The "Double goal"

[KeithBlight]

This has been my most hated rule in football. The free kick after a goal resulting in an immediate second goal. Always far too harsh a penalty.

Surely if a free is to be awarded it should occur in the centre - where the next contest was to take place.

Personally I never want to see another double goal. EVER!
For as long as I can remember I've wanted this stupid, often over-reactive rule thrown out.

Anyone else feel it should go?

 

[Athomas]

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=564368 Don't know why my thread isn't in this forum but yes...

 

[Hornberger]

This has been my most hated rule in football. The free kick after a goal resulting in an immediate second goal. Always far too harsh a penalty.

Surely if a free is to be awarded it should occur in the centre - where the next contest was to take place.

Personally I never want to see another double goal. EVER!
For as long as I can remember I've wanted this stupid, often over-reactive rule thrown out.

Anyone else feel it should go?

There is no "double goal" rule. It is a downfield free kick paid where the infringement occured. Davies(?) tackled Darling when he was not possession of the football. The infringement occured in the Eagles goal sqaure, the free kick is therefore taken in the Eagles goal square. Had the same thing happened after a Carlton goal in would still have been an Eagles free kick in the goal square.

 

[KeithBlight]

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=564368 Don't know why my thread isn't in this forum but yes...

Yeah, didn't see that. But glad to see that others hate it too.

 

[KeithBlight]

There is no "double goal" rule. It is a downfield free kick paid where the infringement occured. Davies(?) tackled Darling when he was not possession of the football. The infringement occured in the Eagles goal sqaure, the free kick is therefore taken in the Eagles goal square. Had the same thing happened after a Carlton goal in would still have been an Eagles free kick in the goal square.

I know what you're saying, but surely there can be some differentiation between a bit of argey-bargey and a "player being tackled when not in possession of the football."

Could it be any more simple than to pay the free in the centre?

Or perhaps even ignore the argey-bargey altogether?

But the way the game was being umpired in the first half tonight, that was way too much to expect.

 

[Hornberger]

I know what you're saying, but surely there can be some differentiation between a bit of argey-bargey and a "player being tackled when not in possession of the football."

Could it be any more simple than to pay the free in the centre?

Or perhaps even ignore the argey-bargey altogether?

So If a player punches a player in the face (Hall on Staker) in the goal sqaure after a goal has been kicked before play restarts it should be a free kick in the centre square?

 

[Athomas]

If it happened 10 seconds later (when the ball had reached the middle) it would have been a free in the centre. Just dumb.

 

[KeithBlight]

So If a player punches a player in the face (Hall on Staker) in the goal sqaure after a goal has been kicked before play restarts it should be a free kick in the centre square?

Yes.

That's an extreme case, which I don't expect to ever happen again. Most of the time it's given for a guy going down like a sack of spuds when the ump could just as easily say, "Get up idiot."

Just saying it's too harsh a penalty.

 

[Hornberger]

Yes.

That's an extreme case, which I don't expect to ever happen again. Most of the time it's given for a guy going down like a sack of spuds when the ump could just as easily say, "Get up idiot."

Just saying it's too harsh a penalty.

So instead of having 1 rule, the downfield rule.
You want 3 rules.
1) The downfield rule except after a goal has been kicked by the same side.
2) The downfield rule after a goal has been kicked
3) The downfield rule after a goal has been kicked but its a really bad free kick.

 

[Hornberger]

If it happened 10 seconds later (when the ball had reached the middle) it would have been a free in the centre. Just dumb.

I would recommend you actual read the rules before you start complaining. A free kick in a team’s goal square is always taken in goal square. Downfield rules give the team the maximum benefit and you can get no greater benefit than a free kick in the goal square.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

The best solution would probably be to not dump an opposition player to the ground in the goal square when the ball is not even in play.

 

[Magma]

maybe davies shouldnt have been dumb enough to sling him to the ground? how's that one?

 

[blue harvest]

A free kick is always taken where it occurs, or downfield if that is a bigger advantage. Doesn't matter where or when or what just happenned.

