Jump to content

2022 Free Kick Differential

Demonland
Demonland
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

 

I saw the dumbest 50m I’ve ever seen today in the Casey game.

Marty Hore had a mark( ? Free), and took a step forward, standing on Toby Bedford’s  foot.  Toby jumped in pain. …………...50 m for not “ standing” on the mark!

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    • Thanks 1
    50 minutes ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

    I saw the dumbest 50m I’ve ever seen today in the Casey game.

    Marty Hore had a mark( ? Free), and took a step forward, standing on Toby Bedford’s  foot.  Toby jumped in pain. …………...50 m for not “ standing” on the mark!

    Agree. It was a joke. Sums up this stupid “stand” rule. 
     

     

  • Quote
    •  
    1 hour ago, Demonland said:

    image.png

    Wonder how the Eagles free kick differential at home games looks? Much better methinks. 
    Edit = +6 

    Edited by Webber

  • Quote

    1 hour ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

    I saw the dumbest 50m I’ve ever seen today in the Casey game.

    Marty Hore had a mark( ? Free), and took a step forward, standing on Toby Bedford’s  foot.  Toby jumped in pain. …………...50 m for not “ standing” on the mark!

    Agree Jack. It was just pathetic.

  • Quote

    NARRM is doing good.!!!

  • Quote
    •  

    I see Bevo is having a whinge about Naughton being blocked off his run for marks. If they start paying those as frees Max will get 5 more free kicks a game.

    I hope this whole thing back fires and it shows everyone how to beat Naughton, and finally allows the media to talk about #freekickbulldogs

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    Finally getting the top team free kicks we used to get against us all those years.

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    43 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

    I see Bevo is having a whinge about Naughton being blocked off his run for marks. If they start paying those as frees Max will get 5 more free kicks a game.

    I hope this whole thing back fires and it shows everyone how to beat Naughton, and finally allows the media to talk about #freekickbulldogs

    How rich from the umpires’ pet team. 

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1
    • Haha 1

    I thought this weekend we got a pretty good run with the umpires. Was nice to be on the positive end of this for once, but I still don't like it. There shouldn't be the gaps in interpretation and consistency that there are. 

    I know many won't agree, but it questions the games integrity.  

    Keep up the good work AFL. 

  • Quote
    • Sad 1
    1 hour ago, COVID Dan said:

    I thought this weekend we got a pretty good run with the umpires. Was nice to be on the positive end of this for once, but I still don't like it. There shouldn't be the gaps in interpretation and consistency that there are. 

    I know many won't agree, but it questions the games integrity.  

    Keep up the good work AFL. 

    I'm still not sure how the Langdon tackle was called a free. If a player is outstretched, there's nothing wrong with trying to break his ribs in a bone crunching tackle. There was not sling, there was no 2 motions. a horrific decision that resulted in a goal for us.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
    56 minutes ago, Deedubs said:

    I'm still not sure how the Langdon tackle was called a free. If a player is outstretched, there's nothing wrong with trying to break his ribs in a bone crunching tackle. There was not sling, there was no 2 motions. a horrific decision that resulted in a goal for us.

    Is a "dangerous tackle" a category of free kick or just something that we all seem to think exists? If so, is that what was paid? And if it was what was paid, should it have been?

    Edited by La Dee-vina Comedia
    clarifying language

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

    Is a "dangerous tackle" a category of free kick or just something that we all seem to think exists? If so, is that what was paid? And if it was what was paid, should it have been?

    Yeah I believe the decision was 'dangerous tackle'. But usually that's got to be like a 2 motion dump or sling. 

  • Quote

    20 minutes ago, Deedubs said:

    Yeah I believe the decision was 'dangerous tackle'. But usually that's got to be like a 2 motion dump or sling.
     
    Thomas drove Langdon (who was off his feet) with deliberate, unnecessary force into the ground. No question that it was dangerous, as the outcome proved. And yes, I’ve reversed the teams in my head…same decision. Duty of care meant he would have slowed/pulled his force before the ground contact. 

  • Quote
    22 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

    Is a "dangerous tackle" a category of free kick or just something that we all seem to think exists? If so, is that what was paid? And if it was what was paid, should it have been?

    I didn't think it was a free kick watching it live first time, but after many replays it seems more like a dangerous tackle

    Langdon was in air, and the tackle had a bit of rotate and dump to it, and his head lashed back and did hit ground, albeit not as hard as his back

    Then again, everything looks worse in slowmo

  • Quote
    24 minutes ago, Deedubs said:

    Yeah I believe the decision was 'dangerous tackle'. But usually that's got to be like a 2 motion dump or sling. 

    Thomas drove Langdon (who was off his feet) with deliberate, unnecessary force into the ground. No question that it was dangerous, as the outcome proved. And yes, I’ve reversed the teams in my head…same decision. Duty of care meant he would have slowed/pulled his force before the ground contact. 

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    1 hour ago, Deedubs said:

    I'm still not sure how the Langdon tackle was called a free. If a player is outstretched, there's nothing wrong with trying to break his ribs in a bone crunching tackle. There was not sling, there was no 2 motions. a horrific decision that resulted in a goal for us.

    Agree, Im all for keeping it clean, but the interpretation and consistency of what is dangerous is just more confusion.

    I seriously could not explain to anyone anymore what holding the ball is now. I honestly don't blame the umpires, I blame the AFL for making it such a joke to umpire.

