Jump to content

2022 Free Kick Differential

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

    • NON-MFC: Round 12

      Round 12 kicks off with the Brisbane hosting Essendon at the Gabba as the Lions aim to solidify their top-two position against an injury-hit Bombers side seeking to maintain momentum after a win over Richmond. On Friday night it's a blockbuster at the G as the Magpies look to extend their top of the table winning streak while the Hawks strive to bounce back from a couple of recent defeats and stay in contention for the Top 4. On Saturday the Suns, buoyed by 3 wins on the trot, face the Dockers in a clash crucial for both teams' aspirations this season. The Suns want to solidify their Top 4 standing whilst the Dockers will be desperate to break into the 8.

      • 119 replies
      Demonland

    • PREVIEW: St. Kilda

      The media has performed a complete reversal in its coverage of the Melbourne Football Club over the past month and a half. Having endured intense criticism from all quarters in the press, which continually identified new avenues for scrutiny of every aspect, both on and off the field, and prematurely speculated about the departures of coaches, players, officials, and various employees from a club that lost its first five matches and appeared out of finals contention, the narrative has suddenly shifted to one of unbridled optimism.  The Demons have won five of their last six matches, positioning themselves just one game (and a considerable amount of percentage) outside the top eight at the halfway mark of the season. They still trail the primary contenders and remain far from assured of a finals berth.

      • 12 replies
      Demonland

    • REPORT: Sydney

      A few weeks ago, I visited a fellow Melbourne Football Club supporter in hospital, and our conversation inevitably shifted from his health diagnosis to the well-being of our football team. Like him, Melbourne had faced challenges in recent months, but an intervention - in his case, surgery, and in the team's case, a change in game style - had brought about much improvement.  The team's professionals had altered its game style from a pedestrian and slow-moving approach, which yielded an average of merely 60 points for five winless games, to a faster and more direct style. This shift led to three consecutive wins and a strong competitive effort in the fourth game, albeit with a tired finish against Hawthorn, a strong premiership contender.  As we discussed our team's recent health improvement, I shared my observations on the changes within the team, including the refreshed style, the introduction of new young talent, such as rising stars Caleb Windsor, Harvey Langford, and Xavier Lindsay, and the rebranding of Kozzy Pickett from a small forward to a midfield machine who can still get among the goals. I also highlighted the dominance of captain Max Gawn in the ruck and the resurgence in form in a big way of midfield superstars Christian Petracca and Clayton Oliver. 

      • 9 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: Sydney

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 26th May @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we analyse a crushing victory by the Demons over the Swans at the G. 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.

        • Like
      • 51 replies
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: Sydney

      The Demons controlled the contest from the outset, though inaccurate kicking kept the Swans in the game until half time. But after the break, Melbourne put on the jets and blew Sydney away and the demolition job was complete.

        • Shocked
        • Clap
        • Love
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 428 replies
      Demonland

    • VOTES: Sydney

      Max Gawn still has an almost unassailable lead in the Demonland Player of the Year award. Jake Bowey, Christian Petracca, Harvey Langford, Kade Chandler & Ed Langdon round out the Top 5. Your votes please. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1.

        • Thanks
      • 46 replies
      Demonland
    View All