 

[Blues_Man]

It's a dumb rule when it's only paid for one team ..Murphy was cleaned up after kicking a goal ..and there was no free kick in the goal square or in the middle of the ground ....all we ask for is consistency ..unfortunately you will never get that with inept umpires who are out of their depth, in a pressure cooker final .

 

[Hornberger]

It's a dumb rule when it's only paid for one team ..Murphy was cleaned up after kicking a goal ..and there was no free kick in the goal square or in the middle of the ground ....all we ask for is consistency ..unfortunately you will never get that with inept umpires who are out of their depth, in a pressure cooker final .

I just re-watched both of Murhpys goal's at that never happened. Are you thinking of Kade Simpsons goal just before half time?

 

[alex 17]

Just a sh*t sh*t rule. Give the free from the centre of the ground.. a jumper sling and a bit of argy bargy like tonight isn't enough to warrant a straight out goal.

 

[blue harvest]

The real issue is whether a bit of wrestling and chucking people on the ground once play has stopped is worth a free kick at all. I don't think it is. Should just let it go, fine them or report them.

 

[blue harvest]

It's a dumb rule when it's only paid for one team ..Murphy was cleaned up after kicking a goal ..and there was no free kick in the goal square or in the middle of the ground ....all we ask for is consistency ..unfortunately you will never get that with inept umpires who are out of their depth, in a pressure cooker final .

Different situation. If you get dumped straight after you dispose of the ball it is a free kick downfield - since it went through for a goal the umpire pays advantage. With the 'double goal' incident the free kick occured after the all clear had been given for the goal, so it is a new piece of play and hence a free kick is given.

 

[midorigreenwood]

undecided whether darling lost his balance or felt the hand pulling on his shirt and feigned a fall

[youtube]cD1RR3zzCKY[/youtube]

he is a black belt martial artist with a tank of a body so it should be difficult to take him down....

 

[harmesy 37]

The real issue is whether a bit of wrestling and chucking people on the ground once play has stopped is worth a free kick at all. I don't think it is. Should just let it go, fine them or report them.

Exactly....Davies was pulling him away from an "argy bargy" contest. So what?

It isn't like in the 1973 g/f when Balme punched Southby in the jaw from behind- now that is worth a free kick in the goal square. This rule as it stands allows cheats to prosper. Change the rule/get rid of it...and only allow head high tackle to result in a free kick.

 

[windyhill]

Never give an umpire an excuse to impose themselves on the contest. No discipline.

 

[harmesy 37]

Never give an umpire an excuse to impose themselves on the contest. No discipline.

Get rid of the rule and the cheats won't prosper. That is the solution.

If Davies shoved his hand in his face - free kick every day of the week.

A jumper pull isn't worthy of six points.

 

[KeithBlight]

So instead of having 1 rule, the downfield rule.
You want 3 rules.
1) The downfield rule except after a goal has been kicked by the same side.
2) The downfield rule after a goal has been kicked
3) The downfield rule after a goal has been kicked but its a really bad free kick.

Geez, how hard can it be?

Forget the "downfield" bit... just add one that says; "If an incident worthy of a free kick occurs just after a goal has just been scored, a free kick will be awarded in the centre of the ground."

 

[rickyp]

Geez, how hard can it be?

Forget the "downfield" bit... just add one that says; "If an incident worthy of a free kick occurs just after a goal has just been scored, a free kick will be awarded in the centre of the ground."

define: worthy of a free kick

This has been the rule for a very long time, whoever the Carlton player was that pulled him to the ground is an idiot, he should know the rules

 

[KeithBlight]

define: worthy of a free kick

This has been the rule for a very long time, whoever the Carlton player was that pulled him to the ground is an idiot, he should know the rules

Ha, thought someone might ask that. I was thinking of maybe changing that to, "an incident the umpire deems worthy of a free kick".

And yes, the rule has been there for yonks, and the Carlton player's an idiot (especially doing it in front of Razor!), just saying I hate it and hope it gets changed.