    And on top of that, how do you justify such huge free kick counts and differentials. No wonder people are turning off.

    Edited by COVID Dan
    Apparently [censored] is a curse

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

    Is a "dangerous tackle" a category of free kick or just something that we all seem to think exists? If so, is that what was paid? And if it was what was paid, should it have been?

    The funny thing about the inconsistency with the dangerous tackle is, the AFL can't even get the consistency with striking right.

    But to answer your question La Dee - it is just more confusion on an already dubious set of ""standards" introduced at Boy Club central.

  • Quote

    On a side note - it is a joke how Gil and the yes men at AFL house think there is no conflict in appointing Brad Scott as head of umpires or whatever made up role he does.

    Its hard to find this sort of corruption outside of politics 

    And i am sure if Gil was asked about it, Brad would have been the perfect yes man to take the position. How dare we question the leagues motives or integrity. 

    Edited by COVID Dan

  • Quote

    Of course it was a dangerous tackle. Ed was driven into the ground.

    If he had hit his head it would have been at least 2 weeks c/f Kade Chandler's penalty for much the same action but different outcome.

    Will the AFL ever realise that a dangerous tackle is always a dangerous tackle even when the head id not affected? I have serious doubts that they will.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    18 minutes ago, tiers said:

    Of course it was a dangerous tackle. Ed was driven into the ground.

    If he had hit his head it would have been at least 2 weeks c/f Kade Chandler's penalty for much the same action but different outcome.

    Will the AFL ever realise that a dangerous tackle is always a dangerous tackle even when the head id not affected? I have serious doubts that they will.

    since when is 'driven into the ground' considered dangerous? Every tackle involves taking a player to the ground. It was a perfect tackle and yes he drove him into the ground. 

    Kade Chandler's tackle was completely different. Chandler's tackle was a chase down tackle, he had both his arms pinned and didn't turn him over. Tarryn Thomas didn't even hit him at speed. It was off a few steps. You realise that whether a player hits his head or not is completely irrelevant. SO if the AFL isn't soft enough, now you want to outlaw fair tackles? It's already becoming a game of netball. 
     

  • Quote
    •  
    39 minutes ago, COVID Dan said:

    Agree, Im all for keeping it clean, but the interpretation and consistency of what is dangerous is just more confusion.

    I seriously could not explain to anyone anymore what holding the ball is now. I honestly don't blame the umpires, I blame the AFL for making it such a joke to umpire.

    And on top of that, how do you justify such huge free kick counts and differentials. No wonder people are turning off.

    I agree. The whistle goes off every 30 seconds. 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    1 hour ago, Deedubs said:

    Every tackle involves taking a player to the ground

    Nope. Not even close to the truth. As to the mechanism of the tackle, Langdon was planted flat on his back. No chance of self-protection, particularly as he was lifted, and thus at the complete mercy of the tackler. It was unnecessarily dangerous, childish ‘netball’ allusions or not. 

  • Quote
    • Like 4

    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: Richmond

      The fans who turned up to the MCG for Melbourne’s Anzac Day Eve clash against Richmond would have been disappointed if they turned up to see a great spectacle. As much as this was a night for the 71,635 in attendance to commemorate heroes of the nation’s past wars, it was also a time for the Melbourne Football Club to consolidate upon its first win after a horrific start to the 2025 season. On this basis, despite the fact that it was an uninspiring and dour struggle for most of its 100 minutes, the night will be one for the fans to remember. They certainly got value out of the pre match activity honouring those who fought for their country. The MCG and the lights of the city as backdrop was made for nights such as these and, in my view, we received a more inspirational ceremony of Anzac culture than others both here and elsewhere around the country. 

      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Richmond

      The match up of teams competing in our great Aussie game at its second highest level is a rarity for a work day Thursday morning but the blustery conditions that met the players at a windswept Casey Fields was something far more commonplace.They turned the opening stanza between the Casey Demons and a somewhat depleted Richmond VFL into a mess of fumbling unforced errors, spilt marks and wasted opportunities for both sides but they did set up a significant win for the home team which is exactly what transpired on this Anzac Day round opener. Casey opened up strong against the breeze with the first goal to Aidan Johnson, the Tigers quickly responded and the game degenerated into a defensive slog and the teams were level when the first siren sounded.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: Richmond

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 28th April @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we analyse the Demons 2nd win for the year against the Tigers.
      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.
      Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/
      Call: 03 9016 3666
      Skype: Demonland31

        • Like
      • 13 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: West Coast

      The Demons hit the road in Round 8, heading to Perth to face the West Coast Eagles at Optus Stadium. With momentum building, the Dees will be aiming for a third straight victory to keep their season revival on course. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Clap
        • Like
      • 137 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: Richmond

      After five consecutive defeats, the Demons have now notched up back-to-back victories, comfortably accounting for the Tigers in the traditional ANZAC Eve clash. They surged to a commanding 44-point lead early in the final quarter before easing off the pedal, resting skipper Max Gawn and conceding the last four goals of the game to close out a solid 20-point win.

        • Clap
        • Haha
        • Love
        • Like
      • 294 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • VOTES: Richmond

      Max Gawn leads the Demonland Player of the Year from Jake Bowey with Christian Petracca, Ed Langdon and Clayton Oliver rounding out the Top 5. Your votes for the Demons victory over the Tigers on ANZAC Eve. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, & 1.

        • Like
      • 47 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland
    View All