Jump to content

Throwing away the whistle on GF day.

bush demon
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

12 hours ago, BDA said:

Some people take issue with the JJ mark and goal but was it any different to BB's mark and goal in the 3rd when he had his hands in the back of the defender before marking. I think the 2 negate each other

The only obvious inconsistency i can remember was when Spargo was pinged for a high tackle on Hunter (that he scored from) however Kozzie didn't get a free in the exact same situation later in the game. I think is was Libba that tackled him

As long as umpires are consistent in game i've no issues

You are allowed to use your hands to hold your position - you can't push. BBs was textbook. The Dog player was backing into him.

JJ is allowed to have his hands in the back to take that mark. Had he not taken the mark it would have been a free,This rule interpretation has been in place for a long time and encourages 'high marking' - a hallmark of our great game.

Think last year when Weightman used his hands to climb Max like a stepladder - because he took the mark it was fine.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Thanks 2
     
    1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

    You are allowed to use your hands to hold your position - you can't push. BBs was textbook. The Dog player was backing into him.

    JJ is allowed to have his hands in the back to take that mark. Had he not taken the mark it would have been a free,This rule interpretation has been in place for a long time and encourages 'high marking' - a hallmark of our great game.

    Think last year when Weightman used his hands to climb Max like a stepladder - because he took the mark it was fine.

    This interpretation by the AFL is really quite ridiculous though. It's like saying you're not allowed to rob a bank unless you do it spectacularly. If the mark is not taken, why not just call play on?

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    46 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

    This interpretation by the AFL is really quite ridiculous though. It's like saying you're not allowed to rob a bank unless you do it spectacularly. If the mark is not taken, why not just call play on?

    Its like many things AFL

    They bend rules to suit...

     

  • Quote
    •  
    6 hours ago, jnrmac said:

    You are allowed to use your hands to hold your position - you can't push. BBs was textbook. The Dog player was backing into him.

    JJ is allowed to have his hands in the back to take that mark. Had he not taken the mark it would have been a free,This rule interpretation has been in place for a long time and encourages 'high marking' - a hallmark of our great game.

    Think last year when Weightman used his hands to climb Max like a stepladder - because he took the mark it was fine.

    Yep. Force decides whether it is a free or not 

    Bowey was stiff, but it was still a mark

    Edited by Sir Why You Little

  • Quote
    5 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

    This interpretation by the AFL is really quite ridiculous though. It's like saying you're not allowed to rob a bank unless you do it spectacularly. If the mark is not taken, why not just call play on?

    Because if it was play on then we could end up with any number of unrealistic marking attempts ... the rule is a good one

    Risk reward and as jnrmac stated, it keeps the spectacular mark as a hallmark of the game

    Related  but I've often wondered why the yanks don't encourage the high-flyer for the hail-mary attempts in the NFL

    Juice Newton could have been an NFL player coming off the sidelines for the speccy!  A special team specialist

  • Quote

    20 hours ago, BDA said:

    Some people take issue with the JJ mark and goal but was it any different to BB's mark and goal in the 3rd when he had his hands in the back of the defender before marking. I think the 2 negate each other

    The only obvious inconsistency i can remember was when Spargo was pinged for a high tackle on Hunter (that he scored from) however Kozzie didn't get a free in the exact same situation later in the game. I think is was Libba that tackled him

    As long as umpires are consistent in game i've no issues

    I disagree. Totally different. All BB did was hold his position and put his hands out to stop his opponent moving back on him. You're allowed to do that (you're not allowed to push your opponent out of the position they're already in like Hawkins did against May in the Prelim which led to the hamstring injury). JJ put his hands on Bowey's shoulders and pushed him out of the contest before marking the ball. I do agree that the umpires are unlikely to pay such a free because in real time it's hard to see and the 'mark' was spectacular.

  • Quote
    • Thanks 1

    All we can ask for is that they are consisitent in their inconsistency.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    12 hours ago, jnrmac said:

    You are allowed to use your hands to hold your position - you can't push. BBs was textbook. The Dog player was backing into him.

    JJ is allowed to have his hands in the back to take that mark. Had he not taken the mark it would have been a free,This rule interpretation has been in place for a long time and encourages 'high marking' - a hallmark of our great game.

    Think last year when Weightman used his hands to climb Max like a stepladder - because he took the mark it was fine.

    Agree - a great mark

  • Quote
    •  
    12 hours ago, Biffen said:

    All we can ask for is that they are consisitent in their inconsistency.

    We get that - consistently inconsistent.  The only consistent thing they do.  

  • Quote
    15 hours ago, Biffen said:

    All we can ask for is that they are consisitent in their inconsistency.

    Hard to know which is better - for them to be consistent in their inconsistency or perhaps to be inconsistent with their consistency.

  • Quote
    • Haha 1

    20 hours ago, Sydney_Demon said:

    I disagree. Totally different. All BB did was hold his position and put his hands out to stop his opponent moving back on him. You're allowed to do that (you're not allowed to push your opponent out of the position they're already in like Hawkins did against May in the Prelim which led to the hamstring injury). JJ put his hands on Bowey's shoulders and pushed him out of the contest before marking the ball. I do agree that the umpires are unlikely to pay such a free because in real time it's hard to see and the 'mark' was spectacular.

    The Bulldog player didn't protest/complain when BBB took the mark. Usually a good indication that it wasn't a free.

    cf. JJ mark. Both Bowey and Gawn complained to the umpire.

  • Quote
    22 hours ago, Macca said:

    Because if it was play on then we could end up with any number of unrealistic marking attempts ... the rule is a good one

    Risk reward and as jnrmac stated, it keeps the spectacular mark as a hallmark of the game

    Related  but I've often wondered why the yanks don't encourage the high-flyer for the hail-mary attempts in the NFL

    Juice Newton could have been an NFL player coming off the sidelines for the speccy!  A special team specialist

    Why would unrealistic marking attempts be a problem for the game?

  • Quote
    Just now, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

    Why would unrealistic marking attempts be a problem for the game?

     I could give you numerous examples but one would be if a player is caught out of position and then just blatantly pushes his opponent out of the contest even though he can't mark the ball himself

    So if that sort of incident isn't penalised then players would infringe all day, every day

    Or if a player places his hands into the back of an opponent when the ball is clearly going over both of their heads

    We actually do see that from time to time and it is penalised

     

  • Quote
    • Thanks 1

    They certainly did throw the whistle away on GF day.  In general, there does seem to be a lot less angst when the free kick count is quite low

    Players really needing to earn a free kick seems to appeal more to the spectators

    I noticed that we didn't receive a free kick in front of goal (or did we get 1? ... stand corrected on that)

    But if so, did we kick the highest score in a GF without receiving a free kick within scoring distance?

    Edited by Macca

  • Quote

    • 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

    • CASEY: Sydney

      The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • REPORT: St. Kilda

      Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
      This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

        • Thanks
      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Collingwood

      After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Thanks
      • 198 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: St. Kilda

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
      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
      • 47 replies
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: St. Kilda

      After kicking the first goal of the match the Demons were always playing catch up against the Saints in Alice Spring and could never make the most of their inside 50 entries to wrestle back the lead.

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 330 replies
      Demonland

    • VOTES: St. Kilda

      Max Gawn still has a massive lead in the Demonland Player of the Year award as Christian Petracca, Jake Bowey, Clayton Oliver & Kozzy Pickett round out the Top 5. Your votes please. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 31 replies
      Demonland
    View All