Jump to content

Discussion on recent allegations about the use of illicit drugs in football is forbidden
  • IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

    Posting unsubstantiated rumours on this website is strictly forbidden.

    Demonland has made the difficult decision to not permit this platform to be used to discuss & debate the off-field issues relating to the Melbourne Football Club including matters currently being litigated between the Club & former Board members, board elections, the issue of illicit drugs in footy, the culture at the club & the personal issues & allegations against some of our players & officials ...

    We do not take these issues & this decision lightly & of course we believe that these serious matters affecting the club we love & are so passionate about are worthy of discussion & debate & I wish we could provide a place where these matters can be discussed in a civil & respectful manner.

    However these discussions unfortunately invariably devolve into areas that may be defamatory, libelous, spread unsubstantiated rumours & can effect the mental health of those involved. Even discussion & debate of known facts or media reports can lead to finger pointing, blame & personal attacks.

    The repercussion is that these discussions can open this website, it’s owners & it’s users to legal action & may result in this website being forced to shutdown.

    Our moderating team are all volunteers & cannot moderate the forum 24/7 & as a consequence problematic content that contravenes our rules & standards may go unnoticed for some time before it can be removed.

    We reserve the right to delete posts that offend against our above policy & indeed, to ban posters who are repeat offenders or who breach our code of conduct.

    WE HAVE BUILT A FANTASTIC ONLINE COMMUNITY AT DEMONLAND OVER THE PAST 23 YEARS & WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THE CLUB WE LOVE & ARE SO PASSIONATE ABOUT.

    Thank you for your continued support & understanding. Go Dees.


Umpiring discrepancies


pitmaster

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Would that $100k be needed for the MCG or all grounds?

Either way, in relative terms it is not a big expense for such a critical piece of required technology.  
In a multi million or billion dollar industry it pretty much would rate as petty cash.

It ain’t going to break the bank.
 

  • Like 1
  • Angry 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, binman said:

Give me a spell.

We were not 'garbage' for the first quarter and half.

The blues were brilliant. Their intensity was off the charts. And we stood up amazingly well.

You've managed to insult both the Dees AND the blues (if we were garbage for a quarter and a half any decent team, let alone a tem of the Blues caliber, would have gone into half time with a 6 goal lead)

Such rot.

On the radio after the game, one of the analysts said the 'demons lost no admirers, they were awesome' (he also went on to say that ARC decision was clearly an error and questioned how they could have made the decision so quickly).

Without a word of a lie, i immediately thought to myself, yes they will - but not from any objective person, but rather it will be dees fans who can't see the woods for the trees. 

This was the pressure rating for the match (note 200 is consider elite, finals like pressure - we finished with an average across the game of 200. That is unbelievable).

Team pressure

Quarter For Against
1 196 224
2 185 201
3 207 197
4 214 202
Match 200 206

The fact that the blues had an average of 206 is credit to them. Amazing pressure - i would be very surprised if they have had a higher rating in any other game this season. 

No other team has come close to that sort of sustained pressure in a game against us this season. By way of comparison in our previous encounter both team averaged 170 for the game.

And IIRC the Pies Port game, which many have said is the best, most intense game of the season, was aprox the same as the blues dees game.

Most finals don't get to those levels. Our GF win didn't. And nor did the Pies Cats game on Friday night for that matter. 

And before you dismiss the stat, clubs put huge stock in it. It was designed by Champion Data for clubs, not TV.

If you don't believe me listen to McRae's post match presser - he promised they would lift their pressure rating ahead of the game and in the presser references their pressure being back to it's very best - 'at 2'  (note: the data the clubs get, which Brendan Sanderson has said is shown to players on the bench thru the match, is expressed as say 1.8 for 180 - fox and the herald sun just adds a zero to make it sexier and easier for fans to grasp).

I have no idea what your post has to do with mine. My point is that Melbourne did not lose the game because of umpiring decisions. The ARC followed the process correctly and made the only decision it could make. The problem is the Goal Umpire who for whatever reason called touched when they haven't been calling touched on those sort of plays all year.

