9 hours ago, ProperDee said:

Just being clear that I made no accusations, merely hypotheses.

Just being clear that I don't actually care and simply took the easy route out of an argument. Nicholls and Razor are [censored]-sticks and you're welcome to say whatever you want about them.

Here is an umpire article from today, must of all started from Hardwicks comments

 

https://www.zerohanger.com/stats-show-home-grounds-affect-umpires-14765/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=AFL+Memes

 

 

 

 

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but we are the worst off club for frees at home against interstate sides. That can't be argued against as it is a fact.

 

2 hours ago, FireInTheBelly said:

I believe a few of the posters naming umpires Chamberlain and Nicholls should really be ashamed of themselves.

For leaving out this silly looking [censored]! Umpire 28. Troy Pannell, he's just as bad as the rest, if not worse. From memory, it was this [censored] who was patting bulldogs players on the backside during a game last year.

 

He was horrible in Hobart the other week too.

5 hours ago, poita said:

Totally agree with this. Most of the posters in this thread remind me of five year old kids complaining that their sister got three jelly beans with their ice cream but they only got two. 

I'm not an umpire, nor do I know any. But it is an incredibly difficult job, they are human and they make mistakes from time to time (as well all do). Anybody who thinks it is easy should put their hand up and do it themselves. 

As an aside, the average player makes more mistakes than the average umpire each week - do we claim a AFL conspiracy every time Jeff Garlett or Dean Kent misses from 20 metres out directly in front?

No one here is claiming it's an easy job or that they could do it better. They probably all think the people being paid a fortune to do it could do a damn sight better......... and they'd be right.

35 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but we are the worst off club for frees at home against interstate sides. That can't be argued against as it is a fact.

 

Exactly. I alluded to it earlier. Facts are facts

As is the demonstrated bias at certain locations. It's not footy mythology, it's real. It happens and it shouldn't. 

40 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but we are the worst off club for frees at home against interstate sides. That can't be argued against as it is a fact.

 

Be interesting to cross correlate it on crowd figures i.e crowd size and crowd ratios No# us :No# them.

Umpires, being human and all, will be influenced by large highly vocal crowds... 

 

57 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but we are the worst off club for frees at home against interstate sides. That can't be argued against as it is a fact.

That means we must be well off in all the other games if our overall free kicks for and against are nearly equal.

12 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

Be interesting to cross correlate it on crowd figures i.e crowd size and crowd ratios No# us :No# them.

Umpires, being human and all, will be influenced by large highly vocal crowds... 

 

...which is the actual reason why supporters yell "ball" and "fifty" and whatever else.

 

1 hour ago, SFebey said:

Say what you want with your PC campaign

Ah, political correctness  ... the new patriotism and the last refuge of the supporter.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-08-15/confused-dees-get-straight-answer-on-gawn-frees-

 

Personally I didn't know this rule existed? But surely a player can protect himself? Rucking is a brutal position. Interesting. Does this mean that in boundary throw ins rucks cant touch each other, grapple and fend off also? Or only centre bounces? I can't remember seeing other ruckmen pinged for it either so is it something just Max does?

1 hour ago, mauriesy said:

That means we must be well off in all the other games if our overall free kicks for and against are nearly equal.

Not necessarily as we still are in the positive in home games against interstate sides. So could be in negative in many other games and in fact were. 

3 hours ago, mauriesy said:

It's pretty silly even thinking that the AFL would "even up" the competition through umpiring

Why not?  As I posted earlier, it is not paranoid to suspect the AFL will do anything to make an exciting competition - they even helped the MFC when we were in a hole.  (So I'm not suffering a victim mentality.)

I'm suffering form seeing the commericalization of sport, the empire building of the AFL as a business, the influence of gambling and match fixing which is rife in other codes.  We need to ensure that does not happen with our footy thanks.   So it's not silly to keep a watchful eye on them.

