Loudest bronx cheer I have ever heard when we got our first free.

To be honest up until half time I didn't even realise there was such a differential. Certainly didn't seem so obvious when watching the game.

Naturally after half time I paid more attention and was expecting the predictable square up, but it never came...  :-/

 

10 hours ago, chookrat said:

The umpiring was pretty good yesterday. We lost the free count because we were second to the ball.

If they were first to the ball, how could it be that we had significantly more possessions(esp. If you take into account the free kick differential.)?

I get the feeling that some posters get a "holier than thou" feeling when saying the umpires had no influence.

Almost invariably, when there is a discrepancy in the free kick count, the side who possess the ball more wins more frees.

I think it is seriously foolish adjudication to pay free kicks to guys who dive at opponents' legs headfirst, trying to "draw a foul".

Unless umpires become educated on this soon, someone will become quadriplegic.

Carlton got at least two frees using this tactic.

Poor old Chunky gets up from the bottom of the pack, untangles arms from his neck, as 2 guys get their knees off his back, throws the ball back to the "holding the ball"free recipient, and just shakes his aching head.

 

 

It's a shame the game wasn't closer so that the umpiring could really be put under the microscope. 

The fact we stunk let some poor umpiring off the hook.

Imagine the uproar if we had gone down by 6 points.....

32 minutes ago, Adzman said:

It's a shame the game wasn't closer so that the umpiring could really be put under the microscope. 

The fact we stunk let some poor umpiring off the hook.

Imagine the uproar if we had gone down by 6 points.....

Like that time we played North and the Umps gave them five frees directly in front of goal leading to us going down by 5 points?  I don't recall any great uproar about that to be honest.  In fact, the only close game against North that gets talked about in the media is the one the Saints lost. 

14 hours ago, faultydet said:

Of course they don't need to be even, but don't try telling everyone that we only deserved around 5 free kicks for an entire game.

Didn't cost us the game, but was out of whack nonetheless. 

There was a Jones too high that was really obvious and by the 2nd half there were a couple of inconsistencies, when we had 0-1 in the first half I thought it was pretty incidental though

18 hours ago, JV7 said:

On a side note, I've followed the NFL for the last few years & the same referees umpire together all year. That way you know what each one pays & doesn't pay & you don't have that inconsistency as much. Really don't understand why the AFL doesn't go down the same path

Yes and while we're at it lets get rid of the Australian nature of our game. It annoys me that we're not even more american than we already are. We have american type names for our newest clubs, we have line coaches and now people talk in dee fence and off fence terms. Yes I agree it's not enough. 

No but seriously all this americanisation is sending me to the bathroom. If you're desperate to be an american apply for a green card.

Just now, camillo said:

Yes and while we're at it lets get rid of the Australian nature of our game. It annoys me that we're not even more american than we already are. We have american type names for our newest clubs, we have line coaches and now people talk in dee fence and off fence terms. Yes I agree it's not enough. 

No but seriously all this americanisation is sending me to the bathroom. If you're desperate to be an american apply for a green card.

Yeah cos having umpirers who umpire together makes us so much more americanised.... For one it would actually improve the umpires consistency, two it would not change your life one iota or how you watch a game other than the umpires been more consistent. Yeah I might up my life & move to america because I want AFL umpirers to umpire all season together & have better understanding of each other... Good one.

13 hours ago, dieter said:

The other aspect to this is when you're having a bad day, shite luck follows you around. And, lets face it, most umpiring calls these days are NOT based on rules, they're based on an umpire's interpretation of the rule. And that, as Lou Reed once said, it's all about LUCK!

Teams like Hawthorn 'make' their own luck with umpires in that Hodge, Lewis, Gibson and Mitchell just have to look at an umpire to tell them it's time for a Hawthorn free kick.

I'm sorry. That's such a ridiculous thing to say. Unless you add Rioli.

As i say again, there is more to this issue than just rubbish umpiring and supposed poor sportsmanship by the rabble. These drongos are a blight on the game because they add confusion to an already chaotic and secretive facet of OUR game that is umpiring and its a disgrace. The last three umpire heads, along with guess who, have allowed this to fester, and they have responsibility. They are no longer respected in the AFL world. You know something is wrong when smiles of the players are on the wrong faces at the wrong time. 

There is a simple principle in football.

When you are beaten to the ball you tend to have the frees go against you.

Carlton constantly beat us to the ball hence the number of frees they got was high.

The umpires did not cost us this game the players did.

1 hour ago, old dee said:

There is a simple principle in football.

When you are beaten to the ball you tend to have the frees go against you.

Carlton constantly beat us to the ball hence the number of frees they got was high.

The umpires did not cost us this game the players did.

They beat us to the ball?

we had a lot more possessions

2 minutes ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

They beat us to the ball?

we had a lot more possessions

That tends to happen when you over use the ball. We constantly hand balled four and five times in a row around in a circle. 

2 hours ago, old dee said:

That tends to happen when you over use the ball. We constantly hand balled four and five times in a row around in a circle. 

But teams shouldn't be penalised for over-using the ball.

The spirit of the game is that the player who goes in and gets the ball should be more likely to get free kicks than the player lurking behind and scragging.

Melbourne used the ball badly, and were caught with the ball a lot. Carlton were given much more latitude in their tackling, and how long they could hold the ball.

Even though there were more MFC supporters than Carlton, Carlton's good early start silenced the Melbourne fans.They could see their worst nightmare evolving and sat quietly in horror, as the ecstatic Blues fans screamed "BALLLLLLLLL" over and over again, with the same vehemence and repetition I thought only Richmond supporters possessed.

I think the umpires must have been influenced by the crowd noise.