After 5 minutes into the second quarter Melbourne controlled the game but for 5 minutes at the end of the second and 3 minutes at the start of the fourth. Yes, the pressure was outstanding from both sides except for tackles inside 50 where we found wanting (lost the count 21-8) from both sides but again what does that have to do with my point? I responded to a poster who said the umpires are the sole reason that we lost. Maybe read that post first.

Edited by FearTheBeard
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m still angry. It was a goal. Marchbank didn’t even protest (unlike Silly-Silvagni I’m the 93 GF).

How did the goal umpire categorically decide it was touched. Usually the call (99-1 ratio)  is “it’s a goal but it may have been touched “ but MFC got the one umpire that decides he categorically thinks it’s touched.  
 

Sure it wasn’t the sole reason we lost … but it was one of the reasons we didn’t win !!! 

  • Like 4
  • Love 1
  • Clap 1
  • Sad 1
  • Angry 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rjay said:

Agree with all you say 'bin'...but here lies the problem.

I think the umpiring is at it's lowest ebb since I've been watching football, and that's a long time now.

I don't blame the umpires, although I did have a shot at Ray the other night for missing the JVR trip.

You can see the umps don't have any confidence in their own game and that's due to the AFL.

You've got a retired CEO, no football manager and 2 board vacancies.

Who is running the place?

It's a total shambles.

I'm sure all the fact finding junkets to study how they do things in the NFL, EPL etc are well on track.

  • Like 2
  • Angry 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it were likely to provoke change, this entire thread should be sent to the AFL. Would that they listened! Brilliant stuff, terrific reading. 

For those who can’t accept that umpiring affects results, think about the illogic of that. ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING that happens during a game is sanctioned, or not, by the umpires. Otherwise put, the game doesn’t even start, and no result is achievable without their action or inaction. If you think all W-L results are ‘perfect’, i.e. every W-L result is ‘right’, it’s saying that across their 120 minutes of decision-making, the balance of their decisions is also ‘perfect’. I hate to be conceptually pedantic, but this is nonsense. At its fundament. The fact of umpiring’s imperfection renders occasional ‘imperfect’ results. By definition. The problem with AFL umpiring (and as so many of you have rightly said it’s on THEM, not the umpires) is that it’s never been more imperfect. 
 

The question then to ask, and as you’ve all astutely outlined, there are obvious, simple solutions, is why aren’t the AFL improving what is a horrible shambles? 
 


 

  • Like 2
  • Clap 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

I’m still angry. It was a goal. Marchbank didn’t even protest (unlike Silly-Silvagni I’m the 93 GF).

How did the goal umpire categorically decide it was touched. Usually the call (99-1 ratio)  is “it’s a goal but it may have been touched “ but MFC got the one umpire that decides he categorically thinks it’s touched.  
 

Sure it wasn’t the sole reason we lost … but it was one of the reasons we didn’t win !!! 

Yes, this is the point nobody is talking about enough. The ARC's decision was correct based on the technology they have available (let's not go down that rabbit warren though).

Why did the goal umpire decide to call it touched?? don't reckon I have seen one called as touched like that all year. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Return to Glory said:

10 Nokia Phones that Shaped the Mobile Revolution - PCQuestCutting edge technology clearly being used by the AFL

I'm surprised you can't hear the beeping and whirring of the modem as they send the decision up to ARC for review.

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites


44 minutes ago, FearTheBeard said:

I have no idea what your post has to do with mine.

What the? 

I had to go back and make sure i didn't quote the wrong post. 

But i didn't.

You wrote the dees, and i quote, 'were garbage for the first quarter and a half'

I barely referenced the umpires. 

My post (that you have quoted) was all about rebutting your opinion the dees 'were garbage for the first quarter and a half'

In all seriousness, how on earth do you arrive at 'I have no idea what your post has to do with mine'?

 

Edited by binman
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, FearTheBeard said:

Yes, this is the point nobody is talking about enough. The ARC's decision was correct based on the technology they have available (let's not go down that rabbit warren though).

Why did the goal umpire decide to call it touched?? don't reckon I have seen one called as touched like that all year. 

