1 hour ago, Redleg said:

Against Port we had twice as many F50's than Port did. We did not receive 1 single free kick in our F50 for the whole game. That means that not 1 single infringement by Port was deemed to have happened by the Umpires. That is just unbelievable when we have double the F50's of an opponent.

At no stage of the game did it appear to the umpires that we needed their 'help', obviously.

The more 50s being paid come up as a discussion topic at the pub at lunch time. We were thinking more 50s = more goals = more exciting for fans, plus the added bonus of more advertising for Channel 7.

52 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

The more 50s being paid come up as a discussion topic at the pub at lunch time. We were thinking more 50s = more goals = more exciting for fans, plus the added bonus of more advertising for Channel 7.

No. Don't do this anymore. Conspiracy theories play into the hands of Gil and his team as they can be easily deflected.

Stats and analysis are better evidence to seek a change in the rules and umpiring. How many frees and 50s were awarded against the dees the past two weeks? How many awarded to the dees? Some of the stats are beyond rational explanation and defy logic.

Follow Redleg's lead and build a legal style unimpeachable case. Then seek support from other teams and march on afl house demanding action. The game belongs to US, not them.

2 minutes ago, tiers said:

No. Don't do this anymore. Conspiracy theories play into the hands of Gil and his team as they can be easily deflected.

Stats and analysis are better evidence to seek a change in the rules and umpiring. How many frees and 50s were awarded against the dees the past two weeks? How many awarded to the dees? Some of the stats are beyond rational explanation and defy logic.

Follow Redleg's lead and build a legal style unimpeachable case. Then seek support from other teams and march on afl house demanding action. The game belongs to US, not them.

I'm going to try and start putting something together if the data is available

f

tp

On 7/3/2018 at 8:12 PM, Earl Hood said:

DW the (b) words are confusing, are they from the rule book? I mean am I holding or pushing the player in front, you can’t do both according to your definition of a push. No wonder there is utter confusion.

there is ample scope for the Umpire to award a free for rough play if someone dives into someone’s back that could cause injury. We have all seen players taken forward with arms pinned in aggressive tackles and get concussed. Those tackles should be pinged. 

Yes Earl the (b) words are taken directly from the rules (link below). I didn't include the Law number or heading but it is the Law that relates to tackling. When you refer to holding VS pushing it is the point I was trying to make. If a player flies in to the back of an almost or stationary player and that player is propelled forward and away from the tackler, then it would meet the definition of a push. If a player catches up to a moving player and wraps the arms around, holding the player to them, and then the tackled player drops to their knees or falls or dives forward (think Selwood) then this is not a push.

As to your second point, I agree completely

(k) engages in rough conduct against an opposition Player which
in the circumstances is unreasonable;

Falling into an opponents back is not "unreasonable", diving onto a players back is (imo).

http://aflvic.com.au/umpiring/umpiring-resources/afl-laws-of-the-game-2018/

2 hours ago, timbo said:

I'm going to try and start putting something together if the data is available

f

tp

To follow on from this I thought it would be great to know things like which individual umpire awards the most frees/where they are awarded/how often certain umpires are represented in loses/wins. Champion data captures a lot of things. Why aren't the 3rd team anaylised to the same extent. Would help with tipping and betting and would have the added benefit they would become more accountable if the truth were known.

One more comment about the rules; no wonder ruckmen get confused, below is an extract from the ruck contest section:

(b) unduly pushes, bumps, holds or blocks an opposition Player who is the
Ruck contesting a bounce or throw up by a field Umpire or throw in by
a boundary Umpire;

I wonder what training/instruction the Umps get in determining unduly. Was this a word used in the original Rules? When and what was the reasoning behind the introduction of this word?

They need to bring in some sort of a review for umpires; and if they stuff up like they have been, send them to umpire at the the country football, until they learn how to do their job right.

They used to do this to them i think up until the 80s or 90s can't remember but it needs to be done.

My concern is this will hurt our club as will turn people away from not only the game, it may turn people way from buying a memberships; i know this to be true, because we have lost five people already, that i know who have given up on the club.y

And last weekend people were hurt and one guy i know who sits in the cheer squad said go and follow a different team.

I tell you this needs to be fixed and soon.

17 minutes ago, dworship said:

One more comment about the rules; no wonder ruckmen get confused, below is an extract from the ruck contest section:

(b) unduly pushes, bumps, holds or blocks an opposition Player who is the
Ruck contesting a bounce or throw up by a field Umpire or throw in by
a boundary Umpire;

I wonder what training/instruction the Umps get in determining unduly. Was this a word used in the original Rules? When and what was the reasoning behind the introduction of this word?

Given some of the bewildering ruck frees paid this season against Max ( I am thinking Grundy) I think the “unduly” must play a big part in their decisions. 

58 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

Given some of the bewildering ruck frees paid this season against Max ( I am thinking Grundy) I think the “unduly” must play a big part in their decisions. 

I know I will probably cop it for this comment but I'm almost; emphasis on "almost", starting to feel sorry for the Umps. What moron/s decided that in a ruck contest you can " push, bump, hold or block" the opposition as long as you don't do it "unduly". WTF

Give the umpires a break, they aren’t allowed to take their guide dogs on the field!