Its hard to explain  a 20:5 free kick differential despite a significant disposal deficit otherwise.

ps. I'm not saying we lost because of the umpires. Carlton outplayed us. The umps helped them.

22 hours ago, Adzman said:

It's a shame the game wasn't closer so that the umpiring could really be put under the microscope. 

The fact we stunk let some poor umpiring off the hook.

Imagine the uproar if we had gone down by 6 points.....

Imagine if it were against the Pies or worse still, the Scott brothers' teams.

The umpires did not cost us the game we achieved that all on our own. 

Every losing team has a handy excuse blame the umpires.

 

3 minutes ago, old dee said:

The umpires did not cost us the game we achieved that all on our own. 

Every losing team has a handy excuse blame the umpires.

 

Every losing team doesn't face a 20:5 differential when they out -possess the opposition.

The rare teams that do counter this extraordinary anomaly have a right to ask why.

Some people get a warm fuzzy feeling saying "the 20:5 differential had no effect, what a fair, unbiased supporter I am, not criticising the umpires"!

I think we should try to find out why this happens. We lost to North and the West Coast because of repeated "bad luck" with umpiring decisions. We'd be in the eight but for the umpires in those two games. We outplayed both those teams. Carlton outplayed us, but they had a dream run like we've never had, against us.

4 minutes ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

Every losing team doesn't face a 20:5 differential when they out -possess the opposition.

The rare teams that do counter this extraordinary anomaly have a right to ask why.

Some people get a warm fuzzy feeling saying "the 20:5 differential had no effect, what a fair, unbiased supporter I am, not criticising the umpires"!

I think we should try to find out why this happens. We lost to North and the West Coast because of repeated "bad luck" with umpiring decisions. We'd be in the eight but for the umpires in those two games. We outplayed both those teams. Carlton outplayed us, but they had a dream run like we've never had, against us.

We had more possessions because we over used the ball it is as simple as that.

If you want to go on with the persecution complex go for it and if that gets you over a poor performance in a game where we out played then it is ok with me. 

i thought we were in for a loss when Buckley kicked his first goal then shirtfronted Bugg why didnt the guys rip buckley a new one  then later on the skipper grabbed the ball got tackled hand ball the ball away but because umpire #1 was behind the play he guessed that it was a good tackle and gave carlton the free 

1 hour ago, old dee said:

The umpires did not cost us the game we achieved that all on our own. 

Every losing team has a handy excuse blame the umpires.

 

Pretty sure you're the only person who's mentioned the umpires costing us the game. 

This isn't a thread about whether the umpires cost us the game.  We played like [censored].  We cost ourselves the game.  That's blindingly obvious.  What this thread IS about is the fact that the umpires were absolutely terrible and produced an insanely one-sided performance.  This is the sort of thing you normally see at WC home games.  The number of blatant free kicks that they failed to pay to us is damning enough even before you look at the 50-50 calls that all seemed to go Carlton's way. 

The reality is that the umpiring in the AFL is as poor as in any professional sporting body anywhere in the world.  They like to pat themselves on the back and tell everyone about their world-class administration, but any objective observation reveals that the AFL as a whole is poorly managed, inconsistent and frequently tries to arrange outcomes out of the public eye so that they can ignore their own rules and regulations.  This is just as true within their umpiring ranks as anywhere else. 

10 hours ago, deewakka said:

i thought we were in for a loss when Buckley kicked his first goal then shirtfronted Bugg why didnt the guys rip buckley a new one  then later on the skipper grabbed the ball got tackled hand ball the ball away but because umpire #1 was behind the play he guessed that it was a good tackle and gave carlton the free 

As a matter of interest, did Buckley's action warrant a free kick against Carlton?  Again, if so, what would have been the offence for which the free kick should have been paid?

At the time I thought the umpires should have paid a free kick if for no other reason as to show that they were in control of proceedings. 

On 8/22/2016 at 7:57 PM, Mr Steve said:

No. At best two went the wrong way. Www were slow and caught with the ball. We chased and gave away frees. Blaming the Umps is just a weak excuse for a bad game.

Yep, you will stuggle to find anyone here to argue the frees paid to Carlton weren't mainly right, what you will find is many examples of us not being paid clear frees.

18 hours ago, old dee said:

There is a simple principle in football.

When you are beaten to the ball you tend to have the frees go against you.

Carlton constantly beat us to the ball hence the number of frees they got was high.

The umpires did not cost us this game the players did.

No the umps didn't cost us the game but the number of contested possessions was very close, that indicated that we were first to the ball a fair bit as well, yet we only got 5 frees for the whole game. The number of free Carlton got is also not the argument, most of their frees were there. How do you explain that in a game where the stats were all close (except clearances) there is such a differential in the number of frees?

18 minutes ago, Chris said:

No the umps didn't cost us the game but the number of contested possessions was very close, that indicated that we were first to the ball a fair bit as well, yet we only got 5 frees for the whole game. The number of free Carlton got is also not the argument, most of their frees were there. How do you explain that in a game where the stats were all close (except clearances) there is such a differential in the number of frees?

We are poor tacklers?

Honestly Chris I don't  care. Carlton played better than us from the first bounce, were more accurate kicking for goal and had a good plan to defeat us. On top of that we made poor decisions at the selection table. After that we got a couple of poor umpiring decisions which did not cost us the game. We need to stop complaining about umpires and concentrate on the things we can influence. 

4 minutes ago, old dee said:

We are poor tacklers?

That explains the frees we gave away, what about the ones we didn't get?

Just now, Chris said:

That explains the frees we gave away, what about the ones we didn't get?

They wern't there?

see above I added to the last comment. I try not to worry about umpires, they make mistakes but it goes both ways and like all supporters we tend to only see our own.