Apparently the goal umpire thought the ball hit Marchbank’s wrist, Marchbank opined that it hit his fingers but was hoping for anything.  Those discrepancies tell me everything I need to know.

Whately this morning considered whether we give the ARC the soft call, and if we do, should the goal umpire clarify where the ball was touched to give the ARC something more specific to test. I think either one of those tweaks instantly improves the process.

Edited by ChaserJ
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, In Harmes Way said:

I'm surprised you can't hear the beeping and whirring of the modem as they send the decision up to ARC for review.

They then fax the result of the review through to the announcer I believe. The wonders of modern technology. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this elsewhere, but it is so wise 😀 I can't resist posting here too:

Why do the ARC people get to hear the umpire's call in advance?  It must affect their thinking.

Surely they should be told the umpire is in doubt as to whether or not it was touched.  If the ARC can then clearly see it wasn't touched, then we never hear what the umpire thought and it's a goal.  If they say it was clearly touched,  it's a point.  If they say ARC can't tell, then reveal the umpire's call and implement it.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
  • Clap 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, binman said:

What the? 

I had to go back and make sure i didn't quote the wrong post. 

But i didn't.

You wrote the dees, and i quote, 'were garbage for the first quarter and a half'

I barely referenced the umpires. 

My post (that you have quoted) was all about rebutting your opinion the dees 'were garbage for the first quarter and a half'

In all seriousness, how on earth do you arrive at 'I have no idea what your post has to do with mine'?

 

Do you seriously think your essay response actually addressed my point? My point was simply that the umpires were not the reason we lost. Melbourne was not good enough in the first quarter which you seem to disagree with but that is fine, you must not have watched the game. But as I said, my point was not addressed by your comment, if you think the umpires are the reason we lost then that would address what I said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, sue said:

I posted this elsewhere, but it is so wise 😀 I can't resist posting here too:

Why do the ARC people get to hear the umpire's call in advance?  It must affect their thinking.

Surely they should be told the umpire is in doubt as to whether or not it was touched.  If the ARC can then clearly see it wasn't touched, then we never hear what the umpire thought and it's a goal.  If they say it was clearly touched,  it's a point.  If they say ARC can't tell, then reveal the umpire's call and implement it.

Wise lol. There is a process in place and has been in place since the Score review was put into the game. Whether you like that process or not is separate, but that process was followed correctly by the ARC and the ARC made the correct decision. The incorrect decision (if you believe it was wrong) was made by the goal umpire. If we don't have a soft signal what is the ARC meant to do? Call it a goal or behind when there is no conclusive evidence? There is no way any person could definitively say whether that ball was touched or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, sue said:

I posted this elsewhere, but it is so wise 😀 I can't resist posting here too:

Why do the ARC people get to hear the umpire's call in advance?  It must affect their thinking.

Surely they should be told the umpire is in doubt as to whether or not it was touched.  If the ARC can then clearly see it wasn't touched, then we never hear what the umpire thought and it's a goal.  If they say it was clearly touched,  it's a point.  If they say ARC can't tell, then reveal the umpire's call and implement it.

 

33 minutes ago, ChaserJ said:

Apparently the goal umpire thought the ball hit Marchbank’s wrist, Marchbank opined that it hit his fingers but was hoping for anything.  Those discrepancies tell me everything I need to know.

Whately this morning considered whether we give the ARC the soft call, and if we do, should the goal umpire clarify where the ball was touched to give the ARC something more specific to test. I think either one of those tweaks instantly improves the process.

Both of the suggest process improvements here would go a long way to providing more consistent outcomes.

Pity its too little too late and knowing our luck, will be in place when we find ourselves in Carltons position in a future grand final 5 points up with 10 seconds to go.... uggh anxiety meltdown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, FearTheBeard said:

Wise lol. There is a process in place and has been in place since the Score review was put into the game. Whether you like that process or not is separate, but that process was followed correctly by the ARC and the ARC made the correct decision. The incorrect decision (if you believe it was wrong) was made by the goal umpire. If we don't have a soft signal what is the ARC meant to do? Call it a goal or behind when there is no conclusive evidence? There is no way any person could definitively say whether that ball was touched or not.

