with precision, particularly after half time when the nominally home side provided them with minimal resistance.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Carlton

      The Demons return to the MCG as the the visiting team on Saturday night to take on the Blues who are under siege after 4 straight losses. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • 211 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: North Melbourne

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 14th July @ 8:00pm. Join Binman & I as we dissect the Dees glorious win over the Kangaroos at the MCG.
      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/

      • 29 replies
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: North Melbourne

      The Demons are finally back at the MCG and finally back on the winners list as they continually chipped away at a spirited Kangaroos side eventually breaking their backs and opening the floodgates to run out winners by 6 goals.

      • 253 replies
      Demonland
    View All