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

    • 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?

        • Clap
        • Love
        • Like
      • 222 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.

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 253 replies
      Demonland
    View All