You are digging yourself into a hole. Try reading what I wrote.  I'm not arguing they didn't follow the current procedure. I'm arguing the procedure is wrong.  Why does the ARC need to know what the umpire's calll was? They just need to know the area of doubt and look into that with an open mind. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it quite remarkable that we haven't got access to technology that can give us 99% accuracy on these decisions.

In cricket they can detect the faintest of edges in the centre wicket area, or whether the ball will strike the stumps or not, and in tennis if the ball touches the line or misses by millimeters.

In our game we get blurred images which 9 times out of ten are inconclusive - does the AFL like it this way or are they just too tight to pay for something that actually is worth having.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spirit of norm smith said:

I’m still angry. It was a goal. Marchbank didn’t even protest (unlike Silly-Silvagni I’m the 93 GF).

How did the goal umpire categorically decide it was touched. Usually the call (99-1 ratio)  is “it’s a goal but it may have been touched “ but MFC got the one umpire that decides he categorically thinks it’s touched.  
 

Sure it wasn’t the sole reason we lost … but it was one of the reasons we didn’t win !!! 

This sums it up for me. I'm still spitting chips. It just doesn't make sense. We know it went through the goals, so it's a goal unless the umpire sees that it was touched, in which case it's a point. If he isn't sure, it should just be called a goal, rather than referring the decision to a technology which is completely incapable of providing more accurate information. That idiotic process could well have just cost us a home final.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


11 minutes ago, FearTheBeard said:

Do you seriously think your essay response actually addressed my point? My point was simply that the umpires were not the reason we lost. Melbourne was not good enough in the first quarter which you seem to disagree with but that is fine, you must not have watched the game. But as I said, my point was not addressed by your comment, if you think the umpires are the reason we lost then that would address what I said.

If the umpire's call was 'goal' would you say we did not deserve the win?  On your logic in other posts I think you would have to say that.

What we did during the rest of the game to fall behind or not pull clear is irrelevant.  As is what Carlton did or didn't do earlier in the match to fail to put us away for playing as poorly as you emphasize.  The fact is that within a minute we were that close and so was Carlton.  When a game is that close an umpire's bad call can mean that one team or the other loses.   Just have to live with it until the AFL does something other than hope for controversey and clicks.  But your over-emphasising how the game got to that point is irrelevant to those who think an umpire's mistake affected the result. 

Carlton supporters would be just as mad if the ARC said it was a goal.  Their poster named FearTheCleanshaven would be arguing they lost because they didn't put us away earlier. 

BTW, I have no firm opinion on whether the ball was touched or not. Who can tell with the technology available.  I do have a firm opinion of JVR's legs being blatently taken out, but who knows, he may have missed a shot at goal even if he got the free.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, sue said:

Whatever you think of the standard of umpiring, the difficulty of umpiring, the humaness of umpires, the need for the AFL to improve the rules and professionalism of umpires, the over-the-top bias of one-eyed supporters, etc etc, your last bolded part of your statement is just silly.   Of course it happens.   How could it not given the difficulty of umpiring?   Of course every team could get 10 goals ahead so that one or two bad decisions wouldn't determine the outcome of the game. But close games happen and an error can affect the result.

Does <<insert your team here>> lose because of umpire errors more than do other teams? No, it just feels bad when it happens. 

 

I recall a game some years ago, against the Eagles in Perth, where with a minute to go to half time the frees were 15 to Eagles and none to us. We were playing well and every time we looked like scoring, another Eagles free to stop us.

Just before the half time siren went, we got our only free for the half, in the back pocket.

It didn’t improve much after half time and we lost, but not heavily and Dees fans were filthy.

I think one commentator said oh Eagles are getting a good run and that was it.

Umpires do affect games occasionally and that, while difficult to stop, is a pity.

I have never seen a more one sided umpiring display since, thank heavens.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChaserJ said:

Apparently the goal umpire thought the ball hit Marchbank’s wrist, Marchbank opined that it hit his fingers but was hoping for anything.  Those discrepancies tell me everything I need to know.

Whately this morning considered whether we give the ARC the soft call, and if we do, should the goal umpire clarify where the ball was touched to give the ARC something more specific to test. I think either one of those tweaks instantly improves the process.