42 minutes ago, D4Life said:

Give the umpires a break, they aren’t allowed to take their guide dogs on the field!

yes, but why do they always leave their spectacles in the change rooms?

Stop the gratuitous insults of umpires. They were already passe when Melbourne won its last premiership.

That we suffer so much at their hands is as much a result of the too literal interpretation and application of the ambiguous, unclear, confusing and excessively wordy set of rules as it is of their inability to have a feel for the game and apply their discretion wisely and fairly.

Until the afl and the rules committee devise a better set of rules and interpretations it will be a mess. Compile the stats and analysis and shame them into acting for the benefit of our great game.

 

3 hours ago, dworship said:

One more comment about the rules; no wonder ruckmen get confused, below is an extract from the ruck contest section:

(b) unduly pushes, bumps, holds or blocks an opposition Player who is the
Ruck contesting a bounce or throw up by a field Umpire or throw in by
a boundary Umpire;

I wonder what training/instruction the Umps get in determining unduly. Was this a word used in the original Rules? When and what was the reasoning behind the introduction of this word?

"Unduly" appears in the laws twice. Once for the ruck rule and once in a similar context for when marking the ball.

The word "unduly" is not defined. ("Part B" of the laws is for definitions.)

There are other words used in the laws which are also not defined. Eg "encroaching" in the "protected zone" law. How do you know if a player has "encroached"? Laws don't say.

Leads to "interpretation" and we know how that ends.

Poorly written laws of the game lead to f***ups. An area where the AFL are experts.

2 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

"Unduly" appears in the laws twice. Once for the ruck rule and once in a similar context for when marking the ball.

The word "unduly" is not defined. ("Part B" of the laws is for definitions.)

There are other words used in the laws which are also not defined. Eg "encroaching" in the "protected zone" law. How do you know if a player has "encroached"? Laws don't say.

Leads to "interpretation" and we know how that ends.

Poorly written laws of the game lead to f***ups. An area where the AFL are experts.

Yes and "push" is not defined either which is how/why I started in on this thread.

I listened closely to the Tiges, Crows game tonight and heard an Ump at one stage call "hands in the back" which is not a free kick. Later I heard an Ump call "push in the back" (which it was) and then that muppet Bruce McAvaney commented "free kick for hands in the back". Amateur, Amateur, Amateur. If you proport to be an umpire or a football expert commentator at least know the rules and the language required to call our great game.

 

Give the whistles to 3 cats. They couldn't do a worse job and you would only have to give them a can of cat food in payment. These criminals/ umpires are getting paid thousands to umpire each match and the game is borderline unwatchable. Plus and most importantly, the game is no longer fair because the rules of the game are not applied anymore. No wonder the ordinary football fan has no idea what is going on. No one who loves the game respects umpires anymore. There is nothing in their performance to engender any type of respect.

 As soon as you accept the fact that the game is impossible to umpire, that there are no hidden agendas and that the umpires call the frees as they see them, the more enjoyable the game is to watch. It's a great unburdening of some misguided preconceived idea that we're being hard done by.

Give it a go tomorrow.

5 hours ago, fattysback said:

 As soon as you accept the fact that the game is impossible to umpire, that there are no hidden agendas and that the umpires call the frees as they see them, the more enjoyable the game is to watch. It's a great unburdening of some misguided preconceived idea that we're being hard done by.

Give it a go tomorrow.

Well something must have happened in the last 2 years to make the game impossible because I can't remember it ever being so impossibly impossible

9 hours ago, fattysback said:

 As soon as you accept the fact that the game is impossible to umpire, that there are no hidden agendas and that the umpires call the frees as they see them, the more enjoyable the game is to watch. It's a great unburdening of some misguided preconceived idea that we're being hard done by.

Give it a go tomorrow.

Even if you don't accept conspiracy theories or the more subtle influences I mentioned in an earlier post, to just simply say 'accept the fact the game is impossible to umpire' is just weak.  Sure, the game is difficult to umpire, but it is foolish to dismiss discussion of ways of making it less difficult and more rewarding to watch.

....and the Red Seas parted and all the 50 metre penalties were washed away, and the word was Gils, and it came to pass that it was all Tosh afterall.......except for us, Hmmm....

 

3 minutes ago, david_neitz_is_my_dad said:

 

I'm OK with that one. A similar one was paid in the Bulldogs game which was totally wrong.

just forget the stupid rules and their even more stupid interpretations.....

just what do you think the decision should have been (in the spirit of the game)?

I reckon the priorities would be (in this sequence)

1. play on - probably this as contact was inconsequential (feel for the game)

2. free against hogan for dangerous contact - a real possibility, he had choices, and clearly 2nd to the ball, but the freo guy did go to ground, but probably just to protect himself

3. free for hogan for having his legs taken out - stupid, the guy was in the motion of picking up the ball and clearly first to the ball. he didn't dive at the ball.

Didn't notice the umpires at all last night, so they get a tick from me.

51 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Didn't notice the umpires at all last night, so they get a tick from me.

Umpired like they had been spoken to. You could tell before the bounce that there had been a relaxation of the 50. Have to agree apart from the little (i couldn't hold myself (err animosity) back any longer towards the end)