Nor is it silly to think that umpires may get a kick out of umpiring close games.  In any case, it is pretty clear that umpires give a lot of soft frees at the end of matches to even up the count.  They think (correctly) that that takes the pressure off their earlier dubious decisions even if they made those decisions without bias.

We need proper professional umpires, not the mixed bag the AFL currently serves up.

51 minutes ago, SFebey said:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-08-15/confused-dees-get-straight-answer-on-gawn-frees-

 

Personally I didn't know this rule existed? But surely a player can protect himself? Rucking is a brutal position. Interesting. Does this mean that in boundary throw ins rucks cant touch each other, grapple and fend off also? Or only centre bounces? I can't remember seeing other ruckmen pinged for it either so is it something just Max does?

It's bizarre. Footy Classified showed all 5 last night and in only one does Gawn have a straight arm. I've paused them all and if this is the rule they are quoting they clearly got 4/5 wrong.This clarification is not clarification at all, it's more confusing as he didn't break the rule at all! We should get an apology, but we won't, they'll claim it's always right as they always do.

3 hours ago, SFebey said:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-08-15/confused-dees-get-straight-answer-on-gawn-frees-

 

Personally I didn't know this rule existed? But surely a player can protect himself? Rucking is a brutal position. Interesting. Does this mean that in boundary throw ins rucks cant touch each other, grapple and fend off also? Or only centre bounces? I can't remember seeing other ruckmen pinged for it either so is it something just Max does?

So, just to clarify and make it easier for Joe Public, they gave the reference to the actual rule that was being broken right? Nope. Does anyone know if this rule is actually written anywhere stating that ruckmen cannot fend with a straight arm?

Surely they would've given the reference for all involved to read for themselves, unless of course this is all made up drivel to suit their agenda. In layman's terms, it's a new 'interpretation', not a rule.

2 hours ago, deejammin' said:

It's bizarre. Footy Classified showed all 5 last night and in only one does Gawn have a straight arm. I've paused them all and if this is the rule they are quoting they clearly got 4/5 wrong.This clarification is not clarification at all, it's more confusing as he didn't break the rule at all! We should get an apology, but we won't, they'll claim it's always right as they always do.

OK, but don't buy in to the idea that there is a rule that was violated. There isn't. This "straight arm" garbage is an invention of the umpires that exists nowhere but in their heads.

 

It's one thing for fans to buy in to that, as media & Hayden "bless his cotton socks" Kennedy are talking about this "rule" as if it's a real thing.

It's another for the media to buy in as they generally have not much clue about anything and can't be expected to lift what little game they have.

But for Kennedy to buy in? He's the chief umpire for gods sake!

18 minutes ago, FireInTheBelly said:

So, just to clarify and make it easier for Joe Public, they gave the reference to the actual rule that was being broken right? Nope. Does anyone know if this rule is actually written anywhere stating that ruckmen cannot fend with a straight arm?

Surely they would've given the reference for all involved to read for themselves, unless of course this is all made up drivel to suit their agenda. In layman's terms, it's a new 'interpretation', not a rule.

I've had a quick look, can only find two reference to the word "straight" in there and they don't relate to this rule even! I will have a better look tomorrow. This was obviously premeditated towards Max, due to clubs apparently complaining about him. It's all BS, even Kennedy and his explanation. Makes me sick.

20 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

OK, but don't buy in to the idea that there is a rule that was violated. There isn't. This "straight arm" garbage is an invention of the umpires that exists nowhere but in their heads.

 

It's one thing for fans to buy in to that, as media & Hayden "bless his cotton socks" Kennedy are talking about this "rule" as if it's a real thing.

It's another for the media to buy in as they generally have not much clue about anything and can't be expected to lift what little game they have.

But for Kennedy to buy in? He's the chief umpire for gods sake!

Totally agree, what a disgrace.

7 minutes ago, SFebey said:

I've had a quick look, can only find two reference to the word "straight" in there and they don't relate to this rule even! I will have a better look tomorrow. This was obviously premeditated towards Max, due to clubs apparently complaining about him. It's all BS, even Kennedy and his explanation. Makes me sick.