Good points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChaserJ said:

Apparently the goal umpire thought the ball hit Marchbank’s wrist, Marchbank opined that it hit his fingers but was hoping for anything.  Those discrepancies tell me everything I need to know.

Whately this morning considered whether we give the ARC the soft call, and if we do, should the goal umpire clarify where the ball was touched to give the ARC something more specific to test. I think either one of those tweaks instantly improves the process.

Agree on giving the ARC the soft call, but not with asking the goal umpire any clarifying questions

The latter just adds another variable and process that would have to be followed.

Just one example - how would the ARC speak to the goal umpire? Do the goal umpires currently wear a mic?

If no, that is just more tech issues and costs - and the AFL are already woeful in that space.

If they do have mic, then how are they 'questioned? What's appropriate to ask? What if it the ARC reviewer asks a leading questions?

But most of all, for every second that passes from the incident the umpires memory of the incident morph and changes - it is human nature. The brain is constantly reinterpreting what has occurred in the past. 

Much easier - and more importantly much more black and white - would be for there to be blanket rule.

No soft call.

The goal umpire just tells the truth - i don't know if it was touched or not (which is no different to 'i think it was touched' or "i think it's a goal').

It is then up to the ARC reviewer to review the video and make the call.

If they cant tell if it has been touched or not becuase the video is not clear, than it is a variation on the old cricket umpiring rule - the batter gets the benefit of the doubt - the kicker get the benefit of the doubt and it is given a goal. 

It could also be given point but that makes less sense to me.

Either way it is a clear rule that everyone understands and is uniformly applied.

Simple.

The thing that does my head in is this scenario was just so utterly predictable and preventable. In fact there was a similar scenario last year with Lynch, with the lions being being the beneficiary.

Which is why i cant get away from the thought the AFL are deliberately not addressing obvious issues like this.

And why i could see them bringing in a ham fisted response that just created further dramas, and unintended consequences, like Whatley's idea re the ARC conferring with the goal umpire. 

They conflate controversy with it being good for the game becuase it dominates sport air time.

It's been their strategy for 20 years - crowd out every other sport for media attention.

Grow footy by starving other sports and codes of attention.

It's a joke - and so mid numbingly short sighted and harmful to the sport. 

 

Edited by binman
  • Like 4
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should have been a goal...but so should those two behinds JVR kicked and Joel Smith's set shot inside 50...any one of them would have made the difference.

Still think that system is either used to get a definite result, or don't use it at all, as if we can't get better tech in this day and age it's pretty silly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

Sometimes it's the lack of calls that make up the many bad decisions. Our tackling was not rewarded like theirs. Not a dig at you but anyone who says bad umpiring doesn't cost clubs games has absolutely no clue. Umpires are human and often get swayed or intimidated by large parochial crowds. 

Totally agree. Umpires influence the outcomes of games, those that don’t think so are kidding themselves.

There was no conclusive evidence that the ball was or wasn’t touched on the line. How do we know that it wasn’t touched? Either way, with such poor technology being adopted and HQ’s refusal to resolve it, it is inevitable that it will cost a team a premiership in future.

As for being too nice a club, instead of focusing our attention on such an issue, I’d rather we concentrate on our lapses in pressure and our lack of taking the initiative in games. We are simply way too defensively minded.

We need to come out and put the game to bed early against the Hawks, as the longer they are in it the more their confidence will grow and our defensive mindset will suffocate us.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Demonland Forums  

  • Match Previews, Reports & Articles  

    ICEBREAKER by KC from Casey

    The Casey Demons have broken the ice for season 2024 with a pulsating come-from-behind victory over Port Melbourne in which it took the lead for the first time at the halfway mark of the final quarter. The game played in mild Autumn conditions in neutral territory at Kinetic Park, Frankston, never reached great heights in standard but it proved gripping in character at the end at the Casey Demons overcame the Borough to win by 15 points after trailing badly early in the second half.  P

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Casey Articles

    MAULED by Whispering Jack

    The writing was on the wall from the very first bounce of the football. The big men went up, Max Gawn more often than not, decisively won the ruck hit out and invariably a Brisbane Lions onballer either won the battle on the ground or halved the contest and they went at it repeatedly until they finally won out. Melbourne managed the first goal from Alex Neal-Bullen but after that the visitors shut out every area of Demon presence around the ground except in the ruck duels. It was a mauling.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports 4

    PREGAME: Rd 07 vs Richmond

    The Demons have a bye next week and have a 13 day break before they return to the MCG on ANZAC Eve to take on the Tigers. Who comes in and who goes out?

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 153

    PODCAST: Rd 05 vs Brisbane

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 15th April @ 8:30pm. Join George, Binman & I as we analyse the Demons loss at the MCG against the Lions in the Round 05. You 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 & Chat LIV

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 47

    VOTES: Rd 05 vs Brisbane

    Last week Christian Petracca retook the outright lead in the Demonland Player of the Year Award from Max Gawn, Steven May, Alex Neal-Bullen & Jack Viney. Your votes for the loss against the Lions. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 39

    POSTGAME: Rd 05 vs Brisbane

    The Demons 4 game winning streak has come to an end after a disappointing loss against the Brisbane Lions at the MCG going down by 22 points. 

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 503

    GAMEDAY: Rd 05 vs Brisbane

    It's Game Day & Demons have a great opportunity to win their fifth game on the trot and go into the bye with 5 wins and one loss when they take on the Brisbane Lions at the MCG on the Thursday night big stage.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 833

    TRAINING: Wednesday 10th April 2024

    Demonland Trackwatchers Kev Martin and Demon Dynasty were once again on hand at this morning's Captain's Run at Gosch's Paddock to bring you their observations from training. KEV MARTIN'S CAPTAIN'S RUN OBSERVATIONS No-one in rehab this morning, a Captain's run, 26 players. Laurie, Tomlinson, Tholstrup, Chandler, Woey, and Kossie are out there. Rehabbers are out now. Marty, McAdam, Melky, Bowey, Sestan. As a guess for in and outs, I would say, out Laurie, Tomlinson, and W

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    THE PEOPLE SPEAK by The Demonland Crew

    DEMONLAND: Good evening, Demon fans and welcome to the Demonland 2024 Grand Final Podcast … It’s been a beautiful last day of September and how sweet it is to bring you our coverage of all things that matter about the great Demon resurgence which we’ve seen over the past six or seven months. How our team overcame a turbulent off season and a disappointing start to 2024 on a humid night in Sydney, turned our detractors into believers and then ended the year triumphant in the finals with our capta

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Previews 3
  • Tell a friend

    Love Demonland? Tell a friend!

  • Podcast 

  • Podcast 

  • Podcast Stream 


    Open Stream in
    New Window
        TuneIn    Opens in New Tab
  • Support Demonland  



  • 2021 Premiership  

  • Social Media 

  • Non MFC Games  

    NON-MFC: Round 06

    Discussion of all the other games that don't involve the Demons in Round 06 ... READ MORE

    Demonland | Round 06

  • Latest Podcast      

    PODCAST: Rd 05 vs Brisbane

    The boys dissected the disappointing loss to Brisbane rueing our poor work at the stoppages, debated the role that fatigue played and lamenting the loss of Christian Salem ... LISTEN

    Demonland | April 16

  • PreGame      

    PREGAME: Rd 06 vs Richmond

    The Demons have a bye next week and have a 13 day break before they return to the MCG on ANZAC Eve to take on the Tigers. Who comes in and who goes out? ...READ MORE

    Demonland | April 16

  • Casey Report      

    ICE BREAKER by KC from Casey

    The Casey Demons have broken the ice for season 2024 with a pulsating come-from-behind victory over Port Melbourne in which it took the lead for the first time at the halfway mark of the final quarter ... READ MORE

    Demonland | April 14

  • Match Report      

    MAULED by Whispering Jack

    The writing was on the wall from the very first bounce of the football. The big men went up, Max Gawn more often than not, decisively won the ruck hit out and invariably a Brisbane Lions onballer either won the battle on the ground or halved the contest and they went at it repeatedly until they finally won out ... READ MORE