Well this is the question for mine. If they've created a whole new interpretation just to screw over one particular player, have they A) Gone into the game watching for this action (i.e. watched some video and determined this is the best way to ping him), or B) Gone into the game with a directive to shut him down and it was all up to Haydos to sort them out after the fact with some crazy made-up rubbish?

Either way it's a pretty ordinary look for the game, yet they're getting away with it. Can't wait to see all the extra centre bounce free kicks from now on. Tell your rucks, if the bounce is sitting on the oppo rucks head, jump into him and he'll automatically protect himself and be pinged.

7 minutes ago, FireInTheBelly said:

Well this is the question for mine. If they've created a whole new interpretation just to screw over one particular player, have they A) Gone into the game watching for this action (i.e. watched some video and determined this is the best way to ping him), or B) Gone into the game with a directive to shut him down and it was all up to Haydos to sort them out after the fact with some crazy made-up rubbish?

Either way it's a pretty ordinary look for the game, yet they're getting away with it. Can't wait to see all the extra centre bounce free kicks from now on. Tell your rucks, if the bounce is sitting on the oppo rucks head, jump into him and he'll automatically protect himself and be pinged.

And the even more alarming thing is, why didn't Kennedy and umpiring committee approach the club and Gawn when the issue was raised? They never game him a chance to rectify it, instead they belittled him on game day. This is the sort of stuff that's going on and I don't like it one bit. If I were Peter Jackson I'd be writing a please explain to the AFL on this matter and others.

3 minutes ago, SFebey said:

And the even more alarming thing is, why didn't Kennedy and umpiring committee approach the club and Gawn when the issue was raised? They never game him a chance to rectify it, instead they belittled him on game day. This is the sort of stuff that's going on and I don't like it one bit. If I were Peter Jackson I'd be writing a please explain to the AFL on this matter and others.

Wouldn't that undermine Kim Jong-Gil?

So the Brownlow favourite can straight arm anyone as hard as he likes but Maxy gets pinged 5 times in a game for 4 bent arm fend offs and 1 moderately straight one? 

Incidentally, those that choose to rubbish the theories posted here obviously live very closeted lives and have no ability to think laterally.  Corruption is alive and well in all facets of society.  To think that the AFL competition is exempt is head-in-the-sand stuff.

4 hours ago, SFebey said:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-08-15/confused-dees-get-straight-answer-on-gawn-frees-

 

Personally I didn't know this rule existed? But surely a player can protect himself? Rucking is a brutal position. Interesting. Does this mean that in boundary throw ins rucks cant touch each other, grapple and fend off also? Or only centre bounces? I can't remember seeing other ruckmen pinged for it either so is it something just Max does?

The rule doesnt exist. Its not in the rule book. The rule says you can't block. The maggots then deem a stiff arm is a block but a bent arm is OK.

This is why when you have 4 umps interpreting stupid rules and nuances you get insane dcisions that the players and the fans hate. There is no consistency because the rules are plainly dumb.

Max is allowed to protect himself from a player charging at him becuase the ump doesn't bounce it straight.

In any case as shown by David King there was only one maybe two instances where Max held out an arm yet there were 5 frees.

Total bullshite.

4 hours ago, Redleg said:

Not necessarily as we still are in the positive in home games against interstate sides. So could be in negative in many other games and in fact were. 

Positive 0.1%. Great home advantage

1 minute ago, jnrmac said:

The rule doesnt exist. Its not in the rule book. The rule says you can't block. The maggots then deem a stiff arm is a block but a bent arm is OK.

This is why when you have 4 umps interpreting stupid rules and nuances you get insane dcisions that the players and the fans hate. There is no consistency because the rules are plainly dumb.

Max is allowed to protect himself from a player charging at him becuase the ump doesn't bounce it straight.

In any case as shown by David King there was only one maybe two instances where Max held out an arm yet there were 5 frees.

Total bullshite.

Dear Hayden, please try again.