    Demonland | April 12

  • Post Game      

    POSTGAME: Rd 05 vs Brisbane

    The Demons 4 game winning streak has come to an end after a disappointing loss against the Brisbane Lions at the MCG going down by 22 points ...READ MORE

    Demonland | April 11

  • Votes      

    VOTES: Rd 05 vs Brisbane

    Last week Christian Petracca retook the outright lead in the Demonland Player of the Year Award from Max Gawn, Steven May, Alex Neal-Bullen & Jack Viney. Your votes for the loss against the Lions. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 ...READ MORE

    Demonland | April 11

  • Game Day      

    GAMEDAY: Rd 05 vs Brisbane

    It's Game Day & the Demons have a great opportunity to win their fifth game on the trot and go into the bye with 5 wins and one loss when they take on the Brisbane Lions at the MCG on the Thursday night big stage ... READ MORE

    Demonland | April 11

  • Training  

    Wednesday, 10th April 2024

    Demonland Trackwatchers Kev Martin and Demon Dynasty were once again on hand at this morning's Captain's Run at Gosch's Paddock to bring you their observations from training ... READ MORE

    Demonland | April 10

  • Match Preview      

    THE PEOPLE SPEAK by The Demonland Crew

    Good evening, Demon fans and welcome to the Demonland 2024 Grand Final Podcast … It’s been a beautiful last day of September and how sweet it is to bring you our coverage of all things that matter about the great Demon resurgence which we’ve seen over the past six or seven months ... READ MORE

    Demonland | April 09

  • Training  

    Sunday, 7th April 2024

    Demonland Trackwatcher Kev Martin ventured down in the rain to Gosch's Paddock for the Demon Family Series April School Holiday Open Training session ... READ MORE

    Demonland | April 07

  • Training  

    Monday, 1st April 2024

    Our man on the spot Bendigo Demon traveled to Adelaide for our back to back games in the City of Churches and brings you his observations from the Demon's training session at Hisense Stadium ... READ MORE

    Demonland | April 01

  • Training  

    Monday, 25th March 2024

    Demonland Trackwatchers Demon Dynasty & Kev Martin were trackside at Gosch's Paddock today to bring you their observations from training ... READ MORE

    Demonland | March 25

  • Latest Podcast  

    PODCAST: Koltyn Tholstrup Interview

    I interview the Melbourne Football Club’s newest recruit Koltyn Tholstrup to have a chat about his journey from the farm to the Demons, his first few weeks of preseason training, which Dees have impressed him on the track and his aspirations of playing Round 1 ... LISTEN

    Demonland | December 14

  • Latest Podcast  

    PODCAST: Jason Taylor Interview

    I interview the Melbourne Football Club's National Recruitment Manager Jason Taylor to have a chat about our Trade and Draft period, our newest recruits, our recent recruits who have yet to debut as well as those father son prospects on the horizon ... LISTEN

    Demonland | November 27

  • Next Match 

    .

    Round 07

       vs   

    Wednesday 24th April 2024
    @ 07:25pm (MCG)

  • MFC Forum  

  • Match Previews & Reports  

  • Training Forum  

  • AFLW Forum  

  • 2024 Player Sponsorship

  • Topics

  • Injury List  


      PLAYER INJURY LENGTH
    Daniel Turner Hip Available
    Shane McAdam Hamstring 2-3 Weeks
    Marty Hore Thumb 2-3 Weeks
    Charlie Spargo Achilles 4 Weeks
    Jake Bowey Shoulder 5-6 Weeks
    Jake Melksham ACL 10-12 Weeks
    Joel Smith Suspension TBA

  • Player of the Year  


        PLAYER VOTES
    1 Christian Petracca 55
    2 Max Gawn 49
    3 Steven May 34
    4 Alex Neal-Bullen 27
    5 Jack Viney 24
    6 Clayton Oliver 22
    7 Bayley Fritsch 19
    8 Judd McVee 15
    9 Christian Salem 12
    10 Blake Howes 11

        FULL TABLE
  • Demonland Interviews 



  • Upcoming Events 

×
×
